FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Strange concepts from the FSSP on Catholic obedience about Assisi 3
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
District Superior of the FSSP in Belgium promotes blind obedience to error concerning the upcoming 3rd Assisi Prayer Meeting, ignoring the fact that many saints had to publicly rebuke Peter and other ecclesiastical superiors when they went astray, and ignoring the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.

http://www.sspx.org/news/assisi_iii/is_s...assisi.htm

This shows once again the liberal and neo-con tendency of ignoring past teachings and clear history and only focusing on the present.  With the liberals, they believe that the religion began in 1965 (a religion DID begin then, but not Catholicism).  With the neo-cons, they believe anything the pope says and does is infallible, thus creating quite the conundrum for them when presented with words and actions of previous popes that clearly contradict the words and actions of the present pope.  Pope Pius XI wrote thus in Mortalium Animos (Epiphany 1928) concerning ecumenical encounters:


We see some men, convinced that it is very rare to meet men deprived of all religious sense, nourish the hope that it might be possible to lead peoples without difficulty, in spite of their religious differences, to a fraternal agreement on the profession of certain doctrines considered as a common foundation of spiritual life. That is why they begin to hold congresses, reunions, conferences, frequented by an appreciably large audience, and, to their discussions, they invite all men indistinctly, infidels of all kinds along with the faithful of Christ and even those who, unfortunately, have separated themselves from Christ or who, with bitterness and obstinacy, deny the divinity of His nature and of His mission.

Such undertakings cannot, in any way, be approved by Catholics, since they are based on the erroneous opinion that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy
, in the sense that all equally, although in different ways, manifest and signify the natural and innate sentiment that carries us towards God and pushes us to recognize with respect His power. In truth, the partisans of this theory fall into a complete error, but what is more, in perverting the notion of the true religion, they repudiate it, and they fall step by step into naturalism and atheism.


How can one who accepts these atrocious Assisi Prayer Meetings, one who even remains silent when confronted with the issue due to blind obedience, not be seen as blatantly disobeying the words of this Pope?
Thats because the FSSP is just a tool of the Conciliar Church. Its not traditional.
(01-28-2011, 10:51 PM)Baskerville Wrote: [ -> ]Thats because the FSSP is just a tool of the Conciliar Church. Its not traditional.

It is a shame that they took the bait so easily offered by the conciliar Church instead of thinking things out more carefully.  Regardless of their fault, I believe that they still serve a purpose for those who are too afraid to stand firmly against the hierarchy that preaches error or those who simply know no better - so that they can at least receive the traditional sacraments and perhaps use them as a stepping stone to a Mass offered by the great defenders of our time.
I think this release from the SSPX is a little disingenuous.

1) They provide no link to what Fr. Hygonnet said in full.

2) They provide a few three or four word quotations without any context.

3) It isn't obvious from those quotations that he is talking about Assisi at all, though I'm not denying that he may be.  If this priest actually endorsed Assisi, why didn't they provide the full quote where he says Assisi is great and we should obey the Pope by praying with Muslims, or something of that nature? 

4) The title "Is St. Peter's on the way to Assisi" is entirely overstated and sensational.  Prior to reading it, you would expect that the FSSP is going en masse to Assisi to pray with Buddhists. 

5) Even if this individual priest does see nothing wrong with Assisi, or doesn't like the SSPX or its manner of giving its critique, that doesn't mean the FSSP is collectively in favor of Assisi.  The FSSP undoubtedly has different ideological wings, kind of like the SSPX.  The first time I went to an FSSP chapel, the priest's sermon was entirely on the evils of ecumenism.
Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede (# 15):“Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God.”


Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10)..this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it.."

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally.”

Canon 1258.1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred rites of non-Catholics.”
Yeah, the article is misleading, which is a shame.  They gave up their ground by doing that, because the priest in question is in error.

1.  This article is about a priest who says not to criticize the Pope.  It does not condone Assisi.  It does not say Assisi is good, nor does it say the FSSP should go to Assisi.

2.  The priest in question IS wrong.  The SSPX was correct to issue a statement urging the Pope not to bring back Assisi.  What is the difference between the SSPX doing this, and the various groups that have been issuing statements, like the group of Italian theologians?  Why ONLY criticize the SSPX?  AND, the Pope is screwing up and going against past Popes, all in an effort to rationalize the beatification of JPII.

If the title had been: "FSSP Priest tells Catholics to remain silent in the face of evil", then they would carry a lot more weight.
Fr. Hygonet Wrote:If [a Catholic] unfortunately happens to believe that the Pope is erring dangerously or acting against Faith and Morals, he closes his mouth, if necessary he draws a veil over what seems a betrayal or a scandal to him, and above all he refrains from denouncing it, especially in public! He prays and waits for the Supreme Magisterium to explain what may seem ambiguous or wrong in the Pope's teaching. There is no other Catholic way!

Ridiculous statement. He turns obedience into servitude but I guess they have to rationalise their stance somehow.

Fortunately, the SSPX may help clear Fr. Hygonet's misconceptions about Catholic theology.

Quote:1. St. Paul permitted himself to rebuke St. Peter in public, who by his ambiguous attitude (to say nothing of ambiguous doctrine!) ran the risk of contradicting the teachings of the council of Jerusalem on the salvation of the Gentiles (the Mosaic Law being abrogated). "I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Gal 2:11), thus did St. Paul act towards the Pope.

2. St. Thomas comments: "If the faith be endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith" (II, II; 33, a. 4). Besides (II, II; 104, a.5), dealing with obedience: "It is written (Acts 5:29): ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things."

3. How could the inferior determine whether some of his superiors' teachings or doings are against God, if not by making a prudent judgment, guided by the light of the Faith that his catechism (among others) teaches him. This was Archbishop Lefebvre's teaching.

Furthermore, the history of the Church recalls many acts of resistance against legitimate authorities when they somehow abused their power, in matters of doctrine or discipline: St. Hilary and St. Athanasius resisted Pope Liberius (4th century) during the Arian crisis; Pope Vigilius is put in his place by the deacon Pelagius (4th century) on the subject of monothelism; Boniface IV by St. Columbanus (7th century); Honorius by St. Sophronius of Jerusalem (7th century); and there are the examples of St. Bruno (against Pope Pascalus II), of St. Thomas Becket (against Pope Alexander III) and of St. Catherine of Sienna (against Gregory XI and Urban VI). Is it a "usurpation of the Supreme Magisterium", and have all these holy figures shown any "non-Catholic spirit"?
(01-28-2011, 10:51 PM)Baskerville Wrote: [ -> ]Thats because the FSSP is just a tool of the Conciliar Church. Its not traditional.

Uh........ that's a bit rich.
Below is a translation of a statement published on "La Porte Latine" by M. l'abbé de Cacqueray last month.  Fr. de Cacqueray is the District Superior of the SSPX in France.

The statement appears to be essentially a response to the FSSP position; it is clear the district superior has seized the opportunity to speak out (in no uncertain terms!) against the scandalous decisions announced by Benedict XVI.

Quote:Link to the original text:
http://www.laportelatine.org/district/fr...110119.php

Polyeuctus in Assisi

It’s time to stop beating about the bush, toying with words, lying to ourselves and lying to men. It is deceitful to invoke over and again the virtue of obedience to demand a Catholic’s submission when the Catholic Faith itself is called to question. It is the honour of Our Lord Jesus Christ that must be considered, and not any risk we might run ourselves in speaking up. We must care for outraged souls before thinking of our own personal comfort. Faith must be confessed at all costs and this duty is all the more serious that it’s the Church authorities themselves who are the root of these terrible scandals.

It is woeful to try to hide behind false arguments that attempt to erase the obvious contradictions that oppose the actions of the present pope and bishops with those of their predecessors. Those who hide behind and promote shameful quibbles are playing a game of lies. They deceive souls in grave matter and lead them away from the Faith. For their silence and guilty complicity they will be held to account.

The interfaith ceremonies convened by the recent popes inviting the leaders of different religions to pray, each in his religion, for world peace, implies a terrible distortion and weakening of the truth of the Catholic Faith. How could peace come from prayers to false gods who, in reality, are nothing but demons? What peace is possible out with the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?

That this assembly is called for by the Vicar of Christ is an unbearable insult against God. Being crucified between two thieves (who at least did not consider themselves gods) was less offensive to Our Lord than having to put up with this bit-part amongst the thieving idols of those He redeemed with His blood.

The prospect of celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of Assisi with a reiteration of the scandal raises a clear question of conscience for every Catholic that none has the right to evade. Is the blind obedience recommended by Father Hygonnet (FSSP) catholic? How in the name of obedience to the pope, could it be right to even keep quiet, let alone support such a scandal? Not only should the gathering in Assisi not be condoned it must be condemned! Any Catholic who understands the gravity should pray that this cursed assembly may not take place. Every priest who holds to the Catholic Faith must condemn this abomination, even if it means he loses the very walls of his chapel. We hope, though without much illusion, that a few priests break their silence... 

Make no mistake. We have a choice to make between Catholic Faith and some other idea that is irreconcilable with that same Catholic Faith. On one hand there is the Faith of St. Polyeuctus and all the martyrs who have been glorified by the Church for refusing to incense the idols, for despising those idols and exposing their false cults, for entering the pagan temples and destroying those idols. And on the other hand, these interfaith gatherings that want to promote all religions as being respectable and nourish the illusion that their prayers can bear fruit!

In 1986, the idol of Buddha was placed upon the tabernacle of one of the churches in Assisi. If St. Polyeuctus had been present, he would have thrown it to the ground and trampled on it. [cf. Act V, scene V Polyeucte Martyr (Pierre Corneille, 1606-1684)]

What then would John-Paul II, who will be beatified on May 1st, have said to Polyeuctus? Would he have perhaps had him arrested as a disruptive and dangerous catholic fundamentalist? And even there is no repeat of similar impiety in October, what explanation will Benedict XVI give the martyrs that could justify his inviting false religions? No mistake; this fair of religions and faith of Assisi definitely is not our Faith.


Father Régis de Cacqueray,
District Superior, France.
Suresnes, 19th January 2011

(This is not an official translation. Emphasis respects original French text)

[The above was found here:  http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens...&p=9650767 ]
Thanks for sharing this, B of Navarre. This is uncompromised truth, which cannot be said of the fssp.
Pages: 1 2