Avrillé Dominican's: new-sspx Canonical Recognition?

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement' started by Machabees, Aug 3, 2017.

  1. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    The Dominicans briefly laid out the sequence of ABL's Canonical foundation in 1970 in way to question the integrity and jest of today's new-sspx seeking another canonical recognition; this time under the pluralistic 1983 Code of Canon law.

    It is always good to remind ourselves the position of the old-sspx, through ABL, which always held the Canonical foundation of 1970 as genuine, legitimate, and still in effect. Which makes the liberal ambitions of Bishop Fellay a fraud and a fools game.

    Cor-Mariae has laid this out in detail and sourced with original SSPX Documents, seen here and here.

    The fight is on Doctrine plain and simple.

    “We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church and for the conciliar church, to which we have no wish to belong. That conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in may a document, official and definitive… The church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatsoever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this hew church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre)

    “… supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put in conditions. I shall not accept being in the position I was put in during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo X III, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Qua Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communionwith the popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti- Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of the these popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless. Thus, the positions will be clear.” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s, Interview with Fideliter, Nov.- Dec. 1988)


    Dominicans of Avrillé
    July 2017

    When Bishop Lefebvre founded the Fraternity of St. Pius X (in 1970), he obtained from the Bishop of Freiburg, Monsignor Charrière, a canonical erection as a pious union. The work of Archbishop Lefebvre remained canonically recognized by Rome for five years.

    However, on 21 November 1974, following a canonical visit of Ecône by two envoys from Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre made a declaration which showed his refusal of "the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency which was clearly manifested in The Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that have sprung from it. "

    Henceforth, the dividing line between the two "churches" was made. Shortly afterwards, the "neo-modernist and neo-Protestant trend Rome" received the appellation of Conciliar Church by Bishop Benelli (letter of June 25, 1976 addressed to Bishop Lefebvre on behalf of the Pope). That name has remained to him.

    The canonical "suppression" of the Society of St. Pius X was carried out by Msgr. Mamie on May 6, 1975. Archbishop Lefebvre said that it was "irregular and in any case unjust" (Archbishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre, Étampes, Clovis , 2002, p. 510].
    This "suppression" was therefore regarded as null by Archbishop Lefebvre and all those who follow the rules of the Catholic Church, whereas it was recognized as valid by the representatives of the conciliar Church. However, for some time now we have been talking more and more of a "canonical recognition" of the Society of St. Pius X by the current authorities of the Vatican. Can such recognition be accepted?

    In itself, canonical regularity in the Catholic Church is a good thing, and even necessary. Bishop Lefebvre requested this regularity in 1970 and obtained it.

    But today, if a canonical recognition were granted, it would be granted under the new Code of Canon Law. It is within this framework that the jurisdiction for marriages has recently been granted by the Pope to the Society of Saint Pius X. For this reason alone, such recognition should be refused: "We can not be content with" A special discipline for the Fraternity; We reject this new Code because it is contrary to the common good of the whole Church, which we wish to defend "[Abbot Jean-Michel Gleize, Courrier de Rome n ° 499 of May 2017.] In the present circumstances, would have other disadvantages. Here are a few :
    • It would bring us into conciliar pluralism, Tradition being recognized as equal to the charismatic, the Focolari, the Opus Dei, and so on. It is the truth brought to the level of error, at least in public opinion.
    • It would bring to our chapels faithful ones determined to remain conciliar, modernist and liberal, with all the consequences, for bad ideas bring bad habits.
    • It would necessarily diminish the attacks against the errors professed by the authorities under which one would find himself directly. It is, moreover, easy to see that the superior authorities of the Society of St. Pius X have already diminished their criticism of the present errors of Rome (Luther, Amoris Lætitia, etc.)
    • Finally, such recognition would place directly under the authority of superiors themselves subject to the influence of Freemasonry.
    Indeed, various studies published in The Salt of the Earth have shown that the Conciliar Church is an instrument in the hands of Freemasonry to compel Catholics to work, volens nolens, in the establishment of Ie the construction of the Masonic "Temple" (see in particular the editorial of No. 101, summer 2017). Providence permitted Bishop Lefebvre and those who followed him to be exempt from this influence of masonry; it would be a grave imprudence to do so voluntarily. Freemasonry was born just three centuries ago (June 24, 1717). After having destroyed all the Christian states (the work of the revolutions of the 18th to the 20th century), and then enslaved the Church (plan of the High Sale, realized by the Second Vatican Council), it will extend its influence on the The work of Archbishop Lefebvre? It would be his apparent triumph on earth.

    Consequently, the canonical solution can be envisaged only with a doctrinally converted Rome, and having proved its conversion by working for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and struggling against the opponents of this reign.


  2. Martius

    Martius Guest

    The fact that the new-SSPX is seeking canonical recognition under the NEW CODE of Canon Law speaks volumes. In doing so, it clearly recognizes the new code as legitimate. And as something that was born out of Vatican II the new-SSPX, by consequence, once again officially recognizes Vatican II.

    Not that we didn't know that already - in the Doctrinal Declaration it was painfully apparent. But...we keep seeing more and more often the new-SSPX drop any vestige of trying to appear traditional. In truth it has acted like some kind of indult or Ecclesia Dei organization for some time.
    Machabees likes this.
  3. Scarlet Pimpernel

    Scarlet Pimpernel Well-Known Member

    Avrille Dominicans, actions speak louder than words.

    The Dominicans of Avrille - not acting like true sons of St. Dominic - most unfortunate! There are souls that need priests. Why do the Dominicans only study and write but will not emulate St. Dominic and bring the truth to the lost and needy?
    Machabees and Deus Vult like this.
  4. Martius

    Martius Guest

    St. Dominic:
    "After this, taking a staff in his hand, in imitation of the holy Apostles, he wandered barefooted through all the cities and villages where the Albigenses had sown the seed of their heresy, preached with great zeal the truths of the Catholic faith and refuted the errors of the heresy, without allowing himself to be in the least disturbed by the ravings of the enemies of the church. Authentic historians say that he converted more than 100,000 heretics to the truth faith. ...

    Before his end, he exhorted his disciples to obedience, poverty, chastity, and brotherly love. He further commanded them to work zealously for the salvation of souls, to trust unwaveringly in God, to love their heavenly Father above all things, to avoid idle discourses, to speak only with or of God. "

    Deus Vult and Scarlet Pimpernel like this.
  5. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Thank you Fr. Pfeiffer for drawing out the Avrille Dominicans not following their founder St. Dominic by hiding under a rock for five years with indifference and lack of zeal cowering under Bishop Fellay and now cowering under Bishop Williamson. This is the same cowering the Capuchins are doing; wallowing with the faith.

    What happened to these 'traditional' monasteries after the death of ABL? Had they never understood the fight or never gave themselves seriously to God to fight.

    Wimpy men we do not need. Wimpy priests are a scourge to society and the Church.
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2017
  6. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Here is another great plea of the "dog" Fr. Pfeiffer calling out [us] specifically the Avrille Dominicans to come out of a house of hiding behind the errors of 'traditional bishops' and be like their founder St. Dominic -go out and be preachers- minister your vocation to the world, bark against these modern errors, preach the truth the Kings of Kings calls you to do fortified by the hand of Mary.

    Last edited: Aug 7, 2017
  7. Deus Vult

    Deus Vult Well-Known Member

  8. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Avrille Dominicans, Actions speak louder than words.

    Perhaps we can change the motto for these thirteen priests and [20?] brothers: Actions speak louder than 'publications'.

    We are in a time of great peril...souls need priests to administer.

  9. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    I understand the above call of Holy Scripture will go past the false resistance, they are feeble playing their indifference card walking with pink roses in the trad-ecumenism parade. Such a false belief thinks there are plenty of Trad-priests out there...for the peril of souls, why should they leave their comfort and go into "activism"?

    Ask our Lord what "activism" is and He will tell you you are on the side of Caiaphas seeking your own wishes based on the selfish man wanting his own sphere of mass and sacraments void of doctrinal truth.

    Why is there a crisis if not for a doctrinal blackout? Get real!

    Preach Christ in season and out of season. That is the call of every baptized person and will be accountable for it.

    Instaurare omnia in Christo
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2017
    Martius likes this.
  10. Tobias

    Tobias Member

    Years ago I was wondering why the dominicans were so quiet toward bp.fellay and his disaster of 2012 (the doctrinal preamble). When it was leaked it sent shock waves through my chapel only to be calmed down by the prior he withdrew it later. I don't believe it. Didnt the dominicans say anything public about these changes in bp.w? I don't recognise abl. They have to read these EC with the other bishops. why wouldn't they cringe at some point. I don't understand the silence.
    Martius likes this.
  11. Tobias

    Tobias Member

    What do you mean. Are the capuchins wavering too? How about the other communities. What are they doing?
  12. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Here is a reference why the Avrille Dominicans are content sitting on their laurels documented from their stated public position (post 2012 to date):
    • They now believe in the conciliar church.
    “The conciliar and neo-modernist Church is therefore neither a substantially different church from the Catholic Church, nor absolutely identical, it mysteriously has something of the one and of the other: it is a foreign body which occupies the Catholic Church. So we need to distinguish between them without separating them.” (Arville Dominicans, Sel de la Terre, 94, Autumn 2015)​
    • They too support Sedevacantism in the false resistance:
    Quote, Fr. Rioult:
    “In July 2014, in Avrille, Bishop Williamson, in front of about 20 assembled priests,(…), allowed liberty to each one to be ‘una cum’ or ‘non una cum’ at the Canon of the Mass. Dom Thomas Aquinas [now Bishop] was in favor of this liberty and Fr, Altamira also. Fr. Pierre- Marie, prior of Avrille, didn’t make any objection. The only opposition came from Father Pfeiffer. In what concerns the priests of the Union Sacerdotale Marcel Lefebvre, some are ‘una cum’ and others are ‘non una cum.’[/URL]
    Source: - Discours sur l’Église romaine face à l’apostasie (7/12) Foot note {16}

    Also, in April 2016, Father Pinaud said to his “non una cum” group in Quebec that after the last official meeting of the USML at the beginning of February 2016 (see EC 452), "A consensus was reached on an important matter. The non una cum position is now an option inside USML. The seminary of Bishop Faure will accept candidates who choose this option and they will be ordained."

    • They support the three false ‘resistance’ bishops out of utility; and are silent on their errors!
  13. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

  14. Tobias

    Tobias Member