Shame on Father Couture!

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement (Member 149 is Machabees)' started by unbrandable, Nov 8, 2017.

  1. unbrandable

    unbrandable Well-Known Member

    Shame on Father Couture!

    As someone pointed out on the Resistance -catholique website, in the November 2017 District Superior’s Letter in Canada ( ), Father Couture states that we have to react against the scandals of Pope Francis “in the name of Tradition,” and that the signatories of the Correctio Filialis quoted from the Denzinger, a traditional source. But Fr. Couture completely disregards the fact that the signatories also make reference to Vatican II eight times in the Correctio Filialis. Making reference to Vatican II is hardly reacting “in the name of Tradition.” What deceitfulness! But then we’re getting accustomed to this deceitfulness in the SSPX leaders.

    Father Couture:

    But in the name of what are we going to react against these scandals, which are only a continuation of the novelty of Vatican II? In nothing other than in the name of Tradition - the real one this time - and not the so called “living Tradition” which is in fact the real cause of these new heretical propositions denounced by the Correctio Filialis in September 2017. The signatories of the letter abundantly quote the Denzinger (DH) which has been the reference of theologians for almost two centuries, being the collection of the teachings of the Magisterium since the beginning of the Church, it is the book of Tradition.


    Again, here is the problem with the Vatican II references in Correctio Filialis, as Christian Lassale explains:

    “… The 17-page text, if it has many references to the Catholic Magisterium, contains eight references to the Second Vatican Council (1) including three in Lumen Gentium, one of the most harmful texts of this council.

    Now the Council is at the origin of the present crisis of the Church, which Correctio Filialis refuses to point out. This text is thus entirely in the hermeneutics of the reform of Benedict XVI, who in the end wanted to find a hermeneutic that would make the conciliar revolution the development of the Catholic Magisterium.

    Wishing to counter the heresies contained in Amoris laetitia of Pope Francis, a text that relies heavily on the Second Vatican Council, by this Correctio Filialis which also relies in part on references to the Second Vatican Council, is wanting to inject the poison at the same time as the antidote, or inject the antidote with an infected syringe…

    … A more embarrassing element, this signature is affixed to the bottom of a generally good text, but a part of the references, as we have seen, is the Second Vatican Council. This is tantamount to endorsing this approach to the hermeneutics of reform which gives a magisterial value to the council, whereas it is this council that is the poisoned source of Amoris laetitia. This signature shows a little more clearly how the specific voice of the Society of Saint Pius X fell silent, in line with the criticisms emanating from the so-called conservative movements of the Church, at the risk of assuming regrettable arguments….”

    (for complete article, see mid-way down on this page:
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2017
  2. Tobias

    Tobias Member

    Shame on the sspx institution giving vatican ii a voice.
    Martius and unbrandable like this.