The Capuchins of Morgon give ultimatum to Bishop Fellay.

Admin

Administrator

Fr. Chazal esta just dropped nuclear bomb in an email hydrogen to me (published with permission):

The Capuchins of Morgon wrote a 200 page treatise Which They sent to Bishop Fellay and all SSPX superiors (before the June meeting of superiors), declaring They will reject any accord with unconverted Rome, and, Moreover, That if Bishop Fellay Continues to refuse to ordain Their candidates, They will avail of Bishop Faure Themselves.

I Did not Know That Bishop Fellay was still Refusing to ordain Morgon's candidates. In fact, I thought a couple years back, They made a tour of the USA With the SSPX (ie, The SSPX was showing off new pet ITS).

NEVERTHELESS, what if Fr. Chazal below Follows's account.

Meanwhile, I continue to try to secure a copy of Morgon's treatise.

"Dear [....],
The treatise is big, I saw it on the desk of a SSPX confrere, and it is Against the canonical agreement.
Perhaps, but it is just a guess, Fr Joseph had a hand in it, but it is endorsed by Fr Antoine.
Bishop Fellay received it in His Chapter of Martigny and closed His Eyes.
For my part, I wrote to them That the deal is Already effective at the canonical level, in a secret symbiotic way.
But it remains the thesis of the treaty, (quite huge, 100 pages, small print, two columns), is our position, and looks to be Aimed at that Fr Celier's secret treaty of Archbishoplefebvrology, That poisoned the minds of so many superiors some years back.
Moreover, Fr Stehlin is unilaterally taking over the Militia Immaculatae, Which was run by the Capuchins (a move reminiscent of the menzingerial moves Against Avrille).
Then, Morgon has issued the ultimatum That if Their candidates continue to be barred from the priesthood, Bishop Morgon will call Faure, Whom They trust.
And there are plenty of other incidents, and the third order is very friendly to the Resistance.
My own Brother, Brother Nicholas, says I totally AGREES With our position.
Unfortunately, I Could not find the time to visit him.
It will all be done the Capuchin way, I trust.
Suaviter ac fortiter.
You can publish if you want esta.
In Jesu et Maria,
Francois Chazal + "

Source

..
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
1. If Fr. Chazal thinks this is important news, why the appearance of withholding the information and not as a priest announce this himself?

2. What treatise can there be of not knowing to act sooner from all of the pertainante information over these five years collected from many sources: Arville Dominicans situation, BW, BF, BA and his benedictine monastery, Carmelites, french and worldwide expelled sspx priests, the fight of the american, asian, and spanish priests, the white papers on the internet, conferences, interviews, including the obvious sellout from the neo-sspx medias we get our own information from?

3. For the Capuchins to have a "treatise" saying no in principle to the neo-sspx, then continue to accept in practice what the neo-sspx does (as they have been doing all along) just so they can have their candidates ordained is the SAME mentality as the neo-sspx faithful to stay with Bishop Fellay because he is a bishop. As with those in the novus ordo to follow the errors of the pope because he is the pope; and likewise, the SAME reason of the false resistance disagreeing perhaps in principle but accepts in practice the three 'resistance' bishops compromising with modernism (i.e. legitimacy of the new mass, ecumenical miracles, etc). Human nature is fickle.

4. Fr. Joseph, who is formerly Father Régis de Cacqueray , the ex-sspx district superior of France, why the lack of fortitude to say something sooner in the knowledge of his position? To save face while giving life to the revolution within the neo-sspx?

5. It was Fr. Antoine (here) who first supported then recanted Fr. Jean's vocal and written condemnation against Bishop Fellay' maneuvers in early 2012. Nothing has changed in Bishop Fellay's maneuvers. So why the change for the Capuchins now? Just for ordinations? How cruel...and empty of faith.

6. For Fr. Chazal to 'write' to them again reminding them that the deal is done in principle long ago, which they knew, why the apathy to move forward while the Church suffers on the cross?

7. So they will call on Bishop Faure for ordinations who does not call out Bishop Williamson and his errors. From the oven into the frying pan. Is there any discernment out there what modernism is anymore in guise of smiles and personalities? What happened to their training?

8. So yes, "it will all be done the Capuchin way". Five years and waiting while the rest of us get thrown under the bus.


One cannot agree with something and not act accordingly and proportionally. Only one who is sincere before God knows what to do...

Whatever will be the outcome of the Capuchins, Menzingen can always bypass them and 'erect' another foundation like they illegally did splitting the Arville Dominicans, seen here - SSPX erects neo-Dominican Community for Rome Reconciliation.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Admin

Administrator
3. For the Capuchins to have a "treatise" saying no in principle to the neo-sspx, then continue to accept in practice what the neo-sspx does (as they have been doing all along) just so they can have their candidates ordained is the SAME mentality as the neo-sspx faithful to stay with Bishop Fellay because he is a bishop. As with those in the novus ordo to follow the errors of the pope because he is the pope; and likewise, the SAME reason of the false resistance disagreeing perhaps in principle but accepts in practice the three 'resistance' bishops compromising with modernism (i.e. legitimacy of the new mass, ecumenical miracles, etc)
This is the crux of the whole thing. They 'need' the Bishop to ordain them and the Bishop is safe because they need him.
If they chose instead to need a Bishop faithful to doctrine, and the consequences involved in remaining true to it, we would all get a Bishop to unite us and heal the division caused by the establishment of the loose federation of priests which, in reality, prevents unity.

..
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
Yes, as we faithful need to seek out a bishop faithful to doctrine the priests need to seek out a bishop faithful to doctrine.

Why they cannot figure that out and hold to Christ and his doctrine is the great divide in the Church, the great divide in the neo-sspx and the great divide in the neo-resistance.
 

Anand

Well-Known Member
Strange sort of hydrogen nuclear bomb!. If BF ordains the Capuchins, all will be well and the nuclear device will morph into a water balloon? This Capuchin treatise was given to SSPX superiors and BF himself. But it was seen on the desk of an " SSPX confrere". Can one be an "SSPX confrere" without any longer being in the SSPX? .
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
Fr. Chazal said:
"...[t]hat if their candidates continue to be barred from the priesthood, Morgon will call Bishop Faure, Whom They trust."

It is also noted that the Capuchins are not going to call on the other two sspx bishops (Tissier and de Galarreta) in their time of 'necessity and emergency' if such comes down to that. This being a [up and down] contrast to the perceived position those two bishops want us to believe that they "disagree" with Bishop Fellay to the deal when it is those two bishops who were consecrated for the church and must attend to the church's needs above the abuse of the superior general. [1]

In other words, the Capuchins do not trust the other two neo-sspx bishops as they too are for the virtual and relative deal.

The false obedience that crashed the people in the Church after vatican II is the SAME false obedience that crashed the people in the neo-sspx.

I may add to this demise, this is also the SAME false obedience that crashed the false resistance saying such things as:

We are "in repeated disobedience to the legitimate [resistance] bishops"; "God put those bishops above us"; we "must obey them"; We "are vagus who reject the bishops God sent us". "There are consequences if we go against Bishop Williamson".
All the while those in the false resistance cover their eyes to the modernism and shame these resistance bishops bring into the camp of God. (i.e. These Bishops publicly tell us that the novus ordo mass can be actively attended thereby is legitimate, you can nourish your faith in the novus ordo, believe in the ecumenical novus ordo miracles, etc...).

What is the difference between Bishop Fellay introducing and forcing conciliarism on us or these three false resistance bishops introducing and forcing conciliarism on us?

________________________________________________

[1] Remember, the 4-sspx bishops are only [auxiliary] bishops without jurisdiction consecrated for the church in her need to protect the faith and ordain priests for the altar. Their immediate superior is the pope; not the general superior. The sspx bishops only "obey" the general superior in virtue of the unity of the institution and to guard and protect the faith ABL had handed to them. Thus objectively, they serve the universal church where it needs help, given by supplied jurisdiction in this crisis, and organized in right reason and management through the sspx order which is a true and one branch of the Catholic Church since 1970.

Which makes this sspx-civil war an ultimate betrayal of these 4-bishops, now six, who caved into the SAME false obedience of conciliarism we have been fighting against for 40-years. Go figure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
Let's be reminded in our catechism.

The compromises of these six bishops, the Avrille Dominicans, Capuchins, Benedictines, priests and people in the false resistance by manifesting explicit modernism, or by quiet consent, blanket statements, generic, and not directed where it needs to be placed in clarity for the honor of the Church and glory of God, is complicit to such acts, and is a sin of omission.

A public retraction must be made, and to feed the lambs, the faith of tradition must be restored. Souls are really leaving and going back to the conciliar dungeon aimlessly from these wayward false statements of these people.

The expediency to put trust and the truth aside for "wanting or needing" a bishop is an error. The faith does NOT need a pope-bishops-or priests. It is the pope-bishops-and priests that need the faith. God showed many times over in Holy Scripture and human history, like the 400 year Arian heresy, the 300 year eclipse and persecution of the catholics in Japan that prelates and authority is created to serve the faith, not persecute against it.

It always amazes me that these people can speak about the errors of the pope, cardinals, and hundreds of bishops, but as soon as you mention the errors of Bishop Fellay, or BW, it is taboo to their perceived lifestyle and off limits for discussion -we are "disobedient"- we are told. If a number of popes can fall with hundreds of bishops, these six bishops can fall also; and did.

These are coward acts with our Lord hanging in agony and punished for not compromising; especially when real priests, few as they are, who are standing up doing their duty and calling out the errors and the influence of that error; yet, they are attacked for doing so by these "expedient" persons to save face of the author of those errors -BW. (sic). This crisis is a doctrinal problem; not a 'personal' problem.

Material mindsets receive material gain. Spiritual mindset receive the promises of the faith.

Resistance PAX-bishops and priests are no good to anyone but the revolution.

We know the brilliance of God does not need numbers nor the esteem of people. He can raise bishops from stones of the ground to praise him if and when he wants to. We just need to have faith in him. He is the Head of his own Church; not BW or the pope.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Admin

Administrator
.....this is also the SAME false obedience that crashed the false resistance saying such things as:

We are "in repeated disobedience to the legitimate [resistance] bishops"; "God put those bishops above us"; we "must obey them"; We "are vagus who reject the bishops God sent us". "There are consequences if we go against Bishop Williamson".


God did not put those Bishops above us. God put the diocesan bishop over us. He, it is we disobey. No obedience is due to Bishop Williamson who is only an auxiliary Bishop - that is, one who helps the diocesan bishop. There certainly are consequences if one goes against Bishop Williamson. He withholds his powers to ordain candidates ripe for ordination when it suits him. Witness his recent last-minute refusal to ordain a priest when Fr. Chazal was awaiting the Bishop's arrival to do so. Witness also his refusal to ordain candidates at OLOMC. He uses his power to completely control what happens in the resistance movement. His God-given powers to serve the flock are subverted to serve only himself. It is duplicitous when a Bishop deliberately allows false understanding to prevail thus deceiving the flock.

He brooks no correction to his false teachings. Just the same as Bishop Fellay brooks no correction. Would that he had St. Peter's humility and gratitude for being publicly corrected by St. Paul
What is the difference between Bishop Fellay introducing and forcing conciliarism on us or these three false resistance bishops introducing and forcing conciliarism on us?
Machabees said:
The expediency to put trust and the truth aside for "wanting or
needing" a bishop is an error. The faith does NOT need a
pope-bishops-or priests. It is the pope-bishops-and priests that
need the faith. God showed many times over in Holy Scripture
and human history, like the 400 year Arian heresy, the 300 year
eclipse and persecution of the catholics in Japan that prelates

and authority is created to serve the faith, not persecute against it.
AMEN
 
Last edited:

TheRecusant.com

Well-Known Member
What a lot of fuss over nothing.

If there are just two things which seem to characterise the Resistance in France, it is cowardly anonymity and massively over-optimistic exaggeration. Most "Resistance" letters which come out of that country, even so-called "open letters" have names and signatures removed, making them virtually worthless, though that's not the problem here. And since the start we've been hearing about the legions of priests who are about to leave the Society and join the Resistance. "Just you wait, when France awakes, then the Resistance will really start getting serious!" It's all nonsense. And vanity. And as for the exaggeration and over-optimism, nobody does that better than Fr. Chazal. The title virtually proclaims that Morgon has joined the Resistance. But when you read the text, it turns out that one of them gave a massive long document to Bishop Fellay with some ideas for him to think about (what are the odds that he ever read even half it?). And that "if he doesn't ordain our guys, we'll get Bishop Faure to do it!" which is hardly surprising really. But then Bishop Fellay is not stupid. So in all probability, nothing will happen.

Religious communities are funny things. It's rare for them to be unanimous when it comes to big, game-changing decisions, especially decisions which (superficially, at least) seem to go against obedience to superiors, etc. And the other thing is that these religious communities have, if anything, less freedom than priests when it comes to leaving the SSPX because in addition to the usually worries and scruples which keep priests from leaving, they additionally have the unity of the community to think about, and that very easily becomes an end in itself. I suspect that may be behind the retreat of Avrillé from the field of battle: maybe some of the superiors wanted to be in the Resistance, but not all the community were on board, hence a declaration that they are not taking sides? Just a possibility... So anyway, I think as far as Morgon is concerned we can safely say that nothing will happen.
 

Anand

Well-Known Member
The issue which should concern Fr Chazal is the non ordination to the priesthood of Friar John by Bishop Richard Williamson. Last year Bishop Faure raised Friar John to the Diaconate. Common sense should have led Fr Chazal to invite Bishop Faure to Cebu, rather than Bishop Williamson, to complete the task. Will that ever happen, now that it seems that the waters have been muddied concerning this issue?
 

TheRecusant.com

Well-Known Member
Anand, you are assuming that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure are two individuals. In reality Bishop Faure is just an extension of Bishop Williamson. He won't do anything unless Bishop Williamson approves. You can be certain that he asked Bishop Williamson's permission before ordaining Br. John to the diaconate.

For what it's worth, he probably will be ordained in the end. Whether he should be is another question...
 

TheRecusant.com

Well-Known Member
Look at the thousand-and-one hoops which Fr. Suneel had to jump through for Bishop Williamson so as to get ordained. And Bishop Williamson constantly changing his mind, one day he could be ordained, the next day he couldn't. And when finally Bishop Williamson allowed that he could be ordained, who did the ordination? Bishop Faure. But that only happened because Fr. Suneel went along with the myriad of petty inconveniences, whims and caprices of Bp. Williamson.
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
Look at the thousand-and-one hoops which Fr. Suneel had to jump through for Bishop Williamson so as to get ordained. And Bishop Williamson constantly changing his mind, one day he could be ordained, the next day he couldn't. And when finally Bishop Williamson allowed that he could be ordained, who did the ordination? Bishop Faure. But that only happened because Fr. Suneel went along with the myriad of petty inconveniences, whims and caprices of Bp. Williamson.
And during that time, a seminary priest (Fr. Pfeiffer) having purposely to go to BW's residence (Broadstairs England) to 'encourage' BW to ordain an already accepted deacon; only for BW to talk about window curtains.

For the humanistic and tribal mentality of the false resistance, that is ok, Bp. Williamson is served; while the Church suffers.
 

Anand

Well-Known Member
Anand, you are assuming that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure are two individuals. In reality Bishop Faure is just an extension of Bishop Williamson. He won't do anything unless Bishop Williamson approves. You can be certain that he asked Bishop Williamson's permission before ordaining Br. John to the diaconate. This is not good at all...

For what it's worth, he probably will be ordained in the end. Whether he should be is another question...
Yes, and it's a very important question concerning both Friar John and every candidate to the priesthood.
 
Top