Where does Bishop Faure Stand? - by The Recusant

M

Martius

Guest
Where does Bishop Faure Stand?
http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?resources/the-recusant-july-august-issue.192/
(formatting mine)​

The following is not an exhaustive list, but there is more than enough here to get a fairly good idea. To better disentangle them, we will try to present events in chronological order.

March 2015 - Bishop Faure is Consecrated in Brazil by Bishop Williamson

April 2015 - The Recusant was only positive about the consecration. Despite the recent split from Bishop Williamson and our misgivings about him, Issue 25 gave the event a positive write-up, included uncritical interviews, expressed our gratitude, devoted three colour pages of photographs including the front cover. Thus there was, as far as we were concerned, no enmity between us; and there had been a large show of good will on our part.

26th April 2015 - Fr. Stephen Abraham does First Holy Communion in Earlsfield. Pictures are proudly displayed by the Fake Resistance for all to see and reproduced by sympathetic websites. These pictures have since been removed, but can still be found here: http:// avecjesusetmarie.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/labbe-abraham-ne-doit-pas-exercer-de.html The page on the “Respice Sterile” website which published them displays a “not found” message. We believe that the airing of a Swedish TV documentary was what caused these pictures to be removed. (What a pity that it should have taken something like that…). Also “can’t be found” is the page with lots of pictures boasting about Fr. Abraham’s regular monthly visits to the faithful in Ireland, which took place until the Irish found out the truth some time in early 2015 and asked him not to return.

May 2015 - Following a conversations among the faithful in England and Ireland and worrying rumours which are beginning to spread, two faithful in England arrange to have a private interview with Fr. Abraham during which he admits his guilt. Bishop Williamson however, reacts angrily and will not listen to them; he is equally harsh in his treatment of another lady who tried to talk to him about it shortly afterwards.

late May 2015 - Bishop Faure was given a detailed account in person regarding the Fr. Abraham situation. An offer was also made to put him in touch with the other faithful in England and Ireland who had first-hand experience of the situation, so as to hear for himself, an offer which he never took up. He was also urged to speak to Fr. Abraham himself and ask him outright. This author, having spent 5 days at Avrillé in order to procure a face-to-face private meeting with Bishop Faure, went home empty handed and would never hear from him again.

June 2015 - Nothing heard. In the meantime, Fr. Abraham is still ministering publicly.

July 2015 - Bishop Faure pays a visit to Earlsfield Library Hall and says Sunday Mass there (https://respicestellam.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/a-day-of-blessings-in-earlsfield/). This is the London Fake Resistance chapel where Fr. Abraham offers Mass most of the time (https:// respicestellam.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/new-soldiers-of-christ/) and which in more recent months (2017) has also been visited by Bishop Zendejas (https://respicestellam.wordpress.com/2017/08/01/ bishop-zendejas/).

This visit of Bishop Faure to England was his first since the English faithful had contacted him regarding Fr. Abraham. Let us recall that at this point in time there had been nothing but good will and praise for Bishop Faure and in theory we were all on the same side. And yet the visit was made with not a word to any of those same faithful who had expressed anxiety regarding Fr. Abraham. He was quite happy to let them go without Mass that Sunday. No notice of his visit was given in advance and they only found out about his it after it had taken place and he had already left.

...also July 2015 - circulation online of the Mahopac NY video, filmed in late June, in which Bishop Williamson uses a Q&A session to advise a lady that it is OK to attend the New Mass and that she can find spiritual nourishment there. She had told him “I go to the Latin Mass on Sunday … but during the week I go to a Novus Ordo Mass.” Bishop Williamson justified her attendance for her. From this point onwards a controversy builds surrounding Bishop Williamson and the New Mass, and which Bishop Williamson subsequently makes worse. Not a word from Bishop Faure. To this day he has not expressed any dissent from Bishop Williamson’s new teaching. In fact, he would later go on to justify and defend Bishop Williamson on this point, as on others…

August 2015 - A Fake Resistance pilgrimage to Canterbury is announced on the website “Respice Sterile.” It is organised from Broadstairs and led by Fr. Abraham. Fr. Abraham is all over the photos which were published in September. This is some weeks after the faithful in England had appealed to Bishop Faure, and after Bishop Faure had visited London and Broadstairs. In the meantime the rumours are increasing and the truth about Fr. Abraham is seeping out by word of mouth. This ultimately led to the decision to sound the alarm by putting something in Recusant 31, November 2015.

December 2015 - Bishop Williamson uses his weekly Eleison Comments email (#439) to announce an Ignatian retreat at Broadstairs led jointly by Fr. Abraham to take place over Christmas holidays: “And if male readers would prefer something more directly Catholic, let them sign up as soon as possible for the Ignatian Exercises to be given here by Fr Abraham and myself between 18h00, December 26 and 18h00, December 31. Kyrie eleison.” Quite.

1st Dec. 2015 - Post Falls, Idaho, Bishop Faure defends Bishop Williamson's refusal to take open responsibility for souls and admits plans to open a Fake Resistance seminary in the USA as a rival to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Kentucky.

(1.10:45 onwards):

Question: “But what about the priests and the missions that are here to day in Post Falls, we have a future that's already been built for 45 years of Tradition. What you're saying, actually respectfully, you haven't answered my question when you spoke about building a seminary, but we're not starting from block one again, your excellency, we already exist, and we need a bishop, the fullness of the priesthood, to lead us. And everyone knows that in Eleison Comments Bishop Williamson says ‘I want to be a friend, a father and an advisor’ - he refuses to lead, and a Catholic bishop: that's your consecration as a shepherd, you have to, it's like the father of a family, you have to...”

Bishop Faure: “But Bishop Williamson told me, he hoped and he prayed for the success of the seminarians we have now in Avrillé. What we can hope, because the Dominicans have hope to come in the United States. If they come and install a monastery, then we could do the same. We could have in parallel quite near of the monastery, a seminary with American seminarians who would have the same formation.”

From the Same Conference - Bishop Faure supports Bishop Williamson’s view that Archbishop Lefebvre got it wrong, that a Society with structure, hierarchy and Superior General should be avoided and “loose independent pockets” should be the aim... (c.1:12.00 onwards)

Question: “I think I know what is operating here, there are two principles. If I can speak frankly, I think we know exactly what Bishop Williamson has said. He wanted to establish a loose network of independent units…”

Bishop Faure: “Yes…”

Question (cont'd): “...not centralised in some headquarters following the model of the old SSPX. I think that's what this gentleman is talking about, he's wondering about that, because we've had priest in our midst who want to go back to the old model of the SSPX with a central headquarters and a seminary and centralised everything. That is not the vision of Bishop Williamson and I don't think it's your vision. I don't meant to speak for you, your excellency, but I think I'm reflecting accurately what the Bishop has said and what he wants to accomplish. I don't think this gentleman agrees with that particularly, I think that's why he’s questioning you. I want to get this open, I don't like this kind of conversation, let's get it out.”

Bishop Faure: “It is dangerous to have - we have the example of the Society. It is dangerous in our time to have something very centralised. You have the example of Bishop Fellay and the Society.”

Questioner: “I will follow Bishop Williamson because I think he has the correct model and I think you also represent the correct model. He says: I’ve been there and I’ve done that. And I’ve talked to him personally about this.”

Bishop Faure: “Yes, yes. Good. [smiles & laughs] There are two ways.”

Another Questioner: “...(unclear)...as long as you don't go back to Rome we're all fine.”

Bishop Faure: “Sure. But it is true that Bishop Williamson is realistic too. And it is evident that we have good priests now who went out of the Society because they could not more support this treason, but as I said, they are strong characters, and we cannot think about to organise hierarchically these priests, it is impossible. We are friends but we shall not enter in structure like the Society. It is absolutely impossible, impossible. That is the reality. But these priests help many groups, in France and many parts, no?”​


2nd December 2015 - St. Mary's Kansas, Bishop Faure defends and approves, in order: 1. The idea (also promoted by Bishop Williamson) that it is OK still to go to SSPX Masses, and that it “depends on the priest”; 2. Bishop Williamson's continued promotion of Fr. Stephen Abraham; 3. Bishop Williamson's permission (in Mahopac NY) to attend the New Mass, with which he appears to find nothing at all the matter. ...He also warns his audience against the danger of what he calls “radicalisation.”

(1.02:50 onwards):

Question: “Your Excellency, you don't say that it’s wrong absolutely to continue going to SSPX Masses and if you don't say it's wrong, that you can keep going, what sign should we look for to bail out?”

Bp. Faure: “Well, it’s a very difficult question because many times it depends on the priest with whom you speak. And I think that’s at once the meaning of what is as told ultimately Bishop Williamson [sic]. It is not of course, it is not for us to go back precisely, that is what we do not want to do, to go back to the new Church, new religion, new Mass and so on. But on the other hand, sometimes we can say: but God has forsaken, abandoned all the Catholics, because 99% of the Catholics or 98% of the Catholics in the world have never heard about [Arch] Bishop Lefebvre or Tradition and so we can think that many of them know some priest that probably have, well, in any case, can give some valid sacraments, as the sacrament of Penance, the Confession. And we can think that these people may receive by this sacrament of Penance, the grace of God. That is what means Bishop Williamson. We must avoid a radicalisation. It's always a danger for us, no?”
(1.07:00 onwards):
Question: “Do you have any reason for concern regarding Bishop Williamson’s comments regarding - I'm very confused - when he said it’s OK now to assist at the Novus Ordo Mass?”

Bp. Faure: “Well, I have just answered in some way about this, what means the meaning of this last declaration of Bishop Williamson. But I think we must read them carefully and understand exactly what he's saying. And I think he do not says this, he did not say: We shall go back to the New Ordo! No. If he has problems with Bishop Fellay for three or four years, it's because of that. It’s because Bishop Fellay wants an approximation with the New Rome and because Bishop Williamson is giving us, every week, is giving us very good arguments not to follow Bishop Fellay in that direction. So of course, that is not the meaning of this declaration of Bishop Williamson. You must, I think we must read carefully and see the argumentation, the arguments of Bishop Williamson. I have known him since '72 and I can tell you I saw, I went to see him in England some time ago to speak about some of these things, these situations, and I can say you I trust him. He is, he has not fallen on the banana [laughs].”
(1.09:05 onwards)
Question: “Do you have any reason for concern that he is now allowing Fr. Stephen Abraham to serve the faithful in England, given Fr. Abraham’s past in the SSPX? Could you please explain that for us?”

Bp. Faure: “Well, the Church has laws for these kind of very sad, horrible situations. There are laws. And Fr. Pivert, who has been many years the Canonical advisor of the Society, has taken full knowing of this situation, the circumstances, the situation exactly as it was. And he applies to this situation the laws of the Church. And he thinks that with precautions, necessary precautions, if there is, of course you must have none danger, you must not put anyone’s soul in danger. If these precautions are taken, then you may try to save the soul of this priest. Because in the Society we have unfortunately had many situations, difficult. And some priests have gone, others no, and so of course you must try to help these priests not to lose their soul. Of course, without putting one only soul in danger. You must be sure that there is no danger for no other. And so you must control exactly the kind of apostolate that he can make. For instance, Fr. Abraham was maintained by Bishop Fellay and Fr. Morgan in England the superior of the District of England, and he was in Highclere, in Wimbledon, and he has been for years in this house. And so... on the other hand, you have to try to save these souls, and on the other hand it is clear that Bishop Williamson would be alone in his house. And it would be a little difficult for him because he’s giving every month maybe twelve conferences in twelve groups in France [?] to many people. He could difficultly lose this work, preparation etc., if he would be alone in his house in Broadstairs.”

Question: “Do you mind me asking, is it true that Fr. Abraham is actually out serving the faithful, having Masses, with parishioners? Is that true?”

Bp Faure: “What I knew when I went there is that he was going one morning on the Sunday he was going to the chapel of London where there is fifteen faithful. All these faithful are aware of this situation. And he say Mass and he go back immediately to the priory in Broadstairs. We can, of course, this is a difficult situation, very problematic. But other times, I say you that the Church has its laws for these kind of situations. And in this situation you cannot say it's all the same thing. There is some, some things are more grave than others. In these kind of things, you have many degrees, no? Of course, it is very painful and very difficult. But all the time we must do what the Church asks us to do in these circumstances, in this case you have canon, you have laws, it is contemplated in Canon law, and so with the prudence, the necessary prudence, of course, that you have to be in that - but as I tell you that Bishop Fellay and Fr. Morgan and all the priests knew this situation and Fr. Abraham was in the house of the district in England for years. For years. Of course, it is understandable that for many people could think: no it’s better to forget it... [pause] It’s a problem, it’s a terrible problem. That's why we must be very, very careful when we accept candidates to the seminary.

Question: “One more question on the subject, and I apologise, but I just want to be very clear where you stand on this. Are you telling me that there is a canon law that allows a priest that has two accusations against him, one with a minor, to go out and serve the faithful again, that that is allowed in the Church?”

Bp. Faure: “Yes, but what you must know [is] what is exactly the accusation. What it is exactly. Exactly.”

Another Questioner: “He’s admitted that he has a problem according to a story on the internet, and that he’s tempted. He ought to be taken out of circulation and get some psychiatric help or something…”

Bp. Faure: “But about this point, I have been told, that [pause] it has not, it is not exactly as you say. Because - you must go back and read carefully what it is said, what he said himself. This is very delicate problem. If you change any fact you can change all the case, all the case. And, well, this is a very painful situation. But I think that the precautions have been taken in Highclere [sic] in the house of the district of England for years, and these precautions are taken today to avoid any danger.”

[Third Questioner - completely missing the point - mistakenly makes a comparison with going to confession and confessing to having killed one’s wife and asks: “If he’s a priest and he’s been to confession, who are we to hold it against him?” before going on to accuse some unnamed persons of being “very uncatholic” for not sharing his view.]

Fourth Questioner: “I think the distinction is that when he was at the Society’s house in London, he was not given any public ministry, whereas Bishop Williamson sent him to Ireland to offer Masses for Resistance chapels and they were not warned or anything.”

Bp. Faure: “If there is any danger, as I told you, anybody could be in danger about this situation, it must be avoided. That is what I think, and I think that is what the Church has done before, before our crisis. Because these cases unfortunately were very rare but have existed in the Church, before the Council, and so the Church had to take some precautions. I had heard about cases like that, it could be said, in some schools, in any country of the world. You had some cases where a priest had an attitude, it was not the worst you could imagine, but it was not normal. So the Church had to deal with this situation. But before it was more easy, you could send them as a chaplain of Sisters, I don’t know…”

Bishop Faure finishes by recommending the writings of someone whom he describes as: “...an ex-seminarian of the Society, Shane Johnson.”​


Dec. 2015 - Bp. Faure is denounced by a former priest-colleague from South America. Entitled “Denunciation Contra Mons. Faure y la Infiltracion de la Tradicion,” written under oath by one Fr. Juan de Jesus and with an extensive appendix of photographs, documents and other evidence, it contains many serious accusations which to this day have gone unanswered.

...also circa December 2015 - Persecution of Fr. Ernesto Cardozo for daring to dissent publicly from the teaching of Bishop Williamson. Despite being the founder of most of the Resistance chapels in South America and one of the first priests in the world to openly oppose Bishop Fellay’s betrayal, from now on doors are to be closed to him, Holy Oils refused, the hospitality of Santa Cruz Monastery denied him. Bishop Faure and Dom Tomas Aquinas are the perpetrators. Disagreeing with Bishop Williamson has consequences. At the same time, Bishop Faure visits Resistance chapels in Mexico and preaches that what Bishop Williamson says about miracles and the New Mass is correct.

Jan. 2016 - Fr. Altamira writes to Bishop Faure begging him to address the problems caused by Bishop Williamson. No reply.

Feb. 2016 - Fr. Cardozo’s sermon in which he talks about the reply he received from Bp. Faure. “And then I received an email from Bishop Faure. This email says: ‘Cardozo, there are miracles outside the Church!’ just like that. But as if he means ‘Oh, stop being such a bother!’ And he put it in bold letters. Furthermore, he wrote: ‘Where have you ever seen Archbishop Lefebvre say that the New Mass isn’t a Mass of the Catholic Church?’ ” (See: ‘He Who Gathers Not With Me...’, Issue 33, p.27 ff.)

Feb. 2016 - Bps. Faure and Williamson together at Avrillé, a public show of support by Bishop Williamson for Bishop Faure’s work. Bishop Faure conferred tonsures on his Fake Resistance seminarians, with Bishop Williamson assisting him. It is also worth noting that Bishop Faure chose to found his Fake seminary next to Avrillé, the same Avrillé who a few months earlier had issued a declaration (see Issue 30) stating that they don’t believe in the Resistance and have a quite different idea which involves supporting priests inside and outside the SSPX. The same Avrillé who are happy to see Resistance chapels throughout Europe and the world go for weeks or months without Mass but will not release even one of their dozen or so priests for a wider apostolate, keeping them all tied down in the one place instead.

March 2016 - Bishop Williamson consecrates Dom Tomas Aquinas OSB, ending weeks of speculation arising from Dom Tomas’s sudden softening towards the New Mass and its “miracles” (he published two articles entitled: “In Defence of Bishop Williamson” I & II).

Bishop Faure assisted Bp. Williamson in that consecration. Bishop Williamson used the occasion to give his now-infamous “The time for structure is yesterday!” sermon which even the Fake Resistance were too embarrassed to publish. The Fake Resistance website Non Possumus published lots of photos but not the video of the sermon. When someone leaked it, it became obvious why. No reaction, no hint of disagreement ever came from Bishop Faure.

May 2016 - Bishop Williamson publicly recommends the heretical and blasphemous work of Maria Valtorta and publicly belittles the Holy Office and Index of Forbidden Books. No response from either Bishop Tomas Aquinas or Bishop Faure.

July 2016 - Article on the website of Bishop Faure’s seminary defending the New Mass teaching of Williamson. (https://seminaireavrille.org/2016/07/19/mgr-williamson-lanouvelle-messe/) A collection of selective quotes which attempts to show that it’s really not so bad after all, what’s all the fuss about, etc. and entitled ‘A Little Synthesis of Bishop Williamson’s Thoughts on the New Mass,’ it is introduced with the words: “There are some profoundly theological texts of Bishop Williamson about the Liturgical Reform. If only certain people took the time to read them…” Words fail me.

September 2016 - Bishop Faure in St. Catharine’s (a parish founded by Fr. Pfeiffer) accompanied by Fr. Zendejas. It is worth noting that whenever he visited the USA, Bp. Faure was accompanied everywhere by Fr. Zendejas. At the same time he consistently refused to meet or even talk to Fr. Pfeiffer or Fr. Hewko, much less to give them Holy Oils or confirm the faithful who attend their chapels.

May 2017 - Bp. Faure participates in the consecration of Bishop Zendejas, the priest who to this day refuses to say publicly why he left the SSPX, who rebuked the faithful for asking him, and used his newsletter to teach that the good men managed to silence the bad teaching at Vatican II but then the bad teaching gained the upper hand after the Council. During the speeches given at the reception afterwards, Bp. Faure sits on the right hand side of the new Bishop Zendejas and shows not the slightest sign of protest when, for example, Bishop Williamson directly contradicts the teaching of the Church by saying that one has “a much better chance of getting to heaven” by choosing to become a Catholic than by remaining a nonCatholic. Along with everyone else, he can be seen laughing gleefully as Bishop Williamson openly mocks St. John Chrysostom’s solemn warning that “hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”

Conclusion: Bishop Faure was consecrated by Bishop Williamson, has consistently worked with him, does nothing without his permission or approval, has said nothing to contradict the many dangerous and heterodox and modernist words and actions of Bishop Williamson and has even defended them on several occasions. He has consistently helped to persecute good priests such as Frs. Pfeiffer, Hewko and Cardozo and the faithful who attend their Masses. He is, in short, a pillar of the Fake Resistance which is currently waging a dirty war on Tradition.
 
M

Martius

Guest
Dec. 2015 - Bp. Faure is denounced by a former priest-colleague from South America. Entitled “Denunciation Contra Mons. Faure y la Infiltracion de la Tradicion,” written under oath by one Fr. Juan de Jesus and with an extensive appendix of photographs, documents and other evidence, it contains many serious accusations which to this day have gone unanswered.
 

Attachments

Vincent

Well-Known Member
Conclusion: Bishop Faure was consecrated by Bishop Williamson, has consistently worked with him, does nothing without his permission or approval, has said nothing to contradict the many dangerous and heterodox and modernist words and actions of Bishop Williamson and has even defended them on several occasions. He has consistently helped to persecute good priests such as Frs. Pfeiffer, Hewko and Cardozo and the faithful who attend their Masses. He is, in short, a pillar of the Fake Resistance which is currently waging a dirty war on Tradition.
Well, well, well. Another example of the complete allegiance Biship Williamson seems to command from all his troops. But no, he has no interest in a structured resistance. That's silly.
 

Scarlet Pimpernel

Well-Known Member
It's curiously interesting so many in the false resistance have roots or some connection with La Reja, Argentina.
Three of the four bishops especially have much in common with La Reja seminary.
 

TheRecusant.com

Well-Known Member
Notice how Bishop Faure in his replies on 2nd Dec. 2015 in St. Mary's Ks is being less than honest.

He gives the impression of not really knowing a lot about the current situation with Fr. Abraham, and not a hint about the faithful from over the channel trying to make contact with him while he was in France.
“What I knew when I went there is that he was going one morning on the Sunday he was going to the chapel of London where there is fifteen faithful. All these faithful are aware of this situation.
Only 15..?!? Why might that be? These were the small number of faithful who shut their eyes to the situation through misplaced loyalty to Bishop Williamson. But there were even more faithful who did not shut their eyes and who would no longer go to Fr. Abraham's Mass. He didn't see them, even though he knew they existed and he didn't even try to make contact with any of them while he was there. Notice he makes no mention of that. It's as though they just didn't exist.

Also, notice how he tries to draw a false equivalence between Fr. Morgan allowing Fr. Abraham to live at the priory and Bishop Williamson promoting him:

but as I tell you that Bishop Fellay and Fr. Morgan and all the priests knew this situation and Fr. Abraham was in the house of the district in England for years. For years.
...as though that is exactly the same thing. But then someone else in the audience points out:
I think the distinction is that when he was at the Society’s house in London, he was not given any public ministry, whereas Bishop Williamson sent him to Ireland to offer Masses for Resistance chapels and they were not warned or anything.
...to which Bishop Faure cannot offer any kind of a credible answer. Instead he keeps repeating this idea:

If there is any danger, as I told you, anybody could be in danger about this situation, it must be avoided. That is what I think, and I think that is what the Church has done before...
...which just isn't what the Church says. Take a look back at what we provided from Canon law and other sources. Nowhere do you see any talk of how big a risk there is, which is always going to be a subjective judgement anyway. What the Church says is very simple. There's no room in the priesthood for homos. And if any of that kind of miaconduct involves a minor, absolute zero tolerance. And if a bishop tolerates it, the punishment for him should be even worse. This line of "It's OK as long as we (subjectively) feel that there's no more risk" is pure fluff and bunkum.

His other arguments are equally nonsenscal.

"But Bishop Williamson would be without a cook!"
Why is that even a consideration? And why does being Bishop Williamson's cook necessarily mean ministering in public, saying Mass, hearing confessions, etc.?
"These priests have to save their soul too, you know!"
Can't they save it in seclusion, as a hermit or in a monastery, praying and doing penance away from the public eye?

"It was easier before, he could have been a chaplain to some sisters..."
So you couldn't have sent him to Avrillé? Or to the monastery of Dom Tomas Aquinas...?

Not an honest set of answers.
 

TheRecusant.com

Well-Known Member
And as for his defence of Bishop Williamson's new teaching about the New Mass - is that any more honest?

But on the other hand, sometimes we can say: but God has forsaken, abandoned all the Catholics, because 99% of the Catholics or 98% of the Catholics in the world have never heard about [Arch] Bishop Lefebvre or Tradition and so we can think that many of them know some priest that probably have, well, in any case, can give some valid sacraments, as the sacrament of Penance, the Confession. And we can think that these people may receive by this sacrament of Penance, the grace of God. That is what means Bishop Williamson.
Is that really what Bishop Williamson has been trying to say about the Novus Ordo...?!?

How can anyone trust a bishop who is prepared to be so misleading and dishonest just to defend his boss...? It is crystal clear: for Bishop Faure, saving Bishop Williamson's blushes is far more important than confirming and strengthening the faithful in the fight for the faith.
 

Admin

Administrator
Notice how Bishop Faure in his replies on 2nd Dec. 2015 in St. Mary's Ks is being less than honest.

He gives the impression of not really knowing a lot about the current situation with Fr. Abraham, and not a hint about the faithful from over the channel trying to make contact with him while he was in France.

Only 15..?!? Why might that be? These were the small number of faithful who shut their eyes to the situation through misplaced loyalty to Bishop Williamson. But there were even more faithful who did not shut their eyes and who would no longer go to Fr. Abraham's Mass. He didn't see them, even though he knew they existed and he didn't even try to make contact with any of them while he was there. Notice he makes no mention of that. It's as though they just didn't exist.

Also, notice how he tries to draw a false equivalence between Fr. Morgan allowing Fr. Abraham to live at the priory and Bishop Williamson promoting him:


...as though that is exactly the same thing. But then someone else in the audience points out:

...to which Bishop Faure cannot offer any kind of a credible answer. Instead he keeps repeating this idea:


...which just isn't what the Church says. Take a look back at what we provided from Canon law and other sources. Nowhere do you see any talk of how big a risk there is, which is always going to be a subjective judgement anyway. What the Church says is very simple. There's no room in the priesthood for homos. And if any of that kind of miaconduct involves a minor, absolute zero tolerance. And if a bishop tolerates it, the punishment for him should be even worse. This line of "It's OK as long as we (subjectively) feel that there's no more risk" is pure fluff and bunkum.

His other arguments are equally nonsensical.

"But Bishop Williamson would be without a cook!"
Why is that even a consideration? And why does being Bishop Williamson's cook necessarily mean ministering in public, saying Mass, hearing confessions, etc.?
"These priests have to save their soul too, you know!"
Can't they save it in seclusion, as a hermit or in a monastery, praying and doing penance away from the public eye?

"It was easier before, he could have been a chaplain to some sisters..."
So you couldn't have sent him to Avrillé? Or to the monastery of Dom Tomas Aquinas...?

Not an honest set of answers.
Who ever heard that a Bishop's opinions on matters of faith is what the faithful must take on trust?
He keeps saying what he thinks! Following in his mentor, B. Williamson's footprints, he gives opinions right left and centre about the faith. Dogma is reduced to being re-interpreted according to one's flavour of the month.

How dangerous it is for the laity to follow these modernists just because they are Bishops!

..
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
And the pot thickens.

A new internal INTERVIEW WITH MONS. FAURE ON THE FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF SAJM was released yesterday providing a little update, a little hypocrisy, and colored marketing.

Apt to the anniversary, the digestion that Bishop Faure wants us to believe his SAJM is the SAME "perfect orthodoxy and a clearly anti-liberal formation" in continuation with Archbishop Lefebvre is so false when he openly and publicly built his foundation, with the other two "resistance" bishops and the Avrille Dominicans, professing and defending all of Bishop Williamson's errors, including non una cum on their altars, while accepting BW's BRN Associates money for his consecration and apostolate.

Addressing the statues of SAJM, Bishop Faure said he added an adjustment to "protect" themselves from modernist rome:

"...the [SAJM] Society rules out any possibility of canonical regularization by means of a bilateral agreement, unilateral recognition, or in any way, as long as the Catholic Hierarchy does not return to the Tradition of the Church " (Chapter II, no. 5).​

Certainly doesn't mean much. What is on paper is on paper. We know Bishop Fellay sapped the conciliar branch over the Eternal branch in doctrine and philosophy emptying out the old to fill with novelties of the new WITHOUT being [officially] inside the machine not having a canonical regularization. So what is the difference really when the SAJM imports the conciliar reforms too (NOM, miracles…) through their chief bishop Bishop Williamson indulging on the modernist errors and implemented with the other SAJM bishop Bishop Zendejas? So paper is nothing without the spirit.

Another false response in his interview was his statement saying "I decided to create the Seminary Saint Louis Grignion de Montfort as soon as I was consecrated (March 19, 2015)".

But in a Dec. 1, 2015 conference, Bishop Faure stated the exact opposite:

[From the Same Conference - Bishop Faure supports Bishop Williamson’s view that Archbishop Lefebvre got it wrong, that a Society with structure, hierarchy and Superior General should be avoided and “loose independent pockets” should be the aim... (c.1:12.00 onwards)]

Question: “I think I know what is operating here, there are two principles. If I can speak frankly, I think we know exactly what Bishop Williamson has said. He wanted to establish a loose network of independent units…”

Bishop Faure: “Yes…”

Question (cont'd): “...not centralised in some headquarters following the model of the old SSPX. I think that's what this gentleman is talking about, he's wondering about that, because we've had priest in our midst who want to go back to the old model of the SSPX with a central headquarters and a seminary and centralised everything. That is not the vision of Bishop Williamson and I don't think it's your vision. I don't meant to speak for you, your excellency, but I think I'm reflecting accurately what the Bishop has said and what he wants to accomplish. I don't think this gentleman agrees with that particularly, I think that's why he’s questioning you. I want to get this open, I don't like this kind of conversation, let's get it out.”

Bishop Faure: “It is dangerous to have - we have the example of the Society. It is dangerous in our time to have something very centralised. You have the example of Bishop Fellay and the Society.”

Questioner: “I will follow Bishop Williamson because I think he has the correct model and I think you also represent the correct model. He says: I’ve been there and I’ve done that. And I’ve talked to him personally about this.”

Bishop Faure: “Yes, yes. Good. [smiles & laughs] There are two ways.”

Another Questioner: “...(unclear)...as long as you don't go back to Rome we're all fine.”

Bishop Faure: “Sure. But it is true that Bishop Williamson is realistic too. And it is evident that we have good priests now who went out of the Society because they could not more support this treason, but as I said, they are strong characters, and we cannot think about to organise hierarchically these priests, it is impossible. We are friends but we shall not enter in structure like the Society. It is absolutely impossible, impossible. That is the reality. But these priests help many groups, in France and many parts, no?”​

Does that end the striking opposites? No. Within this new internal interview, Bishop Faure was asked:

Monsignor, when and under what circumstances was the new congregation founded?

Bp. Faure:
"A year ago exactly (Aug. 22, 2016), at the feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, after several priests and seminarians expressed the need to have a superior and rules and rules of common life."

Adding also:

"I would like to emphasize that our congregation was founded not by chance."

So again, which is it?

Neither! It was built on politics shown here, "Resistant" Bishops Create New Congregation for Political Reasons

Yet none of it matters, as Bishop Faure ends his interview by marketing he/they "...assures the continuation of the work of Monsignor Lefebvre with the greatest fidelity to the guidelines that the Archbishop bequeathed us, without turning aside to the right or to the left." "Our hope is only in Them. God wants our little congregation to remain faithful and always humble, without great expectations."

There is the crux – “Without great expectation”.

Such fulfills the four "resistance" Bishop's vision for an independent spirit regardless what house the SAJM dwells in -- it is only on paper.

Not convinced? Here are some quotes all four "resistance" bishops support and defend:

"...And so I don't think we need to be too concerned to bring souls towards us because people just don't understand today. They don't have ears to hear." (Bishop Williamson, Banquet speech after consecrating Bishop Zendejas, May 12, 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hetZgRGZafA ).

"This dog won't hunt." (Bishop Williamson, Banquet speech after consecrating Bishop Zendejas, May 12, 2017).

"...many a clear-sighted Catholic can already be preferring to keep silent rather than attempt to argue or to teach. A mass of modern minds are so incapable any longer of thinking or reasoning that any attempt to dispel their errors can seem to risk only increasing their confusion." (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments, #513)

"[Myself], the other bishops, and the new bishop Zendejas "has no ambition either to save or to convert either the Newchurch or the Newsociety." (Eleison Comments, #514)





 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top