Cor Mariae joins the False Resistance
Jun 19, 2020 14:59:17 GMT
Post by Admin on Jun 19, 2020 14:59:17 GMT
Dear friends,
It is with great sadness that we report that the Cor Mariae forum has joined the False Resistance.
In a recent post, entitled Reflecting on Obligations, the Admin of that forum made clear her position (hyperlinks not included):
Dear Readers,
Up to the time of this Administration's termination of our association with OLMC under Father Pfeiffer, Cor Mariae's policy was to support fully Fr. Pfeiffer and Father Hewko in their stand to refuse submission to Bishop Williamson as Superior. We pursued this policy relentlessly by seeking out quotes/lectures made by Bishop Williamson that confused many of us, and which cast doubts on the Sacrilegious nature of the Novus Ordae Missae and the placed-on-the-index Maria Val Torta's Poem of the Man God - to name a couple.
Whilst these things still concern us this Administration repents of the influence we may have had on any readers/members to go along with our support for OLMC's principled stand to refuse submission to Bishop Williamson. Through the charity of a visiting resistance priest to our shores [This was Fr. Pio Suneel - The Catacombs] we were shown that it is Church law that every priest needs a Bishop otherwise he is a vagus priest; that priests can/do have differences within themselves - even with their Bishop, and that that is nothing new in the history of the Church. During pre-Vat.II years the faithful were blissfully ignorant of such things because, at least publicly, priests all said exactly the same thing whichever parish you went to worldwide! It would never have occurred to anyone that the priests did not believe what they said/taught. The parents did not argue in front of the children. In that sense Vat.II was a good thing because it spewed forth this undercrrent revealing that many priests do not even have the faith.
I believe at least that unless OLMC priests were made fully aware of the research we had done on Cor Mariae at that time they may not have taken the public stand Fr. Hewko eventally did against B. Williamson, and which he maintains even more fervently to this day. It is my hope that my confession will help persuade him to remove that which keeps him separated from working in harmony with the loose federation of priests headed by Bishop Williamson. He needs a Bishop in order to obviate the danger of being head of a sect as is Fr. Pfeiffer who also refuses to accept a Bishop.
Furthermore, I regret any influence this Administration may have had on OLSC Melbourne faithful resulting in our combined opposition to Bishop Williamson, and what I consider to be at least MY self-righteous judgment against the priests who needed him as their Bishop. I repeat that priests can have differences within themselves and even with their Bishop, but that is nothing new in the history of the Church.
The loose federation of priests served by Bishop Williamson such as:
Frs. MacDonald, Chazel, Suneel (Australia)
Fr. Ortiz et al of the SAJM association, (USA)
Dominicans of Avrille (France)
are all composed of priests-
who are ordained in the old right;
who refuse to say sacreligious Novus Ordo MIssae (NO Masses)
who refuse to say the Indult Mass
who refuse to work with the priestly fraternities of the neo-SSPX and the FSSP
who courageously preach against the heresies of Vat.II and the abomination that is the Conciliar counterfeit anti-Catholic Newchurch.
Internal disagreements/objections to the private opinions of individual priests and Bishop Williamson himself within the loose federation are normal. However, like uncut diamonds the rough edges tend to rub off as they unflinchingly remain faithful to their vow against modernism and serve us The Faithful and confused flock.
As a lowly member of the laity/pewsitter I speak as one of the sheep. Priests alone have been given the commission to teach.
It is my intention from now on to attend Masses offered ONLY by the aforesaid loose federation of priests where possible for me to attend. The only exception for me personally to cease attending is that if any priest/Bishop endeavours to impose on me his personal opinions regarding doctrine/NewMass/conciliar newchurch/sedevacantism/sede-whatever variations etc. etc.
When a priest speaks with the voice of the Shepherd the sheep hear his voice.
May God bless and keep each and every one of them. Amen
Kathleen Donelly
Up to the time of this Administration's termination of our association with OLMC under Father Pfeiffer, Cor Mariae's policy was to support fully Fr. Pfeiffer and Father Hewko in their stand to refuse submission to Bishop Williamson as Superior. We pursued this policy relentlessly by seeking out quotes/lectures made by Bishop Williamson that confused many of us, and which cast doubts on the Sacrilegious nature of the Novus Ordae Missae and the placed-on-the-index Maria Val Torta's Poem of the Man God - to name a couple.
Whilst these things still concern us this Administration repents of the influence we may have had on any readers/members to go along with our support for OLMC's principled stand to refuse submission to Bishop Williamson. Through the charity of a visiting resistance priest to our shores [This was Fr. Pio Suneel - The Catacombs] we were shown that it is Church law that every priest needs a Bishop otherwise he is a vagus priest; that priests can/do have differences within themselves - even with their Bishop, and that that is nothing new in the history of the Church. During pre-Vat.II years the faithful were blissfully ignorant of such things because, at least publicly, priests all said exactly the same thing whichever parish you went to worldwide! It would never have occurred to anyone that the priests did not believe what they said/taught. The parents did not argue in front of the children. In that sense Vat.II was a good thing because it spewed forth this undercrrent revealing that many priests do not even have the faith.
I believe at least that unless OLMC priests were made fully aware of the research we had done on Cor Mariae at that time they may not have taken the public stand Fr. Hewko eventally did against B. Williamson, and which he maintains even more fervently to this day. It is my hope that my confession will help persuade him to remove that which keeps him separated from working in harmony with the loose federation of priests headed by Bishop Williamson. He needs a Bishop in order to obviate the danger of being head of a sect as is Fr. Pfeiffer who also refuses to accept a Bishop.
Furthermore, I regret any influence this Administration may have had on OLSC Melbourne faithful resulting in our combined opposition to Bishop Williamson, and what I consider to be at least MY self-righteous judgment against the priests who needed him as their Bishop. I repeat that priests can have differences within themselves and even with their Bishop, but that is nothing new in the history of the Church.
The loose federation of priests served by Bishop Williamson such as:
Frs. MacDonald, Chazel, Suneel (Australia)
Fr. Ortiz et al of the SAJM association, (USA)
Dominicans of Avrille (France)
are all composed of priests-
who are ordained in the old right;
who refuse to say sacreligious Novus Ordo MIssae (NO Masses)
who refuse to say the Indult Mass
who refuse to work with the priestly fraternities of the neo-SSPX and the FSSP
who courageously preach against the heresies of Vat.II and the abomination that is the Conciliar counterfeit anti-Catholic Newchurch.
Internal disagreements/objections to the private opinions of individual priests and Bishop Williamson himself within the loose federation are normal. However, like uncut diamonds the rough edges tend to rub off as they unflinchingly remain faithful to their vow against modernism and serve us The Faithful and confused flock.
As a lowly member of the laity/pewsitter I speak as one of the sheep. Priests alone have been given the commission to teach.
It is my intention from now on to attend Masses offered ONLY by the aforesaid loose federation of priests where possible for me to attend. The only exception for me personally to cease attending is that if any priest/Bishop endeavours to impose on me his personal opinions regarding doctrine/NewMass/conciliar newchurch/sedevacantism/sede-whatever variations etc. etc.
When a priest speaks with the voice of the Shepherd the sheep hear his voice.
May God bless and keep each and every one of them. Amen
Kathleen Donelly
* * *
Dear friends, this missive could have been written by any one of the myriad bishops, priests, or laity of the SSPX as an argument or defense of their (indefensible) position to remain within a Conciliar SSPX despite it's doctrinal errors. Indeed, we did hear this same line of thinking from them and truth be told, even earlier, when bishops, priests, and laity defended their decision to remain obedient to the pope and diocesan bishops within the Conciliar Church throughout the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's etc. to the present.
Unfortunately, Mrs. Donelly similarly elevates unconditional obedience above the Faith. If this argument was sound, none of the Resistance priests should have left the SSPX. They all should have remained under their bishops. But what happens if a bishop makes a doctrinal error(s)? What are the priests and laity supposed to do?
Why was it acceptable for the Resistance priests to leave the SSPX in the wake of it's erroneous 2012 Doctrinal Declaration but those same priests are not allowed to protest and condemn Bp. Williamson's errors? By what yardstick are we measuring our decisions and our actions? It should be by the Faith, pure and unadulterated. Not according to personalities.
What have the good Catholics of centuries past done in similar circumstances, when their bishops and priests preached erroneous doctrine? They have simply not obeyed such bishops. They did not "submit". Recall the Arian bishops - they were not obeyed or submitted to by good Catholic priests or laity. Think of the Catholics during the English Reformation, when the only bishop to protest the errors of Henry VIII was St. John Fisher and he was martyred for it. Where were all the other English bishops of that time? They too were disobeyed by good Catholics. Should the faithful Catholic priests remained "in submission" to erroneous bishops when they allowed or preached or promoted a heresy? Of course not. Where would we be if Archbishop Lefebvre had obeyed and submitted to his local bishop? Where would we be if the Archbishop remained "in submission" to the popes of his day with respect to doctrinal errors?
Perhaps a little refresher on some of the errors of Bp. Williamson (in his exact words) compiled by The Recusant a few years ago would be helpful:
· The new religion can build your Faith. (1)
· Attending the New Mass can build your Faith. (2)
· Do whatever you think you need to do to keep the Faith, which can include attending the Novus Ordo Mass. (3)
· If you attend the Novus Ordo Mass you have to be careful, but you can find the grace of God there and sanctify your soul. (4)
· Not everyone needs to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass. (5)
· Attending the Novus Ordo may do more good than harm spiritually. (6)
· Not every priest needs to leave the conciliar church or stop saying the Novus Ordo Mass. (7)
· The Novus Ordo Mass does not always undermine the Faith, though frequently it does. (8)
· The problem with the Novus Ordo Mass is that it is ambiguous. It can be made to favour the new religion, but does not have to, it can also be done in line with the old religion. (9)
· The problem with Vatican II is that it is ambiguous. (10)
· By distancing yourself from the conciliar church, you are putting yourself in danger and risk becoming a Pharisee who is disconnected from reality. (11)
· We must accept the supposed ‘Eucharistic miracles’ of the Novus Ordo Mass as genuine. (12)
· The Eucharistic miracles of the Novus Ordo Mass have lessons for Traditional Catholics, one of which is that the Novus Ordo Mass doesn’t always have to be avoided. (13)
· The Novus Ordo Mass is not as good as the Traditional Mass, but it is still better than nothing. (14)
· Attending the New Mass can build your Faith. (2)
· Do whatever you think you need to do to keep the Faith, which can include attending the Novus Ordo Mass. (3)
· If you attend the Novus Ordo Mass you have to be careful, but you can find the grace of God there and sanctify your soul. (4)
· Not everyone needs to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass. (5)
· Attending the Novus Ordo may do more good than harm spiritually. (6)
· Not every priest needs to leave the conciliar church or stop saying the Novus Ordo Mass. (7)
· The Novus Ordo Mass does not always undermine the Faith, though frequently it does. (8)
· The problem with the Novus Ordo Mass is that it is ambiguous. It can be made to favour the new religion, but does not have to, it can also be done in line with the old religion. (9)
· The problem with Vatican II is that it is ambiguous. (10)
· By distancing yourself from the conciliar church, you are putting yourself in danger and risk becoming a Pharisee who is disconnected from reality. (11)
· We must accept the supposed ‘Eucharistic miracles’ of the Novus Ordo Mass as genuine. (12)
· The Eucharistic miracles of the Novus Ordo Mass have lessons for Traditional Catholics, one of which is that the Novus Ordo Mass doesn’t always have to be avoided. (13)
· The Novus Ordo Mass is not as good as the Traditional Mass, but it is still better than nothing. (14)
NB: There are many other quotes by other Fake/False Resistance clergy that show either this same line of thinking or their support of Bp. Williamson and his errors that can be found in the same article: thecatacombs.org/thread/85/fake-resistance-watch-recusant
Another point worth noting is the status of the SSPX bishops (including Bp. Williamson) as auxiliary bishops and what that means - according to canon law - for SSPX priests. Archbishop Lefebvre knew he did not have the authority to consecrate diocesan bishops. The appointment of bishop to a diocese can only come from the Pope himself. As auxiliary bishops the SSPX bishops really only have the power to ordain and confirm. They are not diocesan bishops who 'rule' a diocese and deserve obedience from those under them. It is true, priests are not supposed to be 'bishop-less' and priests should indeed attach themselves to any bishop (auxiliary or diocesan) who preaches the Catholic Faith whole and entire.
But, we are not in normal times. For a time we had the four bishops of the SSPX who professed the whole Catholic Faith. With the changes of 2012, it was obvious to the whole world, that that was no longer the case. Then in 2015, Bishop Williamson shocked the Resistance world by declaring that there is grace in the sacrilegious New Mass, among many other statements that decidedly favor the Conciliar Church, as noted above.
Similarly to how the SSPX 'handled' priests who protested against the doctrinal errors of the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, so too it quickly became painfully obvious that any priest who protested against the errors of Bishop Williamson was ostracized, ignored, and punished. In the precise words of then-Dom Tomas Aquinas to Fr. Cardozo. “Criticising Bishop Williamson has consequences” and apparently the converse is also true, loyalty to Bp. Williamson has it's rewards.
Perhaps it would do well to remind everyone too that Bp. Williamson has publicly disavowed any desire to lead the Resistance, to gather priests under him as did Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Even if all the laity want to obey me, even if all the priests want to obey me, […] can you imagine that commanding resistant priests is like trying to herd cats? Can you imagine, is it unimaginable? In which case, is it worth trying if it’s bound to fail? It may be better not to attempt than to attempt and fail…” Bp. Williamson, Post Falls, ID (USA), 1st June, 2014
In opposition to the clear directions of Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi, that one of the best ways to combat Modernism is by the formation of good priests who were well-educated on the Modernist errors and could fight against them, Bp. Williamson publicly wrote in his ‘Eleison Comments’ #278:
“It is not clear that the present need is to rebuild a classic Congregation or Seminary. Both may be somehow out-dated. … But God is God, and for the salvation of souls tomorrow it may be that he will no longer resort to the classical Congregation or seminary of yesterday.”
Mrs. Donelly is hopeful that Fr. Hewko (and other Resistance priests) will place himself under Bp Williamson so he can be in "harmony" with all these Fake Resistance priests. But is there true harmony where there are errors against the Faith? Are we seeking harmony or the glory of God? What does it really mean to 'fight for our faith?'
But let us not forget too that all the True Resistance priests happily remained under their SSPX bishops for nearly two decades. They only left when the SSPX changed course doctrinally. Recall too that these priests (Frs. Hewko, Ruiz, etc.) all placed themselves immediately under Bp. Williamson in the aftermath of the SSPX's Doctrinal Declaration and remained under him until 2015 until Bp. Williamson started preaching error on the New Mass. My point is that these priests are not seeking to be independent. For decades, they have 'submitted' to the SSPX bishops as long as there was no doctrinal error. Has not Fr. Hewko repeatedly publicly for several years now that if any one bishop can be found who professes the Catholic Faith whole and entire, he will willingly and happily place himself under him?
We know 'independent priests' are an anomaly created in the aftermath of Vatican II, where many priests refused to follow the changes and were thus rejected by their diocesan bishop or left because "submission' to the doctrinal errors was required for them to stay and keep that roof over their heads. A precious few examples are Fr. Bolduc, who left the SSPX, Fr. Gommar de Pauw, Fr. Roger Calmel, all excellent priests who functioned 'independently' and no one questioned their status, intention, or love for the Faith. None of the SSPX bishops or priests said not to attend their Masses because they were 'bishop-less.'
Sadly, dear friends, Mrs. Donelly's statement ignores the moral errors of Bp. Williamson in keeping Fr. Abraham with him, having him publicly lead processions, hear confessions, public Masses, etc. Where is the outrage from the 'loose federation of priests' that this priest was taken out of the isolation he was placed in by Bp. Fellay to be once again among the laity? Which group displays the more 'cult-like' mentality? The True or the Fake Resistance? Which will punish, ostracize, etc. if you don't approve of every action of it's leader? Which group remains silent in the face of error - moral or doctrinal? Let us be honest at least with ourselves, dear friends.
A few final thoughts...
From the 1996 SiSiNoNo article entitled, To Apostasy by way of "Obedience":
And also, from the 1982 Angelus article, The Church in Crisis:
Dear friends, let us remain humbly united in prayer. But for the grace of God, we all would fall into the darkness of error. Those much better than ourselves and of much higher rank (priests and bishops) have done so many times throughout the centuries. May we all cling to Our Lady, the Crusher of Heresies, that She quickly crush the head of the Serpent who so torments Her Son's Holy Church!
We repeat to these destructive clerics the words of St. Edmund Campion, martyr of the Anglican schism:
The current ordeal is one of extreme severity because "the masterstroke of Satan," as Archbishop Lefebvre has called it, has placed the authority of popes at the service of neo-Modernism, and therefore the deception is much more grave and widespread. Nevertheless, the problem is not insurmountable. It is sufficient to recall that in the conflict between Faith and authority the Faith will prevail because authority is at the service of the Faith and not the contrary. thecatacombs.org/thread/931/apostasy-obedience
"In condemning us, you condemn the Church of all times. For what is there that She believed and taught that we also do not believe?"
And also, from the 1982 Angelus article, The Church in Crisis:
Cardinal Newman wrote:
Cardinal Newman was willing to be accounted intemperate and extreme in his own generation because the motivating force of his entire life was what he termed "the dogmatical principle" which he describes thus:
"He that would be saved must thus think, and not otherwise." This is what the dogmatical principle is about. It is an awesome matter, the one which must preoccupy us more than anything else in life, because our eternal destiny depends upon it. It is, briefly, a question of heaven and hell. The dogmatical principles concerned Newman so deeply because his whole life was centered upon the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The fervour of his love for the Son of God shines through every page of his writing; and because Newman loved and cared for Our Lord he loved and cared for the truth. Jesus Himself told us that He had come into the world to bear testimony to the truth. "Art thou a king then?" asked Pilate. Jesus answered: "Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony of the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice" (John, 18:37).
Every Catholic has a duty to uphold the truth; each one of us must thus think, and not otherwise, if we wish to be saved. But there are men in the Church who have a particular and solemn obligation to uphold and defend the truth in public—these men are known as bishops. St. Paul wrote to his beloved disciple Timothy, who had become Bishop of Ephesus, and warned him of his responsibilities toward the truth. This admonition has never been improved upon as a summary of the duties of a bishop—it could not be:
thecatacombs.org/thread/1791/church-crisis-catholic-uphold-truth
"It would seem to be certain that those opinions which are popular will ever be mistaken and dangerous as being popular opinions. Those who serve God faithfully must ever look to be accounted, in their generation, singular, intemperate, extreme. They are not so..."
That there is truth then; that there is one truth; that religious error is in itself of an immoral nature; that its maintainers, unless involuntarily such, are guilty in maintaining it; that it is to be dreaded; that truth and falsehood are set before us for the trial of our hearts; that our choice is an awful giving forth of lots on which salvation or rejection is inscribed; that "before all things it is necessary to hold the Catholic faith," that "he that would be saved must thus think" and not otherwise. (Newman Against the Liberals, p. 21).
Every Catholic has a duty to uphold the truth; each one of us must thus think, and not otherwise, if we wish to be saved. But there are men in the Church who have a particular and solemn obligation to uphold and defend the truth in public—these men are known as bishops. St. Paul wrote to his beloved disciple Timothy, who had become Bishop of Ephesus, and warned him of his responsibilities toward the truth. This admonition has never been improved upon as a summary of the duties of a bishop—it could not be:
I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by His coming and His kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned into fables. But be thou vigilant: labour in all things: do the work of an evangelist: fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (II Timothy, 4:1-5).
Dear friends, let us remain humbly united in prayer. But for the grace of God, we all would fall into the darkness of error. Those much better than ourselves and of much higher rank (priests and bishops) have done so many times throughout the centuries. May we all cling to Our Lady, the Crusher of Heresies, that She quickly crush the head of the Serpent who so torments Her Son's Holy Church!
* * *
A few other threads that may be of interest on this topic:
- Originally posted on the Cor Mariae website, 2017: Where is the False Resistance now?