It is currently Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:48 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ] 
 Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics” 
Author Message

Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:44 am
Posts: 34
New post Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Some sedevacacantists who attended an SSPX chapel down under were recently involved in sponsoring a lecture by a sede speaker.

The SSPX priest in charge of the chapel informed them that they would be refused communion, and they wrote to ask for an explanation as to the reason.

Their letter to the priest and Fr. Laisney’s reply are below.

-------------------------------------------

From: B_______ X_________
To: Father Jackson; Father Frank Kurtz; Fr Andrew Cranshaw
Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2008 6:21 p.m.
Subject: Excommunication

Dear Father,

It has been relayed to us that Fr Laisney has stated that if we present ourselves to the communion rail, we will be by-passed by all of the priests.

Obviously this is reserved for those faithful who have committed a public mortal sin.

• Please inform us of the public mortal sin we (i.e. P____, B______ and M______ X__________) have committed?

• Which commandment did we break?

• Please inform us of the Penance we are required to do in order for us to be re-admitted to the communion rail.

Thank you,

P____, B______ and M______ X__________



From: flaisney@sspx.com
To: 
P____, B______ and M______ X__________
Subject: RE: Excommunication
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:25:30 +1200


Dear 
P____, B______ and M______ X__________,

There are several mortal sins that have been committed:

1/ fundamentally, a sin of schism, “to refuse to be subject to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to refuse to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him” (St. Thomas Aquinas). Now, whether you like it or not, the Pope today is Pope Benedict XVI, to whom you do refuse to be subject. Therefore…

2/ the sin of public scandal, (several times) for each of the public ads put in the paper, gravely opposed to the honour due to the Church, the Spouse of Christ, for whom He shed His most Precious Blood.

3/ There is also, at the root of all this, a huge sin of pride, by which you took upon yourself to judge that which is much above yourself, that which belongs to Our Lord Himself alone (viz. to judge the Sovereign Pontiff: Our Lord Jesus Christ alone has that power, since all other men on earth are to be subject to the Sovereign Pontiff, none is allowed to sit in judgement of him: “the First See is judged by no one.” And you can’t claim that “because he is not Pope I can judge him”: this is a petition of principle (=begging the point), it presupposes the conclusion of your judgement.)

The first sin is opposed to the First Commandment, since it is directly opposed to Charity (see St. Thomas, IIa IIae qu.39 a.1)

The second sins are opposed to the fourth and fifth commandment, since by the fourth we are commanded to honour, not only our earthly parents, but also all those who have received legitimate authority, above all in the Church (since supernatural authority is much above natural authority), and the fifth commandment by which we are forbidden to be a scandal to others.

When one commits a sin, one ought to make reparation for that sin proportionate to the sin.

Since public scandal has been given, you ought to put a public notice in the same places where you put your ads, of the same size, making reparation for what has been done. Please contact the four priests here to make sure that the reparation be fitting to the offence first.

We pray for your conversion, since submission to the Sovereign Pontiff is necessary for salvation.

Yours sincerely in Jesus and Mary,

Father François Laisney


Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:54 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Obviously, Father François Laisney sincerely believes himself to have jurisdiction.

He does not.

Furthermore, he is no theologian.

Acts such as these are some of the reasons I will have as little to do with the SSPX/SSPV/Etc. as I possibly can.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:52 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:19 am
Posts: 12
Location: Bloomington / Evansville, IN
New post Re: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
This letter has me fuming. Here he is talking about subjection to Ratzinger being necessary for salvation, yet in what meaningful way does he submit to the heresiarch?

There are [brief] moments when I understand why Bishop Sanborn wants us to avoid the SSPX like the plague.

(Edited to Add:) It seems that Fr. François Laisney was the same priest who according to Fr. Cekada required 10 year olds to sign an idiotic letter condemning the Nine before they could be confirmed (if the child had attended mass offered by an ex-SSPX priest). I suppose the above letter shouldn't come as a surprise considering who wrote it.


Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:02 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Dear Sacerdos,

Thank you for posting this. Although it is unpleasant to read this, I would rather know the sad truth about the deteriorating situation among traditional priests than to be ignorant of it. I hope that these laypeople who were unjustly denied Holy Communion appealed this to the District Superior, and if relief is not found there, to the Superior General.

One can wonder if the new "law" among Catholics will be: "In matters not settled by the Church, i.e. disputed matters, individual priests who have no mission from the Church can bind laypeople to their conclusions, and if the laypeople disagree, they become public sinners, and will be denied the sacraments."

I think all of us need to re-double our efforts and pray more, especially the Rosary, for Our Lord to send us a pope to bring order to this madness.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:18 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Can anyone here provide me with Fr. Laisney's mailing address?

I have, so far, been unable to find it on-line.

I wish to write him a letter to ask him several questions which are important, at least, to me.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
According to the above message, his email address appears to be: flaisney@sspx.com

If you want to correspond with him via hard copy post, you could probably email him and ask for a mailing address. Interesting that he is not featured on the SSPX-Australia District website.


Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:25 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: SSPX: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
This is a New Zealand issue. Here is a newspaper report highlighting the upcoming visit of Gerry Matatics to Wanganui. I presume the adverts appeared in the same paper.
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/Wanganui%20Chronicle%2011%20July%2008.pdf

The details of the local SSPX mission are here:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Countries/New_Zealand/index.htm

Campion House, 88 Alma Road, Wanganui
Mailing address: P.O Box 7123, Wanganui
Tel: (64) (6) 344 76 34 or Fax (64) (6) 344 20 87

I suggest that polite, well-reasoned, letters highlighting the intemperate nature of this reaction and its potential to give scandal be sent to the District Superior, Fr. Daniel Couture, by one of the following means:

St. Pius X Priory
112A Killiney Road
Singapore 239551

Tel: [65]6235-3660 or [65]6235-5320
Fax : [65]6836-1883

asia@sspxasia.com

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:21 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post Re: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Mike wrote:

Thank you for posting this. Although it is unpleasant to read this, I would rather know the sad truth about the deteriorating situation among traditional priests than to be ignorant of it.


I agree.

Quote:
I hope that these laypeople who were unjustly denied Holy Communion appealed this to the District Duperior, and if relief is not found there, to the Superior General.


I hope so too.

Quote:
One can wonder if the new "law" among Catholics will be: "In matters not settled by the Church, i.e. disputed matters, individual priests who have no mission from the Church can bind laypeople to their conclusions, and if the laypeople disagree, they become public sinners, and will be denied the sacraments."


Well, this new "law" does seem to be gaining momentum in the Traditional world. And although it has no right to be enforced, it is still capable of causing untold damage to the Church.

Quote:
I think all of us need to re-double our efforts and pray more, especially the Rosary, for Our Lord to send us a pope to bring order to this madness.


That seems to be the only solution. For how long can we - the ordinary lay man - survive this chaos?

AMW


Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:10 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
John Lane wrote:
This is a New Zealand issue. Here is a newspaper report highlighting the upcoming visit of Gerry Matatics to Wanganui. I presume the adverts appeared in the same paper.
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/Wanganui%20Chronicle%2011%20July%2008.pdf

The details of the local SSPX mission are here:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Countries/New_Zealand/index.htm

Campion House, 88 Alma Road, Wanganui
Mailing address: P.O Box 7123, Wanganui
Tel: (64) (6) 344 76 34 or Fax (64) (6) 344 20 87

I suggest that polite, well-reasoned, letters highlighting the intemperate nature of this reaction and its potential to give scandal be sent to the District Superior, Fr. Daniel Couture, by one of the following means:

St. Pius X Priory
112A Killiney Road
Singapore 239551

Tel: [65]6235-3660 or [65]6235-5320
Fax : [65]6836-1883

asia@sspxasia.com

Ah! Fr. Couture. I wonder if he is the same Fr. Couture who gave my Wife and me a beautiful statue of St. Jude, and who used to be the local pastor at Immaculate Conception (SSPX) in Post Falls, Idaho some time ago.

Before I write my letter, I will ask Our Lady, my Guardian Angel, and the Holy Ghost to help me do a proper job.

This situation is absolutely appalling.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:45 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
OK, here's the course of events. As you read through it, imagine some sedeplenist guest at St. Gertrude's or Mount St. Michael's arranging for a sedeplenist speaker to hold a public meeting nearby in which he will "prove" that Benedict is really pope, promoting this address at the sedevacantist chapel, and suggesting artfully that the sedevacantist clergy were involved in the event, etc. In other words, put yourselves in Fr. Jackson's and Fr. Laisney's shoes as you read the attached files. I am not defending the reaction, but I think it was entirely prediuctable, especially since these people know Fr. Laisney and how excitable he is.

One of the adverts: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/Display_advertisement_-_Wanganui_Chronicle.pdf (Grossly misleading, obviously, as well as highly provocative).

Other adverts: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/Ad-in_Chronicle.pdf

The reaction by Fr. Laisney: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/Disclaimer_Fr_Laisney.pdf

The further reaction from Fr. Jackson (along with an example of a non-Catholic taking scandal - "Jesus calls us to right living rather than right doctrine."!!!): http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/Disclaimer_Fr_Jackson_Chronicle%2016%20July%202008.pdf

I happen to have been to Wanganui, and it is not a very large place. Probably something like Post Falls, Idaho, Ken.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:59 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
John Lane wrote:
I am not defending the reaction, but I think it was entirely prediuctable, especially since these people know Fr. Laisney and how excitable he is.

Excitable, eh? Hmmm...that's good to know.

John Lane wrote:
One of the adverts: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/Display_advertisement_-_Wanganui_Chronicle.pdf (Grossly misleading, obviously, as well as highly provocative).

Wow! I wonder whose idea this was?!?!? That is downright dishonest! I wonder how much Gerry had to do with this? Although it looks like something an unscrupulous editor most certainly would have done, wouldn't Gerry have to, at least, "vet" it?

John Lane wrote:
The further reaction from Fr. Jackson (along with an example of a non-Catholic taking scandal - "Jesus calls us to right living rather than right doctrine."!!!): http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/Disclaimer_Fr_Jackson_Chronicle%2016%20July%202008.pdf

Typical protestant foolishness. They simply cannot, or will not, see the contradiction in their position.

John Lane wrote:
I happen to have been to Wanganui, and it is not a very large place. Probably something like Post Falls, Idaho, Ken.

Well, if such a thing had taken place in either Post Falls, or even in Spokane, it would have rocked this end of Washington and all of Northern Idaho.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:47 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
From: Phil
Sent: Monday, 21 July 2008 6:08 AM
To: John Lane
Subject: Forum


Dear John,

Firstly we would like to say "Thank you" for the forum, and most sorry to read that it is closing, though we do realise the time it must take. One door closes, another will open.

Upon reading the thread regarding the recent incident here in Wanganui, I believe you do not understand the full events, hence your rather negative assertion.

Firstly, Fr Jackson was informed about this pending visit of Gerry's, quite early in the year. When this visit was confirmed, Fr Jackson, to whom we had been having much correspondence with regarding the 'sedevacantist' position over a long period of time, was invited to debate him. The first invitation was answered in an ambiguous way, which prompted a second invitation. To which he replied that basically, he did not have the time.
I did mention to a couple of people that we believed this was a cop-out answer, and that it was because the SSPX position would not stand up to scrutiny, was the reason Fr Jackson, Fr Laisney would not debate him. This was well proved in Auckland, where a layman (who follows completely the SSPX line of reasoning) decided to debate Gerry and was absolutely completely found wanting.

So we then invited Fr Laisney. Fr Laisney completely ignored this request.
But in the parish weekly bulletin, he published a warning regarding the Gerry Matatics visit.

Upon this situation looking like the SSPX were too scared to debate Gerry, Fr Jackson published in the next weekly parish bulletin 5 reasons why he declined to debate Gerry Matatics, as per attached document. These reasons were silly as per attached critique. [Please do not publish the person's name who did the critique]

When the flyers were printed, the first people we handed them to were the 4 priests at St Anthony's. We did not get any response from them. We also published it three times in the newspaper and mid-week paper. There is nothing in the flyer or advertisements that is incorrect, or to which people ought not be informed. The priests could not indicate to which part of these flyers was incorrect. The said nothing to us, except the disclaimer in the paper. Why did they not phone or write to us? We did nothing in a scurrilous or occult way.

On Pentecost Sunday, Fr Jackson delivered a sermon against "Sedevacantism". We were away on holiday at the time (this was known to Fr jackson, hence he chose Pentecost Sunday to deliver this sermon). As we were interested to know what he said, I got a tape recording of this sermon. [All sermons are recorded]. I passed it on to our friend in Wellington who is the co-ordinator of Gerry's visit for NZ and the spokesman of Catholic Action. When Fr Jackson declined to debate Gerry, it was his idea to have Gerry comment on the sermon. The advertisement was honest, as a sermon is a public teaching of the faith, and must be open to criticism. If there was nothing wrong with the sermon, Fr Jackson had nothing to worry about. If Gerry was going to say something wrong, Fr Jackson had every opportunity to defend himself and the truth , as he saw it. No one is above reproach, and Fr Jackson should have defended his sermon. Fr Jackson, actually was in the car park observing who came to the meeting. He even came in to the venue at about 4.30. He observed, and them took two photos of everyone who was there, and then left. So he had no reason not to defend the truth, if that is what he said in his sermon, and in fact he had a duty to defend it.

So this advertisement was not provoking at all, it was trying to make these priests have a truly honest and unbiased look at the sedevacantist scenario.

Hope this helps and gives a fuller picture of the events.

God Bless
Phil

Attachments:

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/Gerry ... nganui.pdf
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/Fr_Ja ... _Gerry.pdf


Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:13 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
I find Fr. Jackson's reasons for not debating Gerry less than forthright or candid.

Furthermore, this quotation from Fr. Jackson's "reply" is particulary irritating to me:

Fr. Jackson wrote:
They would be better served by trustfully receiving this instruction from their Pastor.


If we Traditionalist Catholics had "...trustfully receiv(ed) instructions from (our) Pastor(s)", we would all still be in the Concilliar Church, and that man, a tailor, I think, who stood up in Church, during Mass, and accused Nestorius of heresy would be treated as a traitor instead of a holy man.

To me this statement by Fr. Jackson is arrogant, unethical, unhistorical, and less than honest.

Yet, as I understand it, such an attitude, the attitude that the laity are nothing but ignorant sheep who must be treated as such by their "pastors", is ingrained in the "graduates" of Econe.

This is primarily a "French" attitude, and, in my opinion, simply stinks.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:40 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Dear Ken,

When Fr. Cekada or Bishop Sanborn agrees to correspond with me, or debate me, on the points upon which we differ, I will reconsider your view. But until then I disagree with you.

I think the attitude of all three priests (Cekada, Sanborn, and Jackson) is evidence of a pastoral concern coupled either with a sense of danger or with a genuine charitable contempt for the challenger. I have no problem with it. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:29 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:54 am
Posts: 68
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
I do not understand how Phil manages to state that "Upon this situation looking like the SSPX is too scared to debate Gerry".

No offense to Mr.Matatics, but I am willing to bet the farm that Fr. Laisnay is not "the SSPX", and that the within the Society there are clergy who could wipe the floor with him.

And then Phil asks for the person who wrote a critique to remain anonomous. Who is scared of whom?

I am very tired of this type of generalisation. One or five SSPX priests do not even begin to constitute the SSPX.

It is so similar to the disordered ultra left-wing activism I grew up with I can scarcely beieve it. The same Saul Alinsky methods unconsciously utilised by good people trying to save the world.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:45 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Yes, well the other factor is that both Gerry and the person who wrote the critique (which I have not attached) hold to the "anti-una-cum" position of Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada, so they would regard this outcome as an excellent one. Families get refused sacraments that they ought not to be receiving anyway, and the SSPX gets painted black. Which part of this is bad?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:29 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
John Lane wrote:
Yes, well the other factor is that both Gerry and the person who wrote the critique (which I have not attached) hold to the "anti-una-cum" position of Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada, so they would regard this outcome as an excellent one. Families get refused sacraments that they ought not to be receiving anyway, and the SSPX gets painted black. Which part of this is bad?


This entire episode borders on ridiculous. What did these men expect? If they did not know what the outcome would be they must be terribly naive.

Robert


Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:14 am
Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:54 am
Posts: 68
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
John, I honestly believe that until the people responible for robbing the SSPX for all those millions of dollars give it back, the temptation to "paint the SSPX black" will be overwhelming. They had to have richly deserved being robbed of the millions of dollars in fabulous real estate, cash, and frivolous lawsuits. The SSPX has to be demonised in order to rationalise.

These unfortunate events took place long before the Internet. I really think there would have been intense scrutiny as the court cases unfolded, and there would have been much more accountability.

It is entirely predictable, the bitter break-ups of the various parishes and lockings out and now kicking out parishoners and scandalising children. This is just what happens, and then there is the ever-present danger of becoming exactly what was despised in the first place.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
John Lane wrote:
Dear Ken,

When Fr. Cekada or Bishop Sanborn agrees to correspond with me, or debate me, on the points upon which we differ, I will reconsider your view. But until then I disagree with you.

I think the attitude of all three priests (Cekada, Sanborn, and Jackson) is evidence of a pastoral concern coupled either with a sense of danger or with a genuine charitable contempt for the challenger. I have no problem with it. :)

And I think you are entirely too charitible at times.

I vehemently disagree with your assessment! I would think that if/when Fr. Cekada or Bp. Sanborn agree to debate with you, **I** would reconsider MY assessment. As it is, I hold to it.

They are arrogant and dishonest.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:39 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
elizcarroll wrote:
I do not understand how Phil manages to state that "Upon this situation looking like the SSPX is too scared to debate Gerry".

No offense to Mr.Matatics, but I am willing to bet the farm that Fr. Laisnay is not "the SSPX", and that the within the Society there are clergy who could wipe the floor with him.

And then Phil asks for the person who wrote a critique to remain anonomous. Who is scared of whom?

I am very tired of this type of generalisation. One or five SSPX priests do not even begin to constitute the SSPX.

It is so similar to the disordered ultra left-wing activism I grew up with I can scarcely beieve it. The same Saul Alinsky methods unconsciously utilised by good people trying to save the world.

I completely agree.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
John Lane wrote:
Yes, well the other factor is that both Gerry and the person who wrote the critique (which I have not attached) hold to the "anti-una-cum" position of Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada, so they would regard this outcome as an excellent one. Families get refused sacraments that they ought not to be receiving anyway, and the SSPX gets painted black. Which part of this is bad?

It must be really nice to consider themselves the Pope.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:42 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
elizcarroll wrote:
John, I honestly believe that until the people responible for robbing the SSPX for all those millions of dollars give it back, the temptation to "paint the SSPX black" will be overwhelming. They had to have richly deserved being robbed of the millions of dollars in fabulous real estate, cash, and frivolous lawsuits. The SSPX has to be demonised in order to rationalise.


Look, Eliz, this has a certain ring about it, but you really don't know. You're judging motives. That isn't on. We have to believe well of others until it is impossible, so I insist that we regard the "Four" (Kelly, Cekada, Dolan, Berry) as having acted in good faith, and of still doing so today. Nor is this artificial - it is genuinely my own judgement. It isn't hard to put a good construction on the actions of others, and as soon as you do it you find that it sounds at least as plausible as the negative judgements you were inclined to make... :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:16 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
KenGordon wrote:
They are arrogant and dishonest.


No Ken, they think they're right, they think their opponents have no reasonable basis for their own opposing view, and they wish to protect their flocks. Yes, we think they could be more diffident, but... think carefully about this.... what if they are right? Our own diffidence must cause us to take that possibility seriously, and as soon as we do, we have to think that what looks like over-confidence on their part might be based upon solid grounds not perceived by us. Which takes us back to the most sound position of all, which is to think well of them, distrust ourselves, and speak freely but moderately in favour of what we believe to be true. I apologise for the sermon, but I'm closing up shop soon and I won't have the opportunity. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:21 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
KenGordon wrote:
It must be really nice to consider themselves the Pope.


Actually, I think it must be a terrifying responsibility. Console yourself with that thought. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:22 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
More data. I suspected this, but I didn't want to pre-empt the facts.

In February this year it was announced that Fr. Julian Gilchrist of the CMRI, a New Zealander, had been unable to obtain permanent residency status in the USA and it looked like he had to return to live permanently in New Zealand. He is therefore available to bring Holy Mass and the sacraments more frequently to sedevacantists in NZ and Australia.

Below is my email to Phil, in Wanganui, and above it his reply today explaining that he had this in mind when he decided to go for the jugular with Fr. Laisney and his priests on the sedevacantist position. I make no comment on any of this, except to say that it is a relief to know that this was Phil's thinking, because even though I disagree with him it is not as foolish as his actions had initially appeared.

What is certainly the case is that some sedevacantists, knowing that they had a safety net, have provoked a confontation which had predictable results. The result was actually predicted by another of this group, in an email I saw beforehand. I'm sure everybody is acting in the best faith, but it would be a travesty of justice to characterise this as "the SSPX denying sedevacantists the sacraments" as though this were SSPX policy. The contrary is the case - the SSPX always give the sacraments to sedevacantists unless the situation makes this impossible.

_____________________________________________________________________

From: Phil
Sent: Monday, 21 July 2008 9:43 AM
To: John Lane
Subject: RE: Forum

Dear John,

The below quote had us puzzled as to your meaning. The non-catholic person in question was a protestant pastor who attended Gerry's conference all the way through. So it was not the advertisements that prompted his response, hence we take exception to causing a scandal as you seem to suggest.

The further reaction from Fr. Jackson (along with an example of a non-Catholic taking scandal - "Jesus calls us to right living rather than right doctrine."!!!): http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/Discl ... 202008.pdf

As regards bringing the axe down upon our heads, yes, we of course, knew there would be reprisals to this event, but the time has come to speak. There have been bashings from the pulpit for weeks on end, and our children hear all of this. We have to teach them to stand up for the truth, no matter what the cost, and to trust in God for what we cannot change.

We have Fr Gilchrist in NZ. So all is not lost. God will provide if we but stand up for the truth and not hide our faith under a bushel, but put it up on the lamp stand. Until enough laity profess the truth and stand up to these pastors, nothing will change. The situation will prolong in a comfortable status quo rut or hard patch.'Keep your head down and say nothing' attitude will not improve the situation at all. Pressure on the pastors (along with prayers of course) has to be applied. God always requires faith before a miracle.

God Bless
Phil

_____________________________________________________________

From: John Lane
To: Phil
Subject: RE: Forum
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:22:13 +0800


Dear Phil,

Thank you again for the information.

This has partially modified my view, but mate, to be perfectly frank I think you have provoked a confrontation and it was a death-or-glory thing. You were either going to win or lose this battle, and you've lost it. More importantly, your children have lost it. Let's hope that a little time and tact can repair things sufficiently...

You're in my prayers.

Yours in the Precious Blood,
JFL.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
John Lane wrote:
What is certainly the case is that some sedevacantists, knowing that they had a safety net, have provoked a confontation which had predictable results. The result was actually predicted by another of this group, in an email I saw beforehand. I'm sure everybody is acting in the best faith, but it would be a travesty of justice to characterise this as "the SSPX denying sedevacantists the sacraments" as though this were SSPX policy. The contrary is the case - the SSPX always give the sacraments to sedevacantists unless the situation makes this impossible.


Thanks for the clarification which certainly modifies my view.

AMW


Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:12 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:43 pm
Posts: 25
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
John,

Firstly, I am sorry to hear you are closing the forums. It's been a wonder how you've managed thus far the daily workload the forums must bring together with your job and your ever increasing large family and all; you obviously have your priorities worked out and I wish you and your family many blessings. Thank you for your time and effort over the years. There have been moments of clarity your forums have brought me for which I am grateful, one particular one coming to mind which was the re-evaluation of when the Holy See became vacant (the African martyrs thread). You've also driven home the obligation we have to maintain diffidence and charity in discussion with Catholics on matters which the Church hasn't judged. If we can remember to keep this latter point in the times to come then you have done a lasting good.

As for this current thread, regarding the quotes below from Phil:

Quote:
God will provide if we but stand up for the truth and not hide our faith under a bushel, but put it up on the lamp stand.


This sounds well and good but the faith is not at issue in this debacle.
Quote:
Until enough laity profess the truth and stand up to these pastors, nothing will change. The situation will prolong in a comfortable status quo rut or hard patch.'Keep your head down and say nothing' attitude will not improve the situation at all. Pressure on the pastors (along with prayers of course) has to be applied. God always requires faith before a miracle.


Pressure on the pastors has to be applied? Since when is this how Catholics bring others around to a change of opinion? This all sounds fanatical.

This has brought to mind a tune from my days of youth, "We can be heroes, just for one day". :-)

In Xto,
Clement


Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:41 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
They are arrogant and dishonest.


No Ken, they think they're right, they think their opponents have no reasonable basis for their own opposing view, and they wish to protect their flocks. Yes, we think they could be more diffident, but... think carefully about this.... what if they are right?

They are NOT right. They are unreasonable. They are usurping powers they don't have: excommunicating those who don't agree with them. How can such actions be "...protect(ing) their flocks."? It looks more to me like they are protecting their ideas, and their flocks are way down on their list.

They are dishonest: protesting that the antipopes are usurping powers they don't have, while they do the same thing.

Of course, as I have said before, you aren't right on the sedevacantism issue either. :D

However, you ARE right on so many other things...

John Lane wrote:
Our own diffidence must cause us to take that possibility seriously, and as soon as we do, we have to think that what looks like over-confidence on their part

I don't see it as overconfidence: I see it as arrogance. THEY are "religious" who cannot lower themselves to discuss any controverted issue on a one-to-one basis with any mere layman, least of all with some self-educated jackass from the Australian outback. :D

John Lane wrote:
might be based upon solid grounds not perceived by us.

Well, at least I can agree with you on that point.

John Lane wrote:
Which takes us back to the most sound position of all, which is to think well of them, distrust ourselves, and speak freely but moderately in favour of what we believe to be true.

With all of which I can agree. Perhaps our difference here lies in our respective understanding of the word "moderately." :D

John Lane wrote:
I apologise for the sermon, but I'm closing up shop soon and I won't have the opportunity. :D

I don't perceive this as being a sermon: I see this as finally being a discussion I can get my teeth into.

Again, thanks for all the work you have put into this really lovely forum. :D

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:39 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
elizcarroll wrote:
John, I honestly believe that until the people responible for robbing the SSPX for all those millions of dollars give it back, the temptation to "paint the SSPX black" will be overwhelming. They had to have richly deserved being robbed of the millions of dollars in fabulous real estate, cash, and frivolous lawsuits. The SSPX has to be demonised in order to rationalise.

These unfortunate events took place long before the Internet. I really think there would have been intense scrutiny as the court cases unfolded, and there would have been much more accountability.

It is entirely predictable, the bitter break-ups of the various parishes and lockings out and now kicking out parishoners and scandalising children. This is just what happens, and then there is the ever-present danger of becoming exactly what was despised in the first place.


Eliz, your comments here are unfortunate. What if you are wrong? Please think about these things before you speak, and I’m not just talking about saying these things on a public forum, I am talking about your personal conversations with other Catholics. You can poison others with this type of talk and scandalize those innocent children as well.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:52 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Robert Bastaja wrote:
elizcarroll wrote:
John, I honestly believe that until the people responible for robbing the SSPX for all those millions of dollars give it back, the temptation to "paint the SSPX black" will be overwhelming. They had to have richly deserved being robbed of the millions of dollars in fabulous real estate, cash, and frivolous lawsuits. The SSPX has to be demonised in order to rationalise.

These unfortunate events took place long before the Internet. I really think there would have been intense scrutiny as the court cases unfolded, and there would have been much more accountability.

It is entirely predictable, the bitter break-ups of the various parishes and lockings out and now kicking out parishoners and scandalising children. This is just what happens, and then there is the ever-present danger of becoming exactly what was despised in the first place.


Eliz, your comments here are unfortunate. What if you are wrong?

Most unfortunately, Robert, she is not wrong. During the times these things were taking place, the actions on all sides were most scandalous. I have two very good friends, in very different parts of the U.S. who were badly hurt by what could easily be termed "frivolous" lawsuits over "Church" property.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
KenGordon wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
elizcarroll wrote:
John, I honestly believe that until the people responible for robbing the SSPX for all those millions of dollars give it back, the temptation to "paint the SSPX black" will be overwhelming. They had to have richly deserved being robbed of the millions of dollars in fabulous real estate, cash, and frivolous lawsuits. The SSPX has to be demonised in order to rationalise.

These unfortunate events took place long before the Internet. I really think there would have been intense scrutiny as the court cases unfolded, and there would have been much more accountability.

It is entirely predictable, the bitter break-ups of the various parishes and lockings out and now kicking out parishoners and scandalising children. This is just what happens, and then there is the ever-present danger of becoming exactly what was despised in the first place.


Eliz, your comments here are unfortunate. What if you are wrong?

Most unfortunately, Robert, she is not wrong. During the times these things were taking place, the actions on all sides were most scandalous. I have two very good friends, in very different parts of the U.S. who were badly hurt by what could easily be termed "frivolous" lawsuits over "Church" property.


Ken, you've entirely missed my point.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Ken, you've entirely missed my point.

Probably. We seem to do that to one another constantly, don't we? I apologize.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
KenGordon wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Ken, you've entirely missed my point.

Probably. We seem to do that to one another constantly, don't we? I apologize.


No apology necessary, Ken. You say the scandal was on all sides (to some extent, I presume). All the more reason to be very wary of repeating it (especially to those who may have not have any idea what you are talking about). Even if you are certain some things are true, that is not a valid reason to reveal them to others.

Now, I disagree that you (and especially Eliz) knows all the facts. And, as you stated not so long ago, we should be very careful not to scandalize others in any way.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:54 am
Posts: 68
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
I'm so sorry, Robert! I have never gotten the knack of computer literacy, or I would have provided a link.

Archbishop Lefebvre said these things much more clearly than I. There are tapes of the Abp.'s Conference in Ridgefield, Connecticut c. 1983, April 24-26 "Against the Sedevacantist Priests" in English. (on CD #5).

If you go to voiceofcatholicradio.com on their Audio?Cd page, you can listen to some clips. Also, Fr. Adam Portugal introduce the CDs. I will look up his mailing address in Long Island, N.Y. if you would like to protest.

There was $500,000 1983 dollars taken and placed into a Swiss account, and the Oyster Bay Cove mansion, etc.

I wish I were wrong, but I believe Abp. Lefebvre and Fr. Portugal. I may not agree with every teeny thing Fr. Portugal says, but I have every reason to believe he is telling the truth.

In the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, Eliz.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:56 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:54 am
Posts: 68
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Dear John,

Thanks for pointing out the problems I seem to have with motives. I still don't quite grasp the motive bit, but I am very willing to try to learn.

I was struggling to put forth the cause and effect aspect of the foundation of SSPV. I still am, and when I can work it out, I will delete the post and correct it. I understand that the priests believed they were perfectly right in doing what they did.

I will work on it, I promise. with love, Eliz.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:08 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
elizcarroll wrote:
I'm so sorry, Robert! I have never gotten the knack of computer literacy, or I would have provided a link.

[...]

I wish I were wrong, but I believe Abp. Lefebvre and Fr. Portugal. I may not agree with every teeny thing Fr. Portugal says, but I have every reason to believe he is telling the truth.

In the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, Eliz.


Eliz, you obviously missed my point as well.

St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, Homilies on Ephesians wrote:
But such as is good, he proceeds, for edifying, as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear.
That is to say, what edifies your neighbor, that only speak, not a word more. For to this end God gave you a mouth and a tongue, that you might give thanks to Him, that you might build up your neighbor. So that if thou destroy that building, better were it to be silent, and never to speak at all. For indeed the hands of the workmen, if instead of raising the walls, they should learn to pull them down, would justly deserve to be cut off.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:21 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Clement wrote:

This sounds well and good but the faith is not at issue in this debacle.


Precisely. This is not about the faith. And yes, it is a debacle.


AMW


Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:26 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:54 am
Posts: 68
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Re-reading the newspaper article, I am thinking that maybe the word "workshop" gave Fr. Laisney the willies. If he is old enough to remember all of the "womynChurch" workshops of days gone by, just the thought of a Workshop could get on his nerves.

Robert - I heartily endorse Fr. Faber's "On Taking Scandal" up in the Theological resources section, I found it very helpful.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
elizcarroll wrote:
Re-reading the newspaper article, I am thinking that maybe the word "workshop" gave Fr. Laisney the willies. If he is old enough to remember all of the "womynChurch" workshops of days gone by, just the thought of a Workshop could get on his nerves.

Robert - I heartily endorse Fr. Faber's "On Taking Scandal" up in the Theological resources section, I found it very helpful.


I assume you found in it some way to justify detraction. I don't believe that's what Fr. Faber intended.


Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:54 am
Posts: 68
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Robert:

What on earth could YOU possibly know about my PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS with other Catholics? :shock: :shock: Is this your idea of a joke?

I have no idea who you think you are, accusing me of calumny, now detraction.

I have no idea who you are, period, and neither does my husband.

Whoever you are, please take your own advice.


Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:07 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I assume you found in it some way to justify detraction. I don't believe that's what Fr. Faber intended.


Of course not.

I think there is potentially great value in discussing the devastating actions of the "Four" and the aftermath, but it won't be happening here, because we are closing down soon and I don't have the energy or the time for it. I will content myself with the observation that the sedevacantist position was damaged beyond measure by its association with the actions of the Opinionist Four and their carefully constructed exit from the SSPX. I am not suggesting there was no error on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre and then-Father Williamson et al., of course. But it is indisputable that the event was managed to the exact conclusion that it reached. (The parallel with the recent Wanganui incident is very close.)

Robert, those actions were all public, so I can't see that there is any detraction in stating the facts. Calumny would arise if things other than facts were stated. As for scandal taken by younger people who don't know about them, this is a real problem. Let's put it in context: Young sedevacantists are often scandalised by the closed-minded attitude of sedeplenists towards the truth about the post-Conciliar "popes." If they don't know the history of the various actors involved, they will form the judgement that this closed-minded attitude is merely a fear or contempt of truth, when it is in fact a healthy scepticism about erudition and motives, and of course it arises from doing what Our Lord commanded - judging by fruits. The fruits of Francis Schuckardt, of Palmar, of the "Four" etc., are not all bad, but - let's put this delicately - they all need a certain amount of explanation, don't they?

As I've mentioned before, Bishop de Castro Mayer didn't think that John Paul II was pope - but he was disgusted by "sedevacantism." Imagine if he had been set a noble, edifying, example instead?

I know that you love Bishop Dolan and Fr. Cekada. It is right that you should love them, as they have done a great deal for you, and they possess many fine qualities. I apologise for any offence.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:17 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
elizcarroll wrote:
Robert:

What on earth could YOU possibly know about my PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS with other Catholics? :shock: :shock: Is this your idea of a joke?

Eliz, I don't know and I was not claiming to know either. You have misread what I wrote.

elizcarroll wrote:
I have no idea who you think you are, accusing me of calumny, now detraction.

I see no purpose in much of what you say, other than to damage another's reputation.

elizcarroll wrote:
I have no idea who you are, period, and neither does my husband.

Neither do I know you...nor does my wife (whatever relevance that may have in your mind).

elizcarroll wrote:
Whoever you are, please take your own advice.

Yes, I'll try to do that.

Robert


Last edited by Robert Bastaja on Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:10 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Fr. Laisney: No Communion to Sede “Schismatics”
John Lane wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I assume you found in it some way to justify detraction. I don't believe that's what Fr. Faber intended.


Of course not.

I think there is potentially great value in discussing the devastating actions of the "Four" and the aftermath, but it won't be happening here, because we are closing down soon and I don't have the energy or the time for it. I will content myself with the observation that the sedevacantist position was damaged beyond measure by its association with the actions of the Opinionist Four and their carefully constructed exit from the SSPX. I am not suggesting there was no error on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre and then-Father Williamson et al., of course. But it is indisputable that the event was managed to the exact conclusion that it reached. (The parallel with the recent Wanganui incident is very close.)

Robert, those actions were all public, so I can't see that there is any detraction in stating the facts. Calumny would arise if things other than facts were stated. As for scandal taken by younger people who don't know about them, this is a real problem. Let's put it in context: Young sedevacantists are often scandalised by the closed-minded attitude of sedeplenists towards the truth about the post-Conciliar "popes." If they don't know the history of the various actors involved, they will form the judgement that this closed-minded attitude is merely a fear or contempt of truth, when it is in fact a healthy scepticism about erudition and motives, and of course it arises from doing what Our Lord commanded - judging by fruits. The fruits of Francis Schuckardt, of Palmar, of the "Four" etc., are not all bad, but - let's put this delicately - they all need a certain amount of explanation, don't they?

As I've mentioned before, Bishop de Castro Mayer didn't think that John Paul II was pope - but he was disgusted by "sedevacantism." Imagine if he had been set a noble, edifying, example instead?

I know that you love Bishop Dolan and Fr. Cekada. It is right that you should love them, as they have done a great deal for you, and they possess many fine qualities. I apologise for any offence.

Dear John,

Of course no offense is taken. Many things need explanation, I just think the way it is explained can either provide for a properly ordered understanding or create a negative attitude where one did not before exist. There is a negative, destructive way of discussing certain issues that I find replusive.

Yours,

Robert


Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:26 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.