An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing My Service on I.C.E.L.

Communicantes (Newsletter of the Society of St. Pius X in Canada) ^ | October 2002 | Rev. Fr. Stephen Somerville

[Zviadist]

Amazing what a year in Argentina will do.

No doubt spent the time cruising for more Moonie babes. Pastoral counsel? So that's what they're calling it these days.

[Catholicguy]

<> OK <>

[ultima ratio]

He's overdue for a red hat.

[Zviadist]

The fact that he married a woman might hold him back

Good point. Nevertheless, as Ultima said, a red hat is clearly in order according to today's guidelines.

[Catholicguy]

<> Thanks for the link.<>

[Loyalist]

One small step towards post 1,000.

[Loyalist]

I seem to recall one of these fanatical anti-SSPX gangs were a bunch of flamers who were outed by their SSPX chapel and thereafter turned against the SSPX...

You wouldn't be thinking of these people? Is the Society of St. Pius X a Cult? So think two ex-seminarians

I used to attend the Toronto chapel on occassion (though not during the events in question). I wonder how much of this was just personality conflict with Fr. Emily's inveterate little man's syndrome.

[Zviadist]

Yes, that is the group I was thinking about I believe. Strange the smallness of these people, who have a problem with their particular chapel and respond by attacking the entire movement. I personally do not have a great relationship with my chapel, as a matter of fact I find them rather unfriendly. But I know the Mass is what it is all about, not my feelings. It is the "me" attitude that I think affects these people. I wouldn't doubt some of these people are just plants, who are sent in just to gather info and cause problems later.

[Loyalist]

Apparently Mr. Thomson and Mr. Dupuis are unafraid to engage in tinfoil hat speculation verging on outright libel:

Terrible things have happened to several people who have left the group or who oppose Fr. Emily: in 1984 Fr. Emily arrived in Canada and found a controversy in progress at the SSPX chapel in Kitchener, Ontario. After the dispute, the chapel co-ordinator had two car accidents, his business went bankrupt, and his wife is now confined to a wheelchair with the mentality of an 8-yr-old girl. The co-ordinator's assistant also had a car accident, and he is a quadriplegic.

Mr. Hans Osterreicher, after reading the letters written by the three accused, said to his wife:

"If it's that bad, we'll have nothing to do with them anymore. We'll go to Mass and that's it. I'm not serving Mass again."

Within a week, Mr. Osterreicher was dead in a car accident.

[Askel5]

O God, who make the minds of the faithful to be of one will, grant to your peoples (grace) to love that which you command and to desire that which you promise, so that, amidst worldly variety, our hearts may there be fixed where true joys are found.

[St.Chuck]

You are just like your dishonest buddies on this thread.

Yes, you have called me dishonest once before. I apologize for making general claims, but I have learned through much experience in talking to those that assist at SSPX masses that much of what they ( and you ) state as fact is a misrepresentation of the truth. I am immediately suspicious and though I regret sacrificing humility for accuracy, I must confess my suspicions are error-free.

I post from a Monsigneur, a Church scholar, who refutes your "learned" opinion of St. Athanasius and his actions against a heretical pope, and your response? You sensed that he was biased so you disregarded his entire scholarship.

I wouldn't say entirely. I agree there was an Athanasius, but what you posted was half fact, and then half commentary on the modern state of the church. It was opinion, and it was on page 23. I can only assume the "scholarship" appeared in the first 22 pages. Your "Church scholar", Bishop Rudolph Graber was an ally of one Bishop Marcel Lefebvre at the Vatican II Council. If you have read his book, "St. Athanasius and the Church in Our Modern Time", from which you quoted, you might be able to expound on Bishop Graber's suspicions that VII was a FreeMason plot to subvert the Church from within. Unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Graber didn't resign in indignation during VII ( Come to think of it, neither did Athanasius after any of the councils that he disagreed with ). I am not "learned" but I do pay attention, and the heresy of Pope Liberious that you allude to is debatable according to real learned men, including Cardinal Newman.

Then you parade around as if you have deftly defeated the argument and therefore the case is closed. You are a joke.

I shouldn't behave that way. Catholicguy's enthusiasm is contagious at times. Thank you for the rebuke.

[Catholicguy]

<> LOL It is amasing. One prelate writes a tendentious book and all countervailing scholarship is supposed to be negated. Good Lord, the pathetic thing is they really think that way. The very fact the author is writing in defense of one of his friends ought to send-up red flags, but it doesn't.

[ultima ratio]

One of the issues which separates Catholics throughout history from neo-Catholics is this bizarre notion that the Pope can do anything, even determine Tradition. Yet a pope, everybody agrees, can be wrong. He is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. For a statement to be divinely protected, he must promulgate it officially, at which point it becomes binding on the faithful. For the Pope to do this regarding Sacred Tradition, therefore, he must first be sure he is right. For him to OFFICIALLY declare ex cathedra that something is traditional which clearly wasn't, would be a scandal of the first magnitude and would bring into question his own legitimacy. So far JnP2 hasn't done this, though traditionalists are wary.

At present the Pope goes about assaulting Tradition in a more subtle way. He doesn't say traditionalists are wrong about anything. He doesn't argue the new Mass is not seriously deficient and harmful to traditional faith, or that the novelties he has introduced are traditional or even distinctly Catholic. He is silent on these points, like most liberals who are pushing the envelope but don't want to arouse opposition among the mass of people. He does speak out on some issues, such as his bizarre notion that the Jews need not have Christ as their redeemer--but usually he does this by means of a minor papal institute or by an article in a theological journal--and he is sure what he promulgates is unofficial.

He also violates Tradition by selective actions. He suppresses some traditional teachings, for example, while widely disseminating his novelties. His teaching on capital punishment is one example of this. It has no traditional standing whatsoever in the Church, yet it is treated as if it were gospel. On the other hand, the traditional teaching of the Church on the death penalty is never mentioned. His treatment of subordinates is likewise inequitable. FSSP priests, for instance, may not say the traditional Mass at a St. Peter's side altar. Other priests of any other Catholic rite may do so. FSSP seminary theologians are closely scrutinized for what they teach, other priest-theologians are not, however much they may dissent from traditional teachings. Traditional bishops have been excommunicated for disobedience, other bishops are allowed to disobey openly and are even awarded the red hat though publicly apostate.

So you are wrong when you say the Pope disagrees with us as to what Tradition is. He hasn't publicly dared to do this yet and you cannot name a time when he has. Instead he posits his novelties while people like yourself fall all over themselves to pretend they are divine revelations, issued from the lips of a god. But they are what they are: novelties which have no divinely ordained protection and therefore may be in error. They are even, in some cases, clear violations of the Catholic faith.

[Loyalist]

Perhaps Milingo can do the honours for Bishop Dumais and his woman.

[Zviadist]

Apparently Mr. Thomson and Mr. Dupuis are unafraid to engage in tinfoil hat speculation verging on outright libel:

Good find!!! These guys are total psychotics!!!

[Zviadist]

Perhaps Milingo can do the honours for Bishop Dumais and his woman.

Why limit the poor priest to just one wife...his ecumenism can spread to Islam and he can take a few more wives. I am certain he would not be forced to leave the priesthood for such a minor thing.

[Loyalist]

There's even a Fr. Somerville link to this story!

Fr. Emily has never given a written financial statement of SSPX chapels, despite requests by several people. Yet to give such a financial statement is completely normal, and is done by every mainstream church. The reason that Fr. Emily gives for the secrecy is that the SSPX doesn't want the anyone working for the diocesan bishop to know how much money the SSPX has. But if this is so, then we have to wonder why Fr. Emily hired a secretary, Mrs. Maureen O'Blarney, the former secretary of Fr. Stephen Somerville, who is a priest of the diocese at a parish not much more than 10 minutes away from District Headquarters. Mrs. O'Blarney told Mr. Hunter that she was still in close contact with Fr. Somerville while she was working at the priory. When Mrs. Hunter confronted Fr. Emily with this, Fr. Emily began taking measures to get Mrs. Hunter admitted to the psychiatric ward.