Tomorrow I will attend Mass at an independent chapel with a priest ordained by +ABL.  I have previously visited this chapel a couple of times.  I have been assisting at a diocesan TLM with an elderly priest.  The past 2 Sundays he has had a light ecuмenical message in his homily.  Also, I have spent a little time on PCAF this past week.  I have been placated by assisting in very strict NO Masses and finally the TLM for the past 14 years.  But I have woke up and looked around to see that on the whole, nothing has improved and has likely gotten worse.

As I am coming to my senses and exiting the conciliar church, it is very disheartening to see that the SSPX leadership is even contemplating reuniting with the un-reformed un-contrite conciliar church.  Any SSPXer who thinks this is a good idea, I urge you to do some reading on PCAF.  Try talking about your concerns regarding the conciliar church in very specific terms.  Notice the ambiguity in common questions regarding morality, hell, necessity of sacrament of penance, etc.  do you want your children exposed to such ambiguity?  Do you want to have to explain why little Johnny's parents who are Catholic "just like you" teach him something different?  Do you want to have to routinely explain why their teachers are wrong?  And as to the conciliar church being un-contrite--if PCAF is representative (and I have every reason to think it is), the conciliar church expects you to be contrite.  I incurred an "infraction" for responding to a post by one expressing being enraged at traditionalists.

I would dismiss my experience on PCAF as non-representative of the conciliar church.  However, it was exactly the same issues (with an even more vicious "quiet the dissident traditionalists" mentality) and a similar (but much worse) personal experience than the first 26 years of my life were in the conciliar church before I found a rare "conservative" parish.

A theme of +ABL was "If we are wrong now, then you were wrong then."  Do you think +ABL was wrong to resist when he did, or do you think the SSPX is wrong to be considering assimilating now (btw--anybody who doesn't get that this would be assimilating is in a fantasy world)?  If neither, please explain what has changed since +ABL stood his ground.

The conciliar church is not Catholic.  The church docuмents for the past 45 years have been purposefully ambiguous--statements from the hierarchy are ambiguous (even right to the current ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ issue)--they engage in double-speak.  Is ambiguity and double-speak the new modu operandi of the Holy Ghost?  Isn't double-speak being less than truthful with some or all--lying?  And who is the father of lies?