CathInfo.com

A "wise, canonically irregular priest" is an oxymoron, unless he is living such a life in good faith.

No it is not. "A wise priest approved by Modernist Rome" is an absolute oxymoron; it doesn't exist. Either you are approved by Modernist Rome, or you are wise. There might be some ignorant priests who are nevertheless of good will, but they still aren't wise. They are ignorant.


I am aware that, this being an SSPX forum, this truth is not very popular here, but it is a truth nonetheless.

Or perhaps your "truth" isn't so true at all. The only defense you have is the one I often put forward: that God hasn't revealed to anyone the best manner of dealing with this Crisis. Maybe it's true that slinking in the rear guard, having your cake and eating it too, letting the SSPX win you your Latin Mass and then having your comfortable "approved by Rome" Latin Mass is the best place for a fervent, fearless saint to be in 2016. But everything I know says that is shameful. Traditionally, it's the saints, the fighters, the front line troops that are the heroes, not the ones who heroically keep their heads down and try to have it both ways (hiding behind the SSPX, letting them take all the casualties, and doing nothing to defend them). I think that is dishonorable and shameful, and I have a hard time thinking that God would think otherwise.

If I'm wrong about this, I have a lot to learn about heroism, generosity, fortitude, and I need to forget everything I learned from hundreds of Lives of the Saints.

Maybe I missed a saint. Perhaps you could fill me in. Give me just ONE example of a saint who would have joined the FSSP today rather than a more fervent, compromise-less group.


And being a canonically regular priest is not synonymous to accepting the Bugninian Liturgy and the modern errors being spread in the form of papal docuмents.

Yes, there is a time when silence implies consent. Silence is not always neutral, much less a virtue. There are situations where silence/inaction is actually sinful.


Sure, if you are a priest of the FSSP who rejects these things, you might be inclined to keep some kind of a low profile, so as not to provoke having your clerical functions suspended. But that does not mean that such a one betrays the cause of orthodoxy and genuine liturgical practice.

Actually, yes it does. The bad guys in the Vatican aren't the only ones helping the devil's cause. All the good men who silently do nothing, out of cowardice, self-interest, or any other motive are equally necessary to bring about the destruction in the Church we see today.


Despite the fact that we live in the age of blogging, Twitter and Facebook, we really do not know that much about internal ecclesiastical politics, and priests who might be accused by outsiders of being too silent, might be doing more for the cause of genuine resistance to the ecclesiastical revolution than what the world beholds.

We know plenty. The Freemasons have taken over the Vatican. The proof is all around us. There is no "internal resistance" as you claim. You might as well try to justify the behavior and words of Pope Francis. "Maybe he's a prisoner of the Vatican." Ridiculous! If you're not resisting, it's hard to say you're part of any kind of resistance. If you're not gathering with Our Lord, you are scattering. Period.

The same is claimed for some priests who are still (as of May 2016) part of the neo-SSPX. Some say, "I want to wait until God's will is manifest by my superiors kicking me out." Which sounds good on paper, but what are these priests doing to get kicked out? Nothing? How can they claim to be fighting the good fight? If they are keeping their heads down, they are pusillanimous and fearful, not fearless warriors for Christ that they should be. They received great graces at Ordination, and they are linked to Jesus Christ in a very special way by the indelible character imprinted on their soul. They should be willing to go even to death for love of the Catholic Church and the Truth -- just like their Master.



I condemn and execrate all that I have written on this forum against faith and morals.

I, on the other hand, do no such thing. I took the superior path of not saying anything against faith and morals to begin with.