.
Note:
Solidus, please do not read this.
Thank you.
It is a matter of record that Bishop Fellay and his various sympathizers and helpers have been instigating adjustments in their liturgical practices, at a very subtle and gradual pace, so as to not be too noticeable. And furthermore, when these things are noticed and opposed, there are consequences. Sometimes a priest is suddenly transferred for no good reason, or a parishioner is refused the sacraments, or else told he cannot attend this particular chapel. Imagine having the job as a bouncer at your church. I have known men who have had to do that job, and they did not appreciate it. There is a difference between that and the office of Porter, in the traditional sense. An usher does a task that is an outgrowth of the Porter level of minor orders.
..........Get ready to hear Fellay and his cronies have a good word to say about this......... Apparently someone mistakenly extracted "hate" from this warning. We already know that there has been, and there continues to be, an abiding intention to assimilate the SSPX into the mainstream Newchurch. The current 'excuse' is that from the 'inside' the Society would be much better able to help the modernist Romans to reform themselves and become more traditional. If you don't believe me when I warn you that this will not happen, maybe you'd believe the more wise words of Archbishop Lefebvre. For one, the SSPX doesn't have to 'change' anything to be on the 'inside' because the SSPX is already inside the Church. The SSPX has never left. It's the Conciliar and modernist Romans who have left.
But it's the abiding push toward the prospect of becoming somehow 'recognized' or 'normalized' that the current leadership uses to advance their subtle agenda. They're afraid of being too obvious. In 1994 when +F was first elected, he was extremely subtle. He hid his agenda very well. I saw him give a 3-hour conference just a few years later (I was present for the WHOLE THING) in which he described the recognition or normalization of the SSPX as a kind of "luscious plum" (his exact words, I assure you!) that is most appealing to behold. Does that sound familiar at all to you? How about the Book of Genesis, chapter three, verse six?
"And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold : and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat..." There is absolutely no doubt, and I am not making it up, that for the past 20 years, +F has been expressing his GREAT DESIRE to achieve an accord with Rome. Please pardon me for going to the logical extreme, and saying the obvious, it has always been for him an
obsession.
I am not saying that it's bad to want to be normalized with the One True Church, but the problem is, Rome, in its current condition, is not acting like that, and ask any sedevacantist, some of whom are on this forum, and they will immediately assure you that therefore, the post-conciliar Romans are not in the Church of Christ. They might even quote Vat.II to prove their point (
LG 8).
Just as +F has made no secret of his constant drift toward eventual normalization, he has likewise not abstained from daring to use doctrine as a poker chip on the craps table of negotiations with Rome. Sorry if my language is shocking to your ears. And Solidus, you're not supposed to be reading this, so you're disobedient!! But this has to be said by someone. Doctrine is not a play-toy. Doctrine cannot be bargained with. Because doctrine is non-negotiable. If you don't understand that, then there is your problem, right there.
SINCE IT IS TRUE that +F has dared to bargain using doctrine as a thing that can be compromised, and SINCE IT IS TRUE that he has said that if ABL had seen the NovusOrdo performed so well as +F saw it done that ABL would "never have taken the step he did," and SINCE IT IS TRUE that +F has gone to the extent of introducing various innovations in his liturgical practices as if accommodation with Newchurch doings is something somehow attractive or desirable, it's not any kind of leap, really, to expect that he or his friends will have something positive to say about the way that the Newcanonization liturgy is being conducted tomorrow,
Quasimodo Sunday, will be something commendable, in some manner.
Mark my words. They WILL have good things to say about the Newcanonizations (they won't use THAT term, though), even if they have already gone on record denouncing the fact that the Newcanonizations are taking place at all. These proceedings are being broadcast for the first time by the Vatican in high definition, 3-D live streaming video, to all the world. This is another first. I could make a list of all the firsts, if you want one. Do you want a list?
Therefore, I am not just making it up when I say the following:
..........Get ready to hear Fellay and his cronies have a good word to say about this......... The reason they will most assuredly have a good word to say about this is, there are a number of things about "this" that are commendable, that is, if you only look at individual, narrow things. I could make a list. Do you want a list?
But the reason I say they're going to have a good word to say about it is, they been tending to have good words to say about just about everything these two recent popes have done for the past 9 years since JPII passed away on April Fools' Day, I mean, the day after that. (Maybe.)
If you need a list of that, I can help you out there, too. Therefore, anyone who says that my warning constitutes some kind of
'hatred' is just fooling himself. This is just the plain truth, and if you don't like the truth, then that's not my doing, is it?
.