Author Topic: "As We Are"  (Read 1459 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cebu

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Reputation: +194/-49
  • Gender: Male
"As We Are"
« on: April 10, 2021, 09:18:47 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I often wonder how SSPX cultists react to Sean Johnson's excellent book, "As We Are". Have any of them ever seriously tried to counter what Sean charges the SSPX with and all the changes they have made. Or do they bury their heads because they cannot make any coherent response. Has anyone on CI come across anyone trying to make a response. What about that smug lawyer man, John McFarland ?  

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8264
    • Reputation: +6095/-1837
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #1 on: April 10, 2021, 10:51:01 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hi Cebu-

    Thanks for the kind words.

    In answer to your questions, it has been my experience that there are three primary responses within the SSPX camp:

    The first group is a minority position similar to Xavier Sem, which desires to rebut and/or deny any charges of change, compromise, or contradiction.  This group wants to rescue, disguise, and justify the ralliement, and might encompass 5-15% of SSPXers.

    The second, slightly larger group (perhaps 20-30% of SSPXers?) are largely comprised of 18-35 year-olds, who are today 2nd and 3rd generation SSPXers, and are largely ignorant of the changes because of their insular SSPX socialization (eg., no Internet, SSPX schools, SSPX friends, SSPX chapel life, etc.).  Normally that socialization is a good thing, but an unfortunate side effect of it is that a questioning or dissenting voice is rarely heard (and if it is heard, usually elicits defensive responses and ostracism).

    The third group, by far the largest, are 2nd and 3rd generation SSPXers who do in fact perceive the changes, unlike the first and second groups, but laud them as skillful and necessary adaptations in response to new circumstances.  “We can’t be 1988’ers anymore.”  This group won’t come right out and say we need to compromise to get justice, but their position fully implies it, and their support of +Fellay proved it.  Canonical approval is what they have wanted most all along (the source of the problem/weakness), and this is what accounts for their visceral reactions to Resistance whistle blowers (whom they perceive as threatening their ralliement).

    As for the clergy, it seems they have adopted the old Roman strategy of death by silence.  Let the book drift quietly into obscurity, and five years from now, nobody will remember it existed.  
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 25827
    • Reputation: +22333/-302
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #2 on: April 10, 2021, 01:23:23 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sean, I'm a bit confused -- in your description of "the 3 types of SSPXers", you describe BOTH the 2nd and 3rd categories as "2nd and 3rd generation SSPXers". Are categories #2 and #3 really both from the same generations? Just wondering if there were any typos there.

    I would add another group -- FIRST GENERATION SSPXers, mostly Baby Boomers, who have so much invested in the SSPX (time, youth, money over decades of putting money in the collection) they are suffering from the Sunk Cost fallacy -- they've invested so much, they're committed, even if the outlook today for the SSPX is objectively hopeless. Also, they're getting old and tired, and have no energy for "The Fight" (Tradition) -- according to Boomer culture, they have worked hard all their life, and by gum they DESERVE an easy, laid-back retirement for their Autumn years. "I worked hard to build up this church, and by gum, I'm gonna enjoy it!" They are frequently found saying things like, "I ain't goin' back to the catacombs! I paid my dues back in the 70's. We did the garage Masses, basement Masses, hotel Masses."

    Baby Boomers are the same way (entitled) when it comes to having worked hard, "done their time" and therefore "deserve" a period of leisure and retirement in the work world as well. They're just extending this particular cultural belief/value to the realm of Church/religious practice. It actually makes sense, from their perspective.

    But don't get me started on the Boomers. hahaha  I must point out again, there are many good Boomers, including on CathInfo. Please don't take it personally, Boomers out there. But when I draw big-picture patterns about the whole generation, you gotta admit I'm spot on. And no, it's not a universal belief/value that by working hard from 18-60 you "deserve" any kind of ease or retirement in this life. Individualistic "retirement", where you are well-off for a couple decades before death, completely independent, not needing children-nuns-charity-or anyone to take care of you, living a life of travel, pleasure and leisure is a recent, American phenomenon that only existed since the US Gov't started the welfare state and "safety net" programs simultaneously in the 1960's. Even the Boomers didn't pay in enough to justify what they're going to get out of the system. So yes, it's basically an entitlement program, like food stamps or other welfare. It's just that the Boomers maybe paid in 20-40% of what they're getting out. But Social Security is an insolvent ponzi scheme, and that's a fact.
    Feeling generous? Want to say "thank you"? Feel free to send gifts from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Start Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Furthermore, I consider that Vatican II must be destroyed.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8264
    • Reputation: +6095/-1837
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #3 on: April 10, 2021, 01:49:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sean, I'm a bit confused -- in your description of "the 3 types of SSPXers", you describe BOTH the 2nd and 3rd categories as "2nd and 3rd generation SSPXers". Are categories #2 and #3 really both from the same generations? Just wondering if there were any typos there.

    I would add another group -- FIRST GENERATION SSPXers, mostly Baby Boomers, who have so much invested in the SSPX (time, youth, money over decades of putting money in the collection) they are suffering from the Sunk Cost fallacy -- they've invested so much, they're committed, even if the outlook today for the SSPX is objectively hopeless. Also, they're getting old and tired, and have no energy for "The Fight" (Tradition) -- according to Boomer culture, they have worked hard all their life, and by gum they DESERVE an easy, laid-back retirement for their Autumn years. "I worked hard to build up this church, and by gum, I'm gonna enjoy it!" They are frequently found saying things like, "I ain't goin' back to the catacombs! I paid my dues back in the 70's. We did the garage Masses, basement Masses, hotel Masses."

    Baby Boomers are the same way (entitled) when it comes to having worked hard, "done their time" and therefore "deserve" a period of leisure and retirement in the work world as well. They're just extending this particular cultural belief/value to the realm of Church/religious practice. It actually makes sense, from their perspective.

    But don't get me started on the Boomers. hahaha  I must point out again, there are many good Boomers, including on CathInfo. Please don't take it personally, Boomers out there. But when I draw big-picture patterns about the whole generation, you gotta admit I'm spot on. And no, it's not a universal belief/value that by working hard from 18-60 you "deserve" any kind of ease or retirement in this life. Individualistic "retirement", where you are well-off for a couple decades before death, completely independent, not needing children-nuns-charity-or anyone to take care of you, living a life of travel, pleasure and leisure is a recent, American phenomenon that only existed since the US Gov't started the welfare state and "safety net" programs simultaneously in the 1960's. Even the Boomers didn't pay in enough to justify what they're going to get out of the system. So yes, it's basically an entitlement program, like food stamps or other welfare. It's just that the Boomers maybe paid in 20-40% of what they're getting out. But Social Security is an insolvent ponzi scheme, and that's a fact.

    Yes, both the 2nd and 3rd category contain both 2nd and 3rd generation SSPXers (i.e., Those of the 2nd group are largely ignorant of the changes, while those of the 3rd group know and agree with them, but both groups are mainly comprised of 2nd and 3rd generation SSPXers.  They are just two different "species" of SSPXer within each group).

    PS: Your "1st Generation SSPXer" group would be found mostly within my 3rd group, but it would certainly be legit to count them as a distinct 4th group.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline KevinBrumley

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 35
    • Reputation: +39/-9
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #4 on: April 10, 2021, 06:25:02 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • And there are yet others who perceive real, alarming problems, agreeing in part and denying in part, the accusations made in the book.  Some of the points made are valid, others are rash and ill-considered.  These people take a "wait and see" approach realizing that it is premature to denounce the entire SSPX and start their own group.  They see the threshold for departure is not yet met, with a view to history and what would justify an adverse separation with fellow catholics.  In other words, we ask: what is the standard by which one is forced to "relocate" historically speaking?  The only answer is when the Faith is endangered.  Look at the history of religious congregations and you will clearly see a pattern of health and decline.  Many saints were members of corrupted congregations but through their work, a restoration was effected.  

    The reasons set forth by those who have separated are insufficient thus far, even agreeing with some of the assessments.  They understand that there is a range of opinions and a disagreement about practical matters doesn't necessarily involve an evil to be avoided.  We may be approaching a time when separation will be necessary but we have not arrived there yet.  I know others who think along the same lines.  The problem with those who "jumped ship" is that it is purely natural to look for any reason at all to justify their position no matter how unjustified and consequently censure anyone who may disagree.  This of course is a dangerous precedent especially when their priests eventually disappoint on some matter.        


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8264
    • Reputation: +6095/-1837
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #5 on: April 10, 2021, 06:40:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • And there are yet others who perceive real, alarming problems, agreeing in part and denying in part, the accusations made in the book.  Some of the points made are valid, others are rash and ill-considered.  These people take a "wait and see" approach realizing that it is premature to denounce the entire SSPX and start their own group.  They see the threshold for departure is not yet met, with a view to history and what would justify an adverse separation with fellow catholics.  In other words, we ask: what is the standard by which one is forced to "relocate" historically speaking?  The only answer is when the Faith is endangered.  Look at the history of religious congregations and you will clearly see a pattern of health and decline.  Many saints were members of corrupted congregations but through their work, a restoration was effected.  

    The reasons set forth by those who have separated are insufficient thus far, even agreeing with some of the assessments.  They understand that there is a range of opinions and a disagreement about practical matters doesn't necessarily involve an evil to be avoided.  We may be approaching a time when separation will be necessary but we have not arrived there yet.  I know others who think along the same lines.  The problem with those who "jumped ship" is that it is purely natural to look for any reason at all to justify their position no matter how unjustified and consequently censure anyone who may disagree.  This of course is a dangerous precedent especially when their priests eventually disappoint on some matter.        

    Hi Kevin-

    Leaving aside your judgment about “jumping ship prematurely,” I just wanted to clarify, per the Preface of the book itself, that my intention in writing the book was never to dissuade people from attending the SSPX (though many have tried to use it for that purpose), but to lay out the facts for posterity.  I myself attend the SSPX in the absence of a Resistance priest (which is unfortunately most of the time).  

    People will first have to assess the evidence I laid out, then process what it means for them.

    Happy Easter,
    Sean
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1252
    • Reputation: +509/-112
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #6 on: April 10, 2021, 10:10:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • See attached
    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8264
    • Reputation: +6095/-1837
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #7 on: April 10, 2021, 10:20:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • See attached

    The pouting Hewkonian wants to change the subject and use the Benevacantist against me?  Really?  You might as well cite Elton John.

    OK, well, here's me against her next-best advocate (Greg Taylor):

    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sean-johnson-refutes-the-rebuttal-to-the-catechetical-refutation/

    PS: Be sure to see this: https://web.archive.org/web/20160917113955/http://ablf3.com/threads/can-you-trust-a-liar.639/ 
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8264
    • Reputation: +6095/-1837
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #8 on: April 10, 2021, 10:55:41 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Or better still:


    (A prisoner of the Bergen-Belsen cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ eats bread; you will understand the picture after you read the article)

    Of all the offenses Bishop Williamson is alleged to have made at his 2015 Mahopac, New York conference, the suggestion that one could, in certain circumstances, still find "spiritual nourishment" at a Novus Ordo Mass was judged by his adversaries to be the worst of all. A Catechetical Refutation  defended that comment (particularly at points #7-8). Reacting against this claim, the Pfeifferites went on to invent a new heresy, claiming against the de fide declarations of the Council of Trent (and the unanimous consent of the manuals) that there is no transmission of sanctifying grace to well disposed Novus Ordo communicants at a valid Mass.

    To bolster that error (after the fact), they extracted two quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre from context, and held them out in a univocal sense.  Those attempts were refuted Here and Here.  Finally, an old Angelus letter of Fr. Pulvermacher was unearthed, and advanced in support of this error, which was refuted in two parts Here and Here.

    Between the Catechetical Refutation and the four subsequent refutations rectifying the Pfeifferien errors on the operation of grace, we were content to have let the matter rest, having vindicated not so much the comments of Bishop Williamson, as the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church these errors attack.

    However, Samuel recently posted a translation of a 1974 Econe spiritual conference of the Archbishop which leaves absolutely no room for doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre (like Bishop Williamson) believed the new Mass could still impart spiritual nourishment (i.e., sanctifying grace) to its communicants in certain circumstances, Here.

    Neither will it avail the Pfeifferites to note that the Archbishop's position on the new Mass later hardened, since what changed was not the Archbishop's theology (i.e., grace passes/grace does not pass), but his prudential decision regarding attendance of the new Mass, given the worsening circumstances and conditions in the Church as the fruits of Vatican II manifested themselves more clearly over the years.

    [On this latter point, it is worth recalling Archbishop Lefebvre's May 9, 1980 comment in Michael Davies' classic Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre (Vol. II, Ch. 40) positively endorsing Novus Ordo Mass attendance that "Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfill their Sunday obligation" here.  I make the same observation regarding the quote the Pfeifferites pull from "Open Letter to Confused Catholics" in one of the refutations above, in which the Archbishop makes his comments on grace specific to sacrilegous and desecrated Masses, not all Novus Ordo Masses.]

    As always, I suppose it is obligatory to state that that which is said above is in no sense a defense of the new Mass, but rather, a defense of Catholic sacramental theology.
    Here follows Samuel's translation of Archbishop Lefebvre's conference, which leaves absolutely no room for doubt that he taught his seminarians/priests that grace can pass to Novus Ordo communicants:

    "But if, on the other hand, as happens for example, they mentioned a case to me of.. some of you gave me the case of a priest who always says the old offertory, who always says the old canon, but he says the mass, he uses the new mass, he says the mass facing the people but he does not give communion in the hand. Well, if there are any seminarians that don’t have any other mass, can they attend a mass like that ? I think yes, what do you expect ! The priest who makes such an effort would be a little discouraged, hurt to see the seminarians close to him, whom he loves very much, to see that they don’t come and attend his mass under the pretext that he does not say [the old mass] absolutely from beginning to end.. I believe there are some circumstances we have to consider !

    The father of Mr Pazat who is here told me yesterday that right now, there is not a single mass of St Pius V in Madrid. If there is no more mass of St Pius V in Madrid, if one is logical with those who are strict on the question of the mass, one would have to tell all people in Madrid that they cannot put in a foot in a church, one has to be logical, one has to be logical.. Do you feel in conscience capable to tell all people in Madrid, the whole city of Madrid, all Catholics : you cannot set foot anymore in a Church ? I do not dare saying that in such an absolute manner, since there are quite a few conditions, as I will mention, quite a few circumstances in which we cannot attend these masses.

    But there are still priests who believe, there are still priests.. the mass is not always invalid, certainly not ! If it was always an invalid mass, of course we cannot go there, if it was always a sacrilegious mass, a mass regularly sacrilegious, evidently, a mass that has a net protestant tendency, it would be evident. But I think there are at the same time circumstances in which.. we do not know, because there is still the danger on one hand of losing the faith in the case of people who don’t go to mass for one month, two months, three months, four months, a year, they will lose the faith, it’s over, that’s obvious, we cannot make ourselves any illusions, if one were to say such to a whole city, imagine !

    If on the other hand obviously you say : “But they eat meat that is poisoned !” That’s true, but if one eats a meal that is more or less poisoned, they may still last a little longer, until the moment when better nourishment arrives, while if they would die of hunger, they would be dead in three weeks or a month, they would die of hunger; It would be better to die in six months than to die in one month ! It would be better if they did not die at all, of course. But what do you expect, if not going to mass causes them to die by lack of faith, if by going to a mass that is not not very good because it is poisoning them they can prolong a little.. Take someone in a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ who is given a choice : either you don’t eat, and thus you will die in a short time, or you will be given meat that has gone off, knowing well that you will eat bad meat, they know quite well that it will harm them, but they eat it anyway saying : “If I can survive a little longer, maybe my deliverance will come soon !” So, that is what we must say also, maybe our deliverance will come and we will have the mass of St Pius V; it is in this spirit that we have to tell them, I think.. [end of tape]"
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Croixalist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +994/-268
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #9 on: April 11, 2021, 12:27:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not many have the tenacity and the perception to thread the needle like the great Archbishop did. God Bless his good name! 

    The worst thing about the New Mass is that it is a constant occasion for sacrilege. At the very best, the people are not being prepared to receive our Lord with the right dispositions or in the state of grace. Runner up to the worst will be the idolatry of world progress: transgender furry clown Mass in honor of Stain Judas Iscariot.
    Fortuna finem habet.

    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1252
    • Reputation: +509/-112
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #10 on: April 11, 2021, 12:42:49 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • The pouting Hewkonian wants to change the subject and use the Benevacantist against me?  Really?  You might as well cite Elton John.

    OK, well, here's me against her next-best advocate (Greg Taylor):

    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sean-johnson-refutes-the-rebuttal-to-the-catechetical-refutation/

    PS: Be sure to see this: https://web.archive.org/web/20160917113955/http://ablf3.com/threads/can-you-trust-a-liar.639/
    Hi Sean, Are referring to me as the 'pouting Hewkonian' and 'Greg Taylor' advocate?
    Because I post something these people wrote means I agree with them?
    I haven't even read the attachment I posted.  I did it because, if I recall, the OP said that no refutation had been made.
    I have more respect for you Sean - I believe you are capable of being objective.

    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."


    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1252
    • Reputation: +509/-112
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #11 on: April 11, 2021, 12:50:32 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Or better still:


    (A prisoner of the Bergen-Belsen cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ eats bread; you will understand the picture after you read the article)

    Of all the offenses Bishop Williamson is alleged to have made at his 2015 Mahopac, New York conference, the suggestion that one could, in certain circumstances, still find "spiritual nourishment" at a Novus Ordo Mass was judged by his adversaries to be the worst of all. A Catechetical Refutation  defended that comment (particularly at points #7-8). Reacting against this claim, the Pfeifferites went on to invent a new heresy, claiming against the de fide declarations of the Council of Trent (and the unanimous consent of the manuals) that there is no transmission of sanctifying grace to well disposed Novus Ordo communicants at a valid Mass.

    To bolster that error (after the fact), they extracted two quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre from context, and held them out in a univocal sense.  Those attempts were refuted Here and Here.  Finally, an old Angelus letter of Fr. Pulvermacher was unearthed, and advanced in support of this error, which was refuted in two parts Here and Here.

    Between the Catechetical Refutation and the four subsequent refutations rectifying the Pfeifferien errors on the operation of grace, we were content to have let the matter rest, having vindicated not so much the comments of Bishop Williamson, as the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church these errors attack.

    However, Samuel recently posted a translation of a 1974 Econe spiritual conference of the Archbishop which leaves absolutely no room for doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre (like Bishop Williamson) believed the new Mass could still impart spiritual nourishment (i.e., sanctifying grace) to its communicants in certain circumstances, Here.

    Neither will it avail the Pfeifferites to note that the Archbishop's position on the new Mass later hardened, since what changed was not the Archbishop's theology (i.e., grace passes/grace does not pass), but his prudential decision regarding attendance of the new Mass, given the worsening circumstances and conditions in the Church as the fruits of Vatican II manifested themselves more clearly over the years.

    [On this latter point, it is worth recalling Archbishop Lefebvre's May 9, 1980 comment in Michael Davies' classic Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre (Vol. II, Ch. 40) positively endorsing Novus Ordo Mass attendance that "Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfill their Sunday obligation" here.  I make the same observation regarding the quote the Pfeifferites pull from "Open Letter to Confused Catholics" in one of the refutations above, in which the Archbishop makes his comments on grace specific to sacrilegous and desecrated Masses, not all Novus Ordo Masses.]

    As always, I suppose it is obligatory to state that that which is said above is in no sense a defense of the new Mass, but rather, a defense of Catholic sacramental theology.
    Here follows Samuel's translation of Archbishop Lefebvre's conference, which leaves absolutely no room for doubt that he taught his seminarians/priests that grace can pass to Novus Ordo communicants:

    "But if, on the other hand, as happens for example, they mentioned a case to me of.. some of you gave me the case of a priest who always says the old offertory, who always says the old canon, but he says the mass, he uses the new mass, he says the mass facing the people but he does not give communion in the hand. Well, if there are any seminarians that don’t have any other mass, can they attend a mass like that ? I think yes, what do you expect ! The priest who makes such an effort would be a little discouraged, hurt to see the seminarians close to him, whom he loves very much, to see that they don’t come and attend his mass under the pretext that he does not say [the old mass] absolutely from beginning to end.. I believe there are some circumstances we have to consider !

    The father of Mr Pazat who is here told me yesterday that right now, there is not a single mass of St Pius V in Madrid. If there is no more mass of St Pius V in Madrid, if one is logical with those who are strict on the question of the mass, one would have to tell all people in Madrid that they cannot put in a foot in a church, one has to be logical, one has to be logical.. Do you feel in conscience capable to tell all people in Madrid, the whole city of Madrid, all Catholics : you cannot set foot anymore in a Church ? I do not dare saying that in such an absolute manner, since there are quite a few conditions, as I will mention, quite a few circumstances in which we cannot attend these masses.

    But there are still priests who believe, there are still priests.. the mass is not always invalid, certainly not ! If it was always an invalid mass, of course we cannot go there, if it was always a sacrilegious mass, a mass regularly sacrilegious, evidently, a mass that has a net protestant tendency, it would be evident. But I think there are at the same time circumstances in which.. we do not know, because there is still the danger on one hand of losing the faith in the case of people who don’t go to mass for one month, two months, three months, four months, a year, they will lose the faith, it’s over, that’s obvious, we cannot make ourselves any illusions, if one were to say such to a whole city, imagine !

    If on the other hand obviously you say : “But they eat meat that is poisoned !” That’s true, but if one eats a meal that is more or less poisoned, they may still last a little longer, until the moment when better nourishment arrives, while if they would die of hunger, they would be dead in three weeks or a month, they would die of hunger; It would be better to die in six months than to die in one month ! It would be better if they did not die at all, of course. But what do you expect, if not going to mass causes them to die by lack of faith, if by going to a mass that is not not very good because it is poisoning them they can prolong a little.. Take someone in a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ who is given a choice : either you don’t eat, and thus you will die in a short time, or you will be given meat that has gone off, knowing well that you will eat bad meat, they know quite well that it will harm them, but they eat it anyway saying : “If I can survive a little longer, maybe my deliverance will come soon !” So, that is what we must say also, maybe our deliverance will come and we will have the mass of St Pius V; it is in this spirit that we have to tell them, I think.. [end of tape]"


    It is a pity we cannot access this website of yours Sean.
    Can you remedy that please?

    ..
    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 24117
    • Reputation: +13459/-3626
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #12 on: April 11, 2021, 07:01:43 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!1
  • Unfortunately, because the Archbishop changed at times, from being very negative against the Conciliar Church after the 1976 suspension to hopeful and accommodating after the ɛƖɛctıon of JP2 to even more negative after Assisi and then the excommunications ... we see a lot of selective quoting of +Lefebvre on both sides.  So, for instance, Xavier cherry picks a quote from 1980 where +Lefebvre was more conciliatory and tries to present that as the TRUE +Lefebvre ... and ignores anything that doesn’t suit his agenda.  He applies this confirmation bias to every issue he argues about and shows himself to be completely dishonest.  It’s a simple fact that +Lefebvre changed over the years from a +Fellay-like position to coming a hair’s breadth from sedevacantists (by his own admission).  Bishop de Castro Mayer actually did go sede before he died.

    Despite this, however, I strongly agree with Sean’s assessment of the overall shift.  I was at STAS right after the consecrations but was also with SSPX (knew Father Williamson) for a few years before.  There is no question that +Lefebvre and the SSPX were intransigent regarding the errors of the Conciliarists ... similar to the Resistance mindset ... and the +Lefebvre shifting had only to do with the practical consideration of whether and to what extent to be in communion with the putative hierarchy ... given that, in their mind, they both were and were not the Catholic hierarchy ( something that the material vs. formal distinction and Fr. Chazal’s approach resolve nicely ).

    Having experienced both, I firmly agree with Sean that the true spirit of the SSPX is with the Resistance ... while the SSPX has morphed into an FSSP type of group with very little difference.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 25827
    • Reputation: +22333/-302
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #13 on: April 11, 2021, 10:29:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Despite this, however, I strongly agree with Sean’s assessment of the overall shift.  I was at STAS right after the consecrations but was also with SSPX (knew Father Williamson) for a few years before.  There is no question that +Lefebvre and the SSPX were intransigent regarding the errors of the Conciliarists ... similar to the Resistance mindset ... and the +Lefebvre shifting had only to do with the practical consideration of whether and to what extent to be in communion with the putative hierarchy ... given that, in their mind, they both were and were not the Catholic hierarchy ( something that the material vs. formal distinction and Fr. Chazal’s approach resolve nicely ).

    Having experienced both, I firmly agree with Sean that the true spirit of the SSPX is with the Resistance ... while the SSPX has morphed into an FSSP type of group with very little difference.

    I'm glad to see we agree on this. It is pretty obvious, if you look at it with any depth. Just look at how many SSPX members became "to far to the right" -- while standing still. That should speak volumes. It wasn't just one or two men, who might have been accused of changing. No, it was the SSPX that changed.

    And in my opinion, a lot of good priests left the SSPX, as well as "the cream of the crop" of the Faithful. They didn't change, they weren't "trouble" before they left, or anything like that. In the case of the faithful, they were some of the biggest long-time supporters/contributors/volunteers. But in 100% of cases, it wasn't a classic "good riddance" scenario. Just speaking for my local area, of course.
    Feeling generous? Want to say "thank you"? Feel free to send gifts from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Start Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Furthermore, I consider that Vatican II must be destroyed.

    Offline XavierSem

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2284
    • Reputation: +361/-612
    • Gender: Male
    • Glorious Risen Lord Jesus Christ, Save Us All!
    Re: "As We Are"
    « Reply #14 on: April 11, 2021, 11:15:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "SSPX cultists"? SSPX supporters are not "SSPX cultists". I wonder why the Resistance sees it necessary to borrow from the modernist playbook in attacking the Society. We support the SSPX because of the manifest good fruits it has borne, and continues to bear, for Catholic Tradition. There are nearly 700 SSPX Priests and by some reckonings 10 million SSPX Faithful around the world. Tradition is booming, not even remotely collapsing. What is at real risk of collapsing is forming multiple splinter groups without, imo, any necessity.

    I like and sympathize with Bishop Williamson. I agree with His Excellency on some issues like being Anti-Abortion-Tainted-ναccιnєs (ATV's). I wish the Society would formally adopt Bishop Williamson's position on that as its own. I can continue to support the SSPX, as I do, and to oppose defections from it, as I do, while not agreeing 100% with every SSPX Bishop or Priest on this or that issue. On the core issue, that Canonical Regularization is a good, and should not be despised when it is offered by Rome, I fully agree with the Society.

    On the issue of the New Mass, I see no daylight between the position of Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson. Some people make it more about personality than principle. But Bishop Fellay has clearly said the new mass is inferior to the true Mass, although both are valid. Bishop Williamson has arguably gone even further than Bishop Fellay, in saying the new Mass is valid, confers Grace ex opere operato, and one can derive spiritual nourishment from it. I agree with Sean's "Catechetical Refutation" of the errors of the Pfeiferrites and believe Archbishop Lefebvre, as quoted in that study, based on what His Grace said to Michael Davies, would also agree with BF and BW.

    On Vatican II, the jury is still out. It is non-infallible and ultimately only the Holy Ghost Himself knows for sure what He will inspire the future prophesied holy Pope to do about it. I believe Vatican III will be called one day, under that future holy Pope, and some non-infallible errors will be infallibly corrected. Bishop Fellay believes some errors coming from Vatican II need to be corrected. Bishop Williamson seems to believe the whole thing must be abandoned. Vatican II has begun to be critiqued in broader circles outside strictly traditional ones, which is yet another Victory for Catholic Tradition, and the good fruit from the Society's doctrinal discussions with Rome. Bishop Athanasius seems to hold the same position as the Society of St. Pius X and Bishop Fellay. Bishop Vigano arguably holds the same as Bishop Williamson on Vatican II. The next 5 to 10 years of doctrinal discussion on Vatican 2 will make things clearer.

    And again, Catholic Tradition is booming! The SSPX, the FSSP, the ICK, and even D-TLMS are experiencing "phenomenal growth". I LOL at the idea of some in the Resistance that the SSPX is now a "sinking lifeboat". No, the SSPX is a big ship, rightly doing its duty, to sanctify and save souls through Catholic Tradition, that remains attached to the Ark of Salvation, which is Holy Mother Church. I pray for, hope for, and look forward to healing and reconciliation between the Society and the Resistance, at the 2024 or 2030 General Chapter. I know some will say that is impossible, but nothing is impossible to God. Peace and Unity would be good for Catholic Tradition.
    Make this Life Offering to the Twin Hearts of Jesus and Mary today! Don't delay! You can Save Souls!

    (1) All your family members will be saved (2) Your loved ones in Purgatory will be released, and (3) you yourself will not need Purgatory if you make it.
    https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16