Quote

There are few really in Ireland, who are SSPX 100%

That may have to do with the fact that SSPX is not 100% SSPX any longer.  If you have a superior general who admits that 95% of V2 can pass muster, (and did so now more than a decade ago), and if, furthermore, he states that the New Mass was "legitimately promulgated," how could one expect that the Fellay-flavored sspx might be 100% Lefebvrian SSPX.  Add to that our knowledge that as early as 1997, Bp. Fellay was actively conspiring with others to find a way of being practically reunited with Rome.  

It was earlier than '97.  I heard him give a conference in '96 wherein
he openly promoted the concept, using the words "luscious plumb" as
the image of what 'normalization' would be for the Society.  He said it
is like a very attractive and delicious fruit that is there for the taking
if we would only reach out and pick it from the tree.  Only later did I
realize I had heard words that may have been indistinguishable from
the words Eve had heard from the voice of the Serpent in the Tree of
the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  I had heard him say this and at the
time I had thought "Oh, of course, how wonderful."  Then I heard others
murmuring that we should pray for +Fellay, that he needs our prayers.

We really should, now even more than then!  

Is it any wonder that the faithful are all over the lot on this one?  It's been years since SSPX priests and leaders have not blown a clear trumpet blast from the pulpit.

Very true, but to add to the complication of it all, it is each person's own
decision at what point the sum effect is too much:  that last week it was
still okay, but this week it's over the line;  and "If I go back I'll put my
faith in danger!"  Only you can answer that question for yourself.  And
you can't answer it for anyone else, either!!  This is one place where the
power of the Keys comes in:  The Pope can answer this question for the
entire world;  but he must be willing to use the power of the keys.  If the
pope were to do that, he would then have to abandon the postconciliar
lies.  Because, "No man can serve two masters.  For either he will hate
the one, and love the other:  or he will sustain the one, and despise the
other.  You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. vi. 24).

An important point is made in the 'How to help the Cause' Revisited.

"And don't worry too much about potential unpleasantness from any misguided would-be 'friends of Bishop Fellay'. "God takes care of His children. He will see that no harm comes to you'

With the comments on Ignis Ardens from 'friends of Bishop Fellay' and Frances docuмenting harassment, the above is a good comment.

Neil Obstat:

It was earlier than '97.  I heard him give a conference in '96 wherein he openly promoted the concept, using the words "luscious plumb" as
the image of what 'normalization' would be for the Society.  He said it
is like a very attractive and delicious fruit that is there for the taking
if we would only reach out and pick it from the tree.

This is a fascinating remark!  You don't have the notes from that conference, do you?  Is it available online anyplace?  I take it that you mean by "promoted the concept" that Bp. Fellay spoke positively and encouragingly about possible normalization with Rome in the forseeable future.

I don't agree with "How to help the cause revisited" (p8). I became a Catholic in 1984 under the instruction of Fr. Edward Black and have been a SSPX supporter ever since. But I've never seen anything wrong in attending indult masses and see nothing wrong now in attending SSPX masses. It's all very well bleating on about the moral danger of human respect but there is such a thing as common sense. Common sense tells me that Frs Morgan and Lindstrom do not accept all or any of the false notions that your paragraph 2 says they must have accepted; common sense tells me they are neither half-wits nor moral cowards. It is frustrating that Fr. Morgan is keeping his lips buttoned from responding in any detail to the accusations made against the Society, and i do accept that if nothing changes in this regard over the next 3 to 4 years then the SSPX GB District will almost certainly be finished as a fighting force. But it's not all so cut-and-dried as you claim. I'm for giving our priests another 18 months to sort themselves out.
Fr. Lindstrom made some intersting remarks after mass in Herne recently. How can he justify trespassing on the territory of the local diocesan bishop to offer mass without permission? It is not on the rival authority of the Superior of his Order, Bishop Fellay, but simply as a priest of the Church responding to what he perceives, whether rightly or wrongly to be the needs of the faithful in the extraordinary circuмstances of the true mass not being available otherwise. The Whiting family (husband and wife) are part of that faithful. They are not an especially devout family: if they cannot continue to attend the true mass at their normal place of worship, they are in dander of lapsing from the practice of the faith.
We should heed Fr. Chazal's warning that the one thing we must avoid like the plague is to turn into the"Holier than thou" brigade. I also, perversely take heart from Fr Pfeiffer's cheerful assertion that we are all in a sense "unjust stewards". These are confusing times. I am confused; maybe Fr Morgan and Fr Lindstrom are confused - perhaps even Bp Williamson is a little bit confused? We cannot all be stampeded into adopting a uniform stance.  DENNIS WHITING

Bravo! We must use the wits that the Good God gave us. We are all gleaners in these times. We must glean what is good where we can. On the Indult, there would have to be qualifiers. Since the inception of the Indult, close associates and myself have not all gotten the same advice from our SSPX priests. Advice on whether one may occasionally attend the Indult is from my experience tailored to the individual asking. Some people would be very quick to spot problems with a Mass or priest and some would not. It is as simple as that. Personally, I do not like to attend, but there have been circuмstances where it was the only thing that could be done in charity.
It is normal for different priests to differ on questions like this. The SSPX is after all made up of human beings with their own minds and consciences, they are not robots.
It seems to me that no one is above danger from lapsing from the Faith without regular Mass and sacraments and if they believe they are, they are in more danger than they realize.

For clarification, I have no quarrel with denniswhiting. I have met him more than once and have no reason to question is sincerity.

I wouldn't attend the Indult (Approved Mass). I don't see any difference between the Indult and the SSPX. I don't dispute the SSPX have good priests but my support is with the resistance.

I never kept one foot in the Novus ordo and another in Tradition. It's unfortunate I can't support the SSPX.

I don't believe outside of the resistance there is no salvation.

For clarification, I have no quarrel with denniswhiting. I have met him more than once and have no reason to question is sincerity.

I wouldn't attend the Indult (Approved Mass).

Quote

I don't see any difference between the Indult and the SSPX.

I don't dispute the SSPX have good priests but my support is with the resistance.

I never kept one foot in the Novus ordo and another in Tradition. It's unfortunate I can't support the SSPX.

I don't believe outside of the resistance there is no salvation.

Well, John Grace, you also need to understand that the SSPX priests are VALID priests ordained by VALID bishops.   The same is not always true of the Indult priests.  Some of them have been ordained by INVALID   bishops who were consecrated in the new rite after 1968.

To me this is the master deception of the devil!   All of the presbyters in the world can say the Tridentine mass, and none of these masses will be valid, if they have been ordained in the new rite.
 The devil has  pulled off a perfect "coup". :devil2:

Quote from: denniswhiting

It is not necessarily irrational to judge an authority figure's rightness or wrongness on a particular issue from what you know of their character. Even if, for the time being and for reasons which may be sound, they refuse to give out detailed reasons for their choice. When you are aware of strong arguments for them to choose the other way, it is an uneasy situation to be in. There has to be a time limit. Is there not room for an honest differrence of opinion as to whether that time limit has already expired or whether it can go on for a bit longer?
As to Indult masses, I thought the objection to them was not that they were bad in themselves but that they tended to weaken the position of the SSPX. A Tridentine mass celebrated with due reverence is surely always valid and legitimate, even if the celebrant has unnecessarily sought the permission of the diocesan bishop?Dennis Whiting

[/color]

Well, Dennis, We can see that you know very little about the apostacy in the Conciliar Church.
The Indult masses are invalid, if the celebrants have been ordained in the New Rite after 1968.  These celebrants are not true priests.  They can go thru the motions of saying the Tridentine mass, but cannot effect the sacrament.

 I think you are definately a troll  :reporter:  :detective:

He isn't a troll. I last met him in June of this year.