September 16, 2017

Today I spoke with some parishioners who still attend Mass there.

Fr. Wegner made a recent visit to the San Antonio chapel, and gave a talk in the hall after Mass.

During this talk, he insisted that many Novus Ordo bishops aren't so bad, etc. I wish someone could have recorded it for me, but unfortunately I don't have a recording or even a transcript. Suffice to say that many red flag items were uttered, such as taking down the defcon level on our attitude towards the Novus Ordo and their bishops.

Talk about yet more evidence that the SSPX has changed its tune -- both at the chapels themselves ("on the ground") and at the highest levels. Fr. Wegner is currently the District Superior of the USA. He's not "just one priest". He is in charge of the entire American district.
And he's preaching this to the people in the pews in San Antonio.
...
Any position more moderate than "Vatican II was a complete disaster. It was a punishment from God. The entire council, with all its docuмents, must be unceremoniously burned and forgotten" is unacceptable.

Anything less than "Vatican II is completely to be avoided, as a subtle, demonic super-heresy" is unacceptable. Speaking any kinder than that about Vatican II is a huge red flag meaning: "get out while you can!"


https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/recent-fr-wegner-visit-to-sspx-chapel-in-san-antonio/

From the Mailbag:


One of our SSPX priests recently informed a small group of men including myself that the reason the new seminary was built was to show Rome that the SSPX was a serious force to reckon with.  He went on to exalt the impressiveness of the seminary by saying it was like a "castle."  I didn't say anything, but all I could think was "brick and mortar" mentality revisited.  I also disagreed completely with any supposed justification for spending such an exorbitant amount of money on a seminary in order to impress Rome.  The priest stressed his assertion that the seminary was completely financed with private funds, although he failed to say where those private funds came from and no one dared ask him. 

If the funding came by way of the 90 plus million Euros donated by that rich European Krah connection as has been widely reported and never to my knowledge denied by the SSPX, then I think the following scenario if it be true may very well explain a major part of the equation as to why we have seen such an accelerated dizzying number of changes, contradictions, etc. in the SSPX  since about the time of that gigantic donation.  Obviously, at least theoretically, all kinds of strings/conditions could have put on the donation.  Furthermore, if the cost of the seminary (apparently at least 50 million greenbacks plus not including the donated land) was started with an initial down payment the SSPX could very well to this day be in a state of blackmail of one type or another and it could be a most effective blackmail in the following respect.

The party (individual or collective) could have imposed certain conditions/stipulations on the loan (I haven't seen strong enough evidence to show that the 90 plus million Euros was simply handed over to the SSPX in one lump sum) which could have been put into effect over time.  Some of the conditions could have been very specific while others could have been imposed as the circuмstances presented themselves.  If at any time the leadership of the SSPX balked at going along with one of the conditions as time went on the party financing the seminary via a presumed self-loan or loan set up through a third party could simply default on the loan.  Not only would that halt any further construction of the seminary it would have the obvious potential of placing the whole kit and caboodle into a catastrophic danger of going into foreclosure!  If that is the actual scenario that is going on you can only imagine the power/leverage of the one financing the "castle" to dictate anti-Christ compromising terms to an already all too  compromised  SSPX leadership.

From Mr. Stephen J. Fox's "Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє?" (pp. 10-11):

"By way of example, I recall that some years ago, I and my wife faced the dilemma of how we should educate our high school aged children. By way of background, we are grateful to have access to a Society primary school but when our oldest child was 13 years old we needed to decide whether to educate him by (a) home school (b) state secular school (c) secular private school or (d) "Catholic" private school. I consulted at least five priests of the Society in relation to the issue and I received a number of opinions. The common opinion (from all the priests I consulted) was that I should not send my son to the "Catholic school" because if I did so he would lose his faith. The reason was that the "Catholic school" would mix some truth with error and that he would lose his faith in circuмstances where he would be subjected to the modern system under the name of "Catholicism". The advice was to the effect that if we chose to send him to a high school then we should send him to a school that was irreligious or that was clearly non-Catholic. 
 
31. My common sense says that that same reasoning should apply to the issue of whether or not the Society should mix with the Conciliar Church when the Conciliar Church is mired in modernism and liberalism. How can the Society (by its priests) on one hand advise me to keep my children out of the Conciliar Catholic schools but on the other hand propose to put itself (and my family) into the Conciliar Church."

[Entire Online Book Attached]