Putting it into context:

1) We attend the IHM Chapel in St. Paul, MN

2) We are just coming off the heels of Bishop Williamson's 2-day resistance conference, attended by 100 people (mid-week/mid-day)

3) Fr. Rostand had advance notice of the conference

3) Fr. Steven Webber is our pastor, but is currently on vacation (We do not know if he took vacation of his own volition, or whether he was told to take a vacation)

4) Fr. Jackson from New York is substituting today

5) I attended the early Mass, and there was nothing in that sermon against the resistance.

6) But I just received a text from a friend who walked out during the sermon when (according to his text):

7) "Fr. Jackson just gave a strong anti-Resistance sermon wherein he subtly compared the Resistance to St Thomas the Apostle doubting the risen Lord.  And he said that the Conciliar magisterium has not taught any positive error [!] but rather has simply refrained from doing what they ought.  We walked out..."

8) Was Fr. Jackson brought in specifically to give this sermon?

9) Seems strange that a visiting priest would visit another priest's chapel and stir up the hive unless it was pre-planned.

10) If so, it seems to be having the desired effect: People are leaving, and won't be coming back.

11) Pity.

12) I will cross-reference this information against others, and re-post later.

Pax tecuм.

Further clarification:

1) The same person who texted me originally, contacted me again to say that Fr. Jackson did not specifically refer to the resistance;

2) The reason they walked out was because of the statement that "the Conciliar magisterium has not positively taught error."

3) Apparently he then went on to explain that we need to obey all authentic acts of the magisterium.

4) Can't really comment because I was not there, but lots of terminology that would need to be clarified in order to assess it, even if I was.

5) Given this more recent information (the Resistance was not actually mentioned), not sure this thread has much purpose.

Pax

I think we are to conclude that this was no 'mistake.'

The sermon, besides declaring that the post conciliar magesterium has taught no error (merely omitted truth) also compared Thomas' doubt in light of the apostles declaring the visit from Our Lord in this way: Thomas wasn't listening to the good bishops, and had a cynical faith, which Fr Jackson described as doubting the good intentions of others.  In other words, we ought to trust our good bishops and not doubt their intentions.  This is straight out of the Novus Ordo playbook.  I don't know what chapel Fr Jackson is usually at, but the people there need prayers

He also said that Thomas' doubt in our Crucified Lord is not much different than having doubt in the 'church' (it is pretty obvious he means the VII church) which is bloodied and bruised.  

I heard the whole sermon.

He also said that trads are tempted towards cynical faith.  This is a non-issue, a red herring.  He described 'cynical faith' as doubting the good intentions of others.

 He could have meant it in two ways, both which would be ridiculous: One, Fellays specific intention (doctrinal compromise with Rome).  Two: Fellay's motivations and interior disposition (ie, good will vs bad will).

In any case, the reality of doctrinal compromise makes any judgement of will altogether secondary.  You have an intended action which is, in itself, evil.  

Interesting times.

Thanks for the report, Mithrandylan.  One must wonder if this priest was sent in specifically to deliver this sermon to those who would have the temerity to host HE+Williamson.  After all, they want to protect their "turf".

Precisely.

Another point of note is that it was a Solemn High Mass, with a deacon and sub deacon from the seminary. It was the first one we had ever been at, and it was beautiful, but it felt like it was done to show us what we would be missing of the "smells and bells" if we continued in the resistance.

Another point of note is that it was a Solemn High Mass, with a deacon and sub deacon from the seminary. It was the first one we had ever been at, and it was beautiful, but it felt like it was done to show us what we would be missing of the "smells and bells" if we continued in the resistance.

That may very well have been the intent.

But it also reveals a very fundamental miscalculation:

It is the accordistas who care about that kind of thing.

We will be perfectly content in a basement, party room, or rented hall, so long as we have sound doctrine and priests imparting the same.

Herein lies the difference between the two camps.

From Dawn Marie over at Ignis Ardens:

"I just saw the post about the magisterium comment you made somewhere else Seraphim.

We were told something similar. Not sure what to make of it but we were told we have to accept all the magisteriums of the Church including those from John the xxiii on through Benedict the xvi.

That was new news to me. I'd not heard that from the SSPX before but again the winds of organized Tradition have changed."


Comment:

Apparently this sermon was not the mere product of a single priest, but an orchestrated, systemic act of the District office.

"Accept the magisteriums" in the sense that I accept they were Popes?

Or, "accept the magisteriums" in that I have to accept the teachings that came from them?

Former, yes.

Latter, no.

The red light may come sooner than I expected.

This is madness.