The entire SSPX is often described as "vagus", so why pick on Boston, KY?

There are several examples of near-saintly priests who were even more "independent" than the Resistance (Fr. Bolduc comes to mind), so I don't think any singular example could prove the point you're trying to make.

MD:

Quote

The entire SSPX is often described as "vagus", so why pick on Boston, KY?

There are several examples of near-saintly priests who were even more "independent" than the Resistance (Fr. Bolduc comes to mind), so I don't think any singular example could prove the point you're trying to make.

Yes, the "vagus" argument does not provided much of a peg to hang one's hat on, for the reasons you cite and more.  In any case, Fr. P would argue that the local bishop of Louisville(?) is his bishop: and that Francis is his pope.  It's just that he can't obey them until they begin to shape up.  What is more, Fr. P. would argue that he is still a priest in the SSPX, and that Bp. Fellay is his superior.  But again, Fellay has strayed from the truth, and can not presently be followed. As for Bps. Williamson and Faure,  they are not Fr. P's superiors.  They are not his bishops.  They have no authority over him.  I am not misrepresenting Fr. P at all.  He says these kinds of things publicly.  "Ambrose" is safe for Fr. P.  This bishop for hire is not his superior either.  But, hopefully, he may appear to add some kind of legitimacy to that sorry mess in Boston KY.  
So, you see, Fr. P is not independent.  It's just that he can't, for the present, follow legitimate superiors.  

A very rational description of the way things are, Mr. H.  Readers should appreciate that.  Thank you.  

About the only peg we're going to get to hang one's hat on is the idea of Apocalypsis.  None of this can happen until "the end of time".  Therefore, rationally, we are at that end of time.  And therefore we are also in a time for heroes and very masculine love of adventure.  The more female majority among us ought to keep their heads down and be supportive of those with the courage to face up to the quite unprecedented over-all harshness of the present era.  Because the present conditions are greatly more severe than the Middle Ages ever thought of being.  We're in a Dark Ages with a vengeance.

The prominent priest who is best describing the Catholic situation at present is probably Fr. Basilio Meramo who currently resides in Bogota, Columbia.  He does not pull his punches and plainly says (although in Spanish) that the many who insist on pretending that the Antichrist and False Prophet are not in plain view are simply plain stupid and must lack an adequate Catholic education.  This writer tends to agree with the brave Fr. Meramo about that.

Bishop Faure also consistently states that we are in the actual Final Apocalypse, although he doesn't go into more details like Fr. Meramo has the courage to do.  Sadly, Fr. Pfeiffer is eloquent but not overly competent, or so it appears.  Fr. Pfeiffer does seem to be rather lost at sea.

Nobody ever said that the End of Days was going to be an easy ride.  The traditional mainstream Roman Catholic prophecies are right on schedule so Catholics ought to wake up and smell the coffee.  This inveterate insistence on pretending that Holy Mother Church has to get through the Apocalypse with an unaffected arrangement of legitimate authority evidently reveals that many Catholics are dumb as dirt clods, unimaginative as jack ass peasants and in need of a good thrashing by their betters.  So at least this writer has the compassion to state the obvious.

Nowadays Christ is among us in the Catholic Nationalist warrior heroes who have the guts to lead, knock heads and get the job done.  Basically we have a well-established Roman Catholic Nationalist leadership and all contemporary legitimate authority must come from them.  The majority of Catholics who are born followers ought to have the sense to line up, salute smartly and follow orders.  Is that clear enough?  

Atten hut.  March!!!  

We're well into the 21st Century.  Time to get real.

         

I hope this is relevant enough to not be considered an attempt to derail the thread. Does anyone understand why father Pfeiffer still wears the white cassock? The reason he gives is that he was unjustly expelled from the society, and therefore, he still belongs to the SSPX , an institution in which he was stationed in Asia. This seems to be a contradiction. The only reason I attended father Pfeiffer's seminary for a year , and not St Thomas Aquinas in Winona, is because the society now holds modern doctrine. But the justification that he uses for wearing the white cassock is that he still belongs to this pious Union. If he indeed still belonged to the society, would he not be obliged to leave as he is insisting that everyone else does? So if he does not belong to the society, then he certainly is not stationed in Asia by the authority of Bishop Fellay. He would have to be stationed in Asia by his own authority. But it is clear that he has not assigned himself to Asia. Again, this begs the question, why is he wearing Asian clerical garb?

the difference Mater between KY.  and the SSPX is that the SSPX was founded canonically. although if there is no way for KY to be recognized.......

The entire SSPX is often described as "vagus", so why pick on Boston, KY?

^ Eloquent confusion.

Glad to hear, because that means you are able to judge the topic from your higher perspective.  Therefore you are morally obligated to provide us with your insight into the horrendously important topic:  What are we to think of our "vagus" problem and what peg is there for us to hang our hats on?

Also, please elaborate a bit.  Can see that my comment might not have been eloquent, but it really doesn't appear so confused about the message.  Maybe too clear and not confused or vague enough, but it's focus seems pretty clear.  Over focused and too much like a laser, maybe?  Or a response like:  "Cool your jets, you damn fool!" might make sense.  But my saying "we're in a time of war and chaos so let's batten down the hatches" doesn't seem like such a confused message to me.

Again, always good to have those able to evaluate from a higher perspective.  So don't leave us hanging, but please enlighten us with your necessarily better judgement:  Where is the legitimate authority to be found these days and, for Heaven's sake, why is it so?

Awaiting any superior insight with utmost sincerity.  Because we are in need of more wisdom whether eloquent, confused or however we can get it.  And, sincerely, the best of luck with that to you!

Paul:

Even fr Hewko, why would he try to make the case that he it's still a part of the society? if he is a part of the society, he needs to leave because Bishop Fellay is compromising and making the doctrinal changes to please Rome.

We don't know that he makes a case for still being in the Society.  I think he received a first and second "monition" in the past.  But that's all ancient history now.  Fr. Hewko needs to declare himself either still in, or definitely out of the Society.  To our knowledge he has not done that.  Perhap, Paul, you're in a better place to ask Father for a position statement, e.g.  "Father, are you still in the SSPX, or have you separated yourself from that apostolate?  Yes or no?"
 

Father H's compadre, Fr. Pfeiffer declares that he is still in the Society, that he is still part of the Asian District, and that Bp. Fellay is still his superior.  So what about Fr. Hewko?

Then it's a question of Papal Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.  Pope Francis has supreme authority, like it or not.  A Catholic Nationalist movement will fail unless it submits to the authority of the Holy See.