Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Philothea3 on December 04, 2023, 06:05:01 PM
-
I believe that I'm not the only one that still goes to the SSPX Masses due to lack of resistance Masses in the area. But I'm afraid that this may not be an option very long with the way SSPX is going right now...? Thus I wonder if anybody still recognises some hardliner priests from SSPX that still hold on to views similar to that of the Resistance? If so can you share his information and why he can be considered a hardliner (opposed to not performing conditional sacraments, etc.)?
-
I believe that I'm not the only one that still goes to the SSPX Masses due to lack of resistance Masses in the area. But I'm afraid that this may not be an option very long with the way SSPX is going right now...? Thus I wonder if anybody still recognises some hardliner priests from SSPX that still hold on to views similar to that of the Resistance? If so can you share his information and why he can be considered a hardliner (opposed to not performing conditional sacraments, etc.)?
That's a tough one, because even the "good" ones have agreed to be silent. I personally think it is more a question of ensuring 1. that the priest you go to is truly a priest, and 2. that there is no danger to the Faith for you or your family e.g. preaching against resisting, preaching liberalism/modernism, trad-ecuмenism with rallying communities...
-
That's a tough one, because even the "good" ones have agreed to be silent. I personally think it is more a question of ensuring 1. that the priest you go to is truly a priest, and 2. that there is no danger to the Faith for you or your family e.g. preaching against resisting, preaching liberalism/modernism, trad-ecuмenism with rallying communities...
I worry about the #1 mentioned above should Huonder start performing ordinations for the SSPX.
-
I worry about the #1 mentioned above should Huonder start performing ordinations for the SSPX.
Good point, Elwin, we now also have to ask the question of the priests "who consecrated your holy oils" to ensure valid confirmation and extreme unction. It's getting uglier...
-
Good point, Elwin, we now also have to ask the question of the priests "who consecrated your holy oils" to ensure valid confirmation and extreme unction. It's getting uglier...
Did huonder consecrate the oils coming from Econe?
-
Did huonder consecrate the oils coming from Econe?
He consecrated the oils at the seminary in Zaitzkofen, Germany, so the simple answer to that question is no. There would have almost certainly been a bishop consecrating oils in the seminary in Econe, Switzerland, presumably Bishop Tissier, but I can't be sure of that.
-
I personally think it is more a question of ensuring 1. that the priest you go to is truly a priest ...
And wasn't this one of the top points of contention by The Nine? It most certainly was. So why is it OK for you and other Resistance types to deride The Nine for having the same problem with Lefebvre's acceptance (and imposition) of Stark?
-
I worry about the #1 mentioned above should Huonder start performing ordinations for the SSPX.
We'd have to keep track of which priests were "ordained" by Huonder and avoid them. While that might be simple enough, there's a recurring problem even right now where some NO priests are operating in the US without having been conditionally ordained, and the SSPX are not particularly public about which priests have been conditionally ordained and which haven't. Now, there used to be a little booklet listing all the SSPX priests and whom they were ordained by, but you can't find any such information today. I know that my brother Steve kept a copy to consult when various unknown priests would show up at STAS. I recall in particular when a Father? Belland showed up at STAS and started offering Mass at the main altar. Steve did find out from a sacristan that he had set up Bishop Williamson's chapel (Our Lady's chapel on the second floor) for an ordination, and he found out that Fr. Belland had been conditionally ordained, but it was not publicized.
-
And wasn't this one of the top points of contention by The Nine? It most certainly was. So why is it OK for you and other Resistance types to deride The Nine for having the same problem with Lefebvre's acceptance (and imposition) of Stark?
The hypocrisy by the Resistance posters here about this issue is glaring. The Nine had nothing to resist (how dare those evil monsters!), but the Resistance does!
-
And wasn't this one of the top points of contention by The Nine? It most certainly was. So why is it OK for you and other Resistance types to deride The Nine for having the same problem with Lefebvre's acceptance (and imposition) of Stark?
Obviously, the Resistance is defending the traditional principle of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. The Nine were attacking it.
-
Obviously, the Resistance is defending the traditional principle of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. The Nine were attacking it.
:facepalm: What's the "traditional principle"? Please explain.
It's clear that The Nine were objecting to most of the same things that the Resistance are now objecting to. Archbishop Lefebvre was clearly in compromise mode in the early 1980s.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre was clearly in compromise mode in the early 1980s.
That is quite open for debate.
First of all, define "compromise" in this specific context. What exactly are you accusing +ABL of? Let's define our terms.
Your own hardline/sedevacantist stance has colored your view of the rather distant past -- 30 or 40 years is a good chunk of time, in terms of human lifespan.
Treating with the Pope, we're talking about the Vicar of Christ here, when no one had been betrayed yet, is not compromise. "Someone had to try". Afterwards, YES, you should know better. We have since sounded the depths of the Crisis in the past several decades, and now any person with their eyes open is blackpilled about the Modernists and the state of the Conciliar Church in Rome. Most sane men today think only God is going to be able to sort it out. But that was not the situation in 1983. The Crisis was still young!
Going back to see if any of your house is still there, in the days following a massive wildfire, isn't crazy.
Going back 40 years later, long after the wildfire burned the entire town and it's common knowledge -- THAT would be crazy.
+ABL did the former, Bp. Fellay did the latter. There is no comparison in the actions of the two men.
Action X done in 1983 might not be compromise, whereas the same action X done in 2012 would be the most craven and cowardly of compromises. It's all about the circuмstances.
Just like packing up the family and moving 1,000 miles could be the peak of wisdom and prudence for one family, but the height of folly for another family. The CIRcuмSTANCES define whether an action was prudent or foolish, and a wise action or a craven, foolish "compromise" with error/evil.
-
The hypocrisy by the Resistance posters here about this issue is glaring. The Nine had nothing to resist (how dare those evil monsters!), but the Resistance does!
Yes, because 1983 is absolutely the same year as 2012 or 2023. ::)
Those years are so similar, I don't know why we even refer to them using different numbers...
The year, the situation, doesn't matter. You'd make a great stock trader! Buying Apple stock in 1995 is the same as buying it in 2023... right?
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/stock-price-history
-
That is quite open for debate.
First of all, define "compromise" in this specific context. What exactly are you accusing +ABL of? Let's define our terms.
He famously said at the time that he was asking Rome to allow him to make the "experiment of Tradition" within the Conciliar framework. I believe that this influenced him to take the positions he did regarding the issues raised by The Nine, Conciliar orders, annulments, and the 1962 Missal. He was not as strict on those issues before about 1980 nor after 1985. Conditional Ordinations were done as a matter of course outside of that timeframe and the SSPX did start examining NO annulments.
-
He famously said at the time that he was asking Rome to allow him to make the "experiment of Tradition" within the Conciliar framework. I believe that this influenced him to take the positions he did regarding the issues raised by The Nine, Conciliar orders, annulments, and the 1962 Missal. He was not as strict on those issues before about 1980 nor after 1985. Conditional Ordinations were done as a matter of course outside of that timeframe and the SSPX did start examining NO annulments.
I root issue was that the Archbishop had issues with EENS due to invincible ignorance and BoD/BoB.
-
Yes, because 1983 is absolutely the same year as 2012 or 2023. ::)
Those years are so similar, I don't know why we even refer to them using different numbers...
The year, the situation, doesn't matter. You'd make a great stock trader! Buying Apple stock in 1995 is the same as buying it in 2023... right?
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/stock-price-history
Boy, that analogy was poor, but I see your posts are getting more personal now.
As a matter of fact, the year doesn't matter when the issue is the same. The Nine just figured it out and woke up before the Resistance did. Some folks just aren't willing to admit it.
-
Obviously, the Resistance is defending the traditional principle of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. The Nine were attacking it.
:laugh1:
-
There are still SSPX priests who won’t hesitate to tell their flock that they don’t want people who come just because it is more convenient than traveling across town to the Moto Mass. There are still priests who will say, if the new mysteries of the Rosary are ever implemented here, you must react violently even. I would even assume there are still priests who doubt the papacy of Francis or even remove his name from the Canon of the Mass. Even so, they became somewhat complicit because they are loyal members of the SSPX and do not want to be deprived of its structure. They would never publicly criticize it in anyway.
Really, to have this discussion, you would need to define hardliner SSPX position. The hardliner SSPX position has changed since JP2 when priests like Fr. Hesse would claim that formal heretics could not be popes. At some point during the papacy of Francis, the position was changed to include that a formal heretic could be a legitimate pope. This is where things got weird really and lines were blurred.
-
The hardliner SSPX position has changed since JP2 when priests like Fr. Hesse would claim that formal heretics could not be popes. At some point during the papacy of Francis, the position was changed to include that a formal heretic could be a legitimate pope. This is where things got weird really and lines were blurred.
And the term "formal" heresy has been thrown out there to make the issue very slippery, since the way "formal" heresy has been re-defined over the last couple centuries, it's become something almost unknowable and in the internal forum, thereby rendering the detection of manifest heresy effectively impossible. Bergoglio could come out tomorrow and assert that Jesus is not God (as he reportedly did to Scalfari) and the incorrigible would still claim it's not "formal" heresy, because he may not really "mean" it. Ascertaining culpability in the internal forum is not necessary to establish pertinacious manifest heresy, nor is it possible to ascertain "culpability in the internal forum".
-
Boy, that analogy was poor, but I see your posts are getting more personal now.
As a matter of fact, the year doesn't matter when the issue is the same. The Nine just figured it out and woke up before the Resistance did. Some folks just aren't willing to admit it.
They were TOO early, so early in fact that there wasn't even a problem when they made their "resistance".
Why not praise the Old Catholics who were "early" in their resistance? They were against Vatican ONE.
Or the Orthodox, who had a problem with the Catholic Pope over 1000 years ago. Maybe they were just early?
Or maybe they were both simply WRONG.
If I predict your death starting in your 20s, eventually I'm going to be correct! Even if it takes 60 years. But wouldn't you say I was just WRONG, rather than "I saw it sooner than most", "visionary", "far sighted", or "early"?
Timing DOES matter, is my point.
And the Catholic Church eventually had a serious Crisis too -- but it was fine before the Crisis. (By "fine" I mean it merited no widespread or formal resistance, like we've seen in the Traditional Movement.) Does Vatican II justify everything the Protestants did for the past 500 years? Maybe they saw something we didn't! Maybe they were just ahead of the curve! *gasp*
Just to be clear: I'm not justifying the Protestants. I'm saying that being decades or centuries early is the same thing as being WRONG.
-
They were TOO early, so early in fact that there wasn't even a problem when they made their "resistance".
Why not praise the Old Catholics who were "early" in their resistance? They were against Vatican ONE.
Or the Orthodox, who had a problem with the Catholic Pope over 1000 years ago. Maybe they were just early?
Or maybe they were both simply WRONG.
If I predict your death starting in your 20s, eventually I'm going to be correct! Even if it takes 60 years. But wouldn't you say I was just WRONG, rather than "I saw it sooner than most", "visionary", "far sighted", or "early"?
Timing DOES matter, is my point.
And the Catholic Church eventually had a serious Crisis too -- but it was fine before the Crisis. (By "fine" I mean it merited no widespread or formal resistance, like we've seen in the Traditional Movement.) Does Vatican II justify everything the Protestants did for the past 500 years? Maybe they saw something we didn't! Maybe they were just ahead of the curve! *gasp*
Just to be clear: I'm not justifying the Protestants. I'm saying that being decades or centuries early is the same thing as being WRONG.
Another poor analogy Matthew. Sorry.
And yes there was a problem. The seeds were planted. But it does take longer for others to see the tree.
-
They were TOO early, so early in fact that there wasn't even a problem when they made their "resistance".
Why not praise the Old Catholics who were "early" in their resistance? They were against Vatican ONE.
Or the Orthodox, who had a problem with the Catholic Pope over 1000 years ago. Maybe they were just early?
Or maybe they were both simply WRONG.
If I predict your death starting in your 20s, eventually I'm going to be correct! Even if it takes 60 years. But wouldn't you say I was just WRONG, rather than "I saw it sooner than most", "visionary", "far sighted", or "early"?
Timing DOES matter, is my point.
And the Catholic Church eventually had a serious Crisis too -- but it was fine before the Crisis. (By "fine" I mean it merited no widespread or formal resistance, like we've seen in the Traditional Movement.) Does Vatican II justify everything the Protestants did for the past 500 years? Maybe they saw something we didn't! Maybe they were just ahead of the curve! *gasp*
Just to be clear: I'm not justifying the Protestants. I'm saying that being decades or centuries early is the same thing as being WRONG.
Yes. Timing matters and makes a difference. Absolutely. To every thing its season.
And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should everywhere do penance.
[Acts of Apostles 17:30]
Even better:
" And some of the learned shall fall, that they may be tried, and may be chosen, and made white even to the appointed time, because yet there shall be another time.
[Daniel 11:35]
-
And the term "formal" heresy has been thrown out there to make the issue very slippery, since the way "formal" heresy has been re-defined over the last couple centuries, it's become something almost unknowable and in the internal forum, thereby rendering the detection of manifest heresy effectively impossible. Bergoglio could come out tomorrow and assert that Jesus is not God (as he reportedly did to Scalfari) and the incorrigible would still claim it's not "formal" heresy, because he may not really "mean" it. Ascertaining culpability in the internal forum is not necessary to establish pertinacious manifest heresy, nor is it possible to ascertain "culpability in the internal forum".
Yes, this was really the big difference between the hardliner SSPX position and the sede-vacantist position. The old SSPX position would state that JP2 had a bad understanding of Tradition and simply believed that Tradition could change over time, therefore he believed he was upholding Catholic Tradition and not a formal heretic.
Meanwhile, the sedevacantists of the same time would not focus on formal/material heretic distinctions and instead “manifest heresy”.
In those days, I always tried to maintain the hardliner SSPX position as given to me by Fr. Peek and others and encouraged through Fr. Hesse videos. When debating with Sedevacantists, they would always bring up the manifest heresy position. With Francis, there was a short period where I believed at the beginning that he would unite Catholics on the pope question.
-
That is quite open for debate.
First of all, define "compromise" in this specific context. What exactly are you accusing +ABL of? Let's define our terms.
Your own hardline/sedevacantist stance has colored your view of the rather distant past -- 30 or 40 years is a good chunk of time, in terms of human lifespan.
Treating with the Pope, we're talking about the Vicar of Christ here, when no one had been betrayed yet, is not compromise. "Someone had to try". Afterwards, YES, you should know better. We have since sounded the depths of the Crisis in the past several decades, and now any person with their eyes open is blackpilled about the Modernists and the state of the Conciliar Church in Rome. Most sane men today think only God is going to be able to sort it out. But that was not the situation in 1983. The Crisis was still young!
Going back to see if any of your house is still there, in the days following a massive wildfire, isn't crazy.
Going back 40 years later, long after the wildfire burned the entire town and it's common knowledge -- THAT would be crazy.
+ABL did the former, Bp. Fellay did the latter. There is no comparison in the actions of the two men.
Action X done in 1983 might not be compromise, whereas the same action X done in 2012 would be the most craven and cowardly of compromises. It's all about the circuмstances.
Just like packing up the family and moving 1,000 miles could be the peak of wisdom and prudence for one family, but the height of folly for another family. The CIRcuмSTANCES define whether an action was prudent or foolish, and a wise action or a craven, foolish "compromise" with error/evil.
You are absolutely right, Matthew, except for 'it is open for debate'. There is no debate.
As you say - very, very different circuмstances. All those prelates at the Council with ABL, they didn't suddenly become non-Catholic after the Council. So also for all those true priests all over the world, trained, many of them, in solid seminaries. So too, many confused faithful still in the pews, wondering what had happened to their Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre suddenly being calumniated by Church and world and it was bruited abroad that this bishop was not Catholic. He had a duty to go to the Pope, to demand that the true religion be favoured by the hierarchy, to repair the grave scandal.
To simply declare, falsely, that the Pope was deposed or to ignore the plight of all these good clergy and faithful deceived by the revolution would have been to abandon so many souls. It would have looked like schism, and it would have been very close thereto.
This was the situation in 1978 when ABL was received by Paul VI who, in the words of the Archbishop, seemed ready to grant his request, until Cardinal Casaroli came into the room and warned the Pope vehemently against this bishop who was making a 'flag' of the old Mass.
At that time, the Archbishop had support from many bishops the world over, most of whom wanted to remain anonymous. One could only imagine what might have happened if Tradition were allowed again by the authorities.
The situation in 1988 still retained some of this character, yet much less so and that is why the Archbishop was reluctant to go to Rome before the consecrations, he did it very much to please those around him who requested it, and he said after the consecrations that the Society's truest friends feared what he was doing and warned him against it to the point where he said 'if anything, I went too far'. Wind the clock forward 25 years to 2012, the situation was entirely different and the Archbishop had long before warned his priests that it was a 'strict duty' to separate from this Conciliar Church until it returned to Tradition, that all their maneuvers that appeared to favor Tradition were simply traps.
Yes, in those early days, Archbishop Lefebvre requested the 'experiment of Tradition' in the hope that the hierarchy would see the good fruits vs the bad fruits of the reform, and return to the right path.
By 2012, that experiment had already taken place without the authorisation of Rome and in spite of that had borne extraordinary good fruit. Rome saw the good fruits. Did this have the effect that the Archbishop had hoped? Was Rome prepared to admit they were wrong and that their so-called reform was a mistake and that we must return to Tradition? Absolutely to the contrary. They continued to pursue an ever more perfect implementation of the Council! Even after Pope Francis had demolished the Franciscans of the Immaculate and forbidden their use of the Traditional liturgy, we still had Bishop Fellay saying 'this could not be a trap, this could only be friends wanting to do us good, wanting the spread of Tradition in the Church'.
Wake up you blind people who say that Bishop Fellay was only doing what Archbishop Lefebvre did. That is a contender for the lie of the century.
-
You are absolutely right, Matthew, except for 'it is open for debate'. There is no debate.
Of course there is. That's why we're debating it. Your wishful thinking does not end all debate ... because you say so. Your emoting is somewhat pathetic, to be honest.
-
To simply declare, falsely, that the Pope was deposed or to ignore the plight of all these good clergy and faithful deceived by the revolution would have been to abandon so many souls.
Ridiculous. If they're not popes, declaring them to be non-popes would have only confirmed the truth in the minds of the faithful, and restored their confidence in the Holy Catholic Church. Either it's true or it's not true, and the faithful are served by the truth ... whether some people like it or not. You have to beg the question that they are in fact popes before you can claim that it would be tantamount to abandoning souls. Unfortunately, his legacy is a lot of R&R who are basically Old Catholics. He himself never was, as he affirmed the major principled drivers of sedevacantism, and merely prescinded from the conclusion due to uncertainty about the causes, but there was a lack of clarity and emphasis that has become amplified in succeeding generations into a flavor of Old Catholicism that's adhered to by many Trad Catholics.
-
Unfortunately, his legacy is a lot of R&R who are basically Old Catholics.
This trumps what I said in my previous post about being contender for lie of the century. Note well, everyone, Ladislaus's opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre's legacy. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. What a disgrace!
-
Of course there is. That's why we're debating it. Your wishful thinking does not end all debate ... because you say so. Your emoting is somewhat pathetic, to be honest.
Maybe there is a Hungarian equivalent? it's the art of English expression, more or less an idiomatic way of saying 'there is only one correct answer', 'no one who is fully acquainted with the facts could come to any other conclusion' a way of pointing out the invalidity of the opposing argument. You know that, you are more a linguist than I.
But you still say there is no difference between what Archbishop Lefebvre did, and Bishop Fellay. Really? I repeat, there is no debate! Understand the meaning!
They were two vastly different sets of concrete circuмstances a quarter of a century and more apart. Archbishop Lefebvre was moving in a very clear direction. It was proved by his very attempt, the actions of the Romans, the developments in the Church, that no such agreement was possible. The very basis for requesting this 'experiment' no longer existed i.e. hoping the Romans would see the good fruits, admit their mistake and return to Tradition. It became clear, on the contrary, that the more Tradition flourished, the more they opposed it. Which is precisely why ever since the consecrations of 1988 until 2012 we heard endlessly from all the bishops and superiors of the Society that to attempt such a thing would be the equivalent to abandoning the Faith, ѕυιcιdє. That is why it was such a universal shock in 2012, even to those who did not join the Resistance. But one gets accustomed to such things... after a while, if you do not react, it seems normal enough... just like with the covid farce. This is how the revolution succeeds.
If that is your idea of emoting, then I guess you know as much about emoting as you do about Old Catholics... But I guess you were conflating (to borrow one of your favourite expressions!) this comparison of ABL and Bishop Fellay with my comment about Paul VI being Pope...
-
But you still say there is no difference between what Archbishop Lefebvre did, and Bishop Fellay. Really? I repeat, there is no debate! Understand the meaning!
I never once said that there was "no" difference, just emphasized that there were also many similarities, and the major difference I called out myself before much of the controversy, namely, that in the context of the early 1980s, there was some hope that the regime of Montini was some kind of "one off" and that Wojtyla would be more favorable to Tradition, and that the Archbishop did not have 6 decades of hindsight to have come to understand who the Novus Ordites really were. Nevertheless, there are also significant parallels. We see that many of the issues raised by The Nine are the same ones that The Resistance have raised against neo-SSPX. We also saw the Archbishop attempting to reach some practical arrangement with Rome, as typified in his plea for Conciliar Rome to allow the SSPX to make the "experiment of Tradition". This clearly implies that the SSPX would have been content with a peaceful co-existence with the Conciliar Church and that a conversion of Rome to Tradition was not a pre-requisite for such an agreement. Do you think it's an accident that the quotes from +Lefebvre cited by neo-SSPX against the Resistance all come from the early 1980s? To his credit, the Archbishop changed his mind, although we saw him again shortly before the 1988 consecrations initially sign a docuмent (the Protocol of May 5, 1988) that would have put them into a practical arrangement. Then he changed his mind again once he detected the duplicity coming from Rome.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/protocol-agreement-of-the-vatican-and-archbishop-lefebvre-2096
-
My question is, are there any SSPX priests out there who say the New Mass is a mortal sin? I have not really kept up on my latest SSPX news, but I would say there are very few, if any, priests in the SSPX who maintain this position. I know that the late Fr. Dolan (Bp. Dolan) in the 1970's was forbidding Catholics to attend Fr. Wathen's Mass, yet the NO Catholics were showing up at the SSPX masses marching right on up to the Holy Communion rail. Some of these priests are going to face a terrible judgment for not taking a strong stand against the Sacrilegious New Mass.