From page 1:
I just wonder why +ABL never required the SSPX priests to sign a loyalty oath to the Pope?
Good question. And for reasons perhaps you have not considered, Incredulous.
This oath of fidelity thingy goes way back. It is something that the
Freemasons practice and have practiced for a long time. But that's not
the key issue, just a point to ponder and not forget in all this.
The Jesuits under St. Ignatius Loyola took vows of poverty, chastity and
obedience, as well as a "fourth oath" of personal obedience to the Holy
Father Himself. They did not use the terms "fidelity" or "allegiance" --
those have been applied to this concept only recently - that is, post Vat.II.
Don't forget about the Freemasons.
Taking oaths of obedience is part of Catholic Tradition. Then along came
Pope St. Pius X (at the time he wasn't known as "Saint" obviously) and
his Oath Against Modernism. This was out of the ordinary. I like to think
of it as "catching the devil by surprise" because it was something that was
unprecedented in the history of the Church. Never before had a Pope
demanded of all the priests and superiors of religious orders and so on and
so on to take an oath "AGAINST"
something. It's like it was the
worst fears of the devil coming into reality, something the devil really had
hoped that no one would figure it out or come up with this plan. But
come up with it, the Pope-Saint did!
And you should have seen all the fireworks! The Modernists lined up for
miles pleading incessantly to the Pope to have mercy on them and to
grant them exempt from this most heavy of crosses to bear, and on and
on and on and on. He was practically stymied in his other duties and
concerns because of the TSUNAMI of appeals to be exempt from having
to TAKE THE OATH.
But even so, the taking of the Oath Against Modernism (Sacrorum
was a very successful project, and it endured many years,
all the way up to, well, up until the unclean spirit of Vat.II undermined
the interest in keeping it in force. That's another story, which I have
already told before here on CI.
The Oath was abandoned in 1967, after the abominable Council, and
it was IMHO a necessary step to abandon it before the Newmass could
be instituted under the APPEARANCE of being 'promulgated' (which it
was NOT -- See elsewhere).
But something else took its place, as it were. So to speak, a replacement
thingy was put into effect, and this replacement thingy was not paraded
around in large font or bold type or bullhorn-announcement. It was
quietly proffered, as it were, not promulgated, just like the Newmass
was not promulgated. But it was different. This replacement thingy
was not something that anyone was PUNISHED for not adhering to. So
to that extent, it was proffered at a different level than the Newmass,
which indeed was imposed by force of censure, insult, penalty,
punishment, excoriation, derision, vitriol, exclusion, banishment and even
The replacement thingy was called a "Vatican Statement." And it has
been scrubbed from the files of the Vatican, and it has been forgotten,
as if 'tossed down the memory hole'. It is only something that I am
aware of because I had the good fortune of a bad experience in 1999
in Hamilton, Canada.
Again, don't forget about the Freemasons.
It was a Pledge of Fidelity and Allegiance to the Pope (if I recall
correctly), who, at that time was the infamous Paul VI of infelicitous
as Canon Gregorius Hesse told me so many times.
And this newfangled thingy that HEBF is rumored to be pushing sounds
a lot like that thingy, from Paul-VI-of-infelicitous-memory.
One observation: It seems Conciliarists become most upset if one dares to question "their system".
Right again. As do the Freemasons, about whom you should not forget.
For example, Msgr. Williamson has referred to Pat Buchanan as a sincere man, but that his real problem was, "... he still believed in the US 'electoral system'.". +W implied Buchanan needed to stop thinking this way to find the truth.
At one point during a Vatican II, promulgation by Pope Paul VI, the notorious Msgr. Bugnini dared any Bishops or Cardinals to resist the Pope, claiming their action to do so would mean they did not believe Paul VI was the Pope.
Don't forget that Annibale Bugnini buried his mother in a Freemason
grave and his own mausoleum slab covers his remains with inscriptions
that are unquestionably Freemasonic symbols.
This event to which you refer touches directly on the replacement thingy
I was talking about, above, the Vatican Statement that was a Pledge
of Fidelity and Allegiance to the Pope. In retrospect, it was an attempt
to forestall sedevacantism even before the sede trend had even begun,
or, perhaps it was right at the moment that it was beginning, and this
might explain why this Pledge was not heavy-handed, because then the
sede movement might have consequently garnered a greater following.
This is key to the Resistance right NOW!
The Resistance is a force to be reckoned with because it strikes fear
and TERROR into the hearts of the Menzingen-denizens. I have seen
this with my own eyes and I am therefore an eye-witness, for those
with eyes to see and ears to hear.
It is precisely because of the effectiveness of the Resistance that
HEBF* would have any inclination whatsoever to ask such a thingy of
the SSPX priests.
Now, this is not to say that we should pass judgment on any such
priest who signs the Pledge or Oath or whatever it's called.
How different a world it would be if the Cardinals and Bishops would have had the courage to have done just that ?
It is interesting to see Msgr. Fellay, a man willing to "sell-out" Catholic tradition, now interested in having his Order take a loyalty oath to the newChurch system ?
If the Vatican II warhorse, Pope Benedict, required the oath from the SSPX, it is truly reminiscent of Msgr. Buginini's previous defense of the newChurch system.
And it is reminiscent of Paul VI's contemporaneous reaction against
the forming of the sedevacantist movement, which no doubt struck
fear deep into his very soul.
Can you imagine being the pope who endeavors to institute all those
changes only to find a significant faction of Catholics willing to stand
up and say, "You are obviously not Pope because of your actions!"?
He did NOT want that kind of idea to begin to pick up speed on the track!!
P.S. Don't forget the Freemasons.. because they have not forgotten you!