Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX  (Read 45678 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
« Reply #50 on: March 05, 2019, 06:08:21 PM »
#50: Contradiction (Jєωιѕн Deicide):

In December of 2013, Fr. Christian Bouchacourt (then SSPX South American District Superior) gave an interview to the Spanish-language newspaper Clarín (the largest newspaper in Argentina) on the subject of the Jews.

At a certain point, this exchange transpired:

Clarín: Do you defend deicide, which imputed to the Jews the death of Jesus, as was the vision of the Holy See before the Council?

Fr. Bouchacourt: The Jєωιѕн people did not commit deicide.  
https://www.clarin.com/edicion-impresa/fraternidad-san-pio-catolicos-francisco_0_BkiN5objP7e.html

Notice that even the reporter knew that the charge of deicide was the traditional Catholic position.

But it wasn't so long ago that the SSPX adhered to that same position, and though you would have a difficult time knowing it today by searching their websites (i.e., because of the purging of Jєωιѕн content mentioned in post #46), not even two years before Fr. Bouchacourt's denial, the SSPX had published an indignant rebuttal to what it called Pope Benedict XVI's "sweeping exoneration of the Jєωιѕн people for the death of Jesus Christ in his new book, the second volume of Jesus of Nazareth."

That article, long since purged (and formerly available here: http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/gesture_to_jews_from_benedict_pope_or_professor.htm), was ironically salvaged by an anti-Traditional, pro-Jєωιѕн blog, and shows quite succinctly what the SSPX used to teach on the matter:

"The responsibility of the Jєωιѕн people as such for the death of Christ has been the constant teaching of the Magisterium, based on Scripture and the Church Fathers. St. John speaks three times in his Prologue of the rejection of Christ by His own (meaning His own people or nation). Romans XII speaks of the rejection of Israel for the profit of the Gentiles. See also St. Augustine’s Treatise 49 On John, near the end: “The chief priests and the Pharisees took counsel together...’If we let Him alone as He is, all will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.’ Fearing the destruction of temporal things, they took no thought of eternal life, and so they lost both. After the Lord’s Passion and glorification the Romans did indeed take away both their place and their nation, by assault on the city and dispersal of the people.” The Fathers connected the punishment of the loss of the nation to the crime of deicide, perpetrated by the highest ranking political and moral authority: the Sanhedrin."
https://jhate.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/gesture-to-the-jews-from-benedict.pdf

Yet the SSPX wants you to believe there have been no changes, contradictions, or compromises?

"We have always been at war with Eurasia!"

Offline X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
« Reply #51 on: March 06, 2019, 05:25:37 PM »
#51: Contradiction ("Saint" Faustina and the Divine Mercy Devotion):

It used to be that the SSPX uniformly rejected the practice of inculcating and/or promoting novel and questionable conciliar devotions attributed to dubiously "canonized" saints, and the "Divine Mercy" devotion of Sr. Faustina Kawalski was no exception.

In an excellent 2010 article, Fr. Peter Scott (former US District Superior) took aim at the Divine Mercy devotion, noting that it was:

"Condemned by the Holy Office.  There were two decrees from Rome on this question, both of the time of Pope John XXIII. The Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, in a plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958, made the following decisions: The supernatural nature of the revelations made to Sister Faustina is not evident.  No feast of Divine Mercy is to be instituted.  It is forbidden to divulge images and writings that propagate this devotion under the form received by Sister Faustina.

The second decree of the Holy Office was on March 6, 1959, in which the following was established:  The diffusion of images and writings promoting the devotion to Divine Mercy under the form proposed by the same Sister Faustina was forbidden.  The prudence of the bishops is to judge as to the removal of the aforesaid images that are already displayed for public honor."
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?article_id=2895§ion=articles&subsection=show_article

It was not until the Polish Pope lifted the censure upon the works of Sr. Faustina in 1978 that this devotion was "rehabilitated" in and for the conciliar church.

That fact, along with the pride and presumption Fr. Scott notes in Sr. Faustina's Diary, sufficed for SSPXers (clergy and lay) to steer clear of this new devotion.

How surprising it was, then, to see this devotion creeping into the SSPX during the post-2012 years of SSPX ralliement (or, perhaps not).

On 6/26/15, the Spanish language resistance blog (Non Possumus) published an article titled "The Neo-FSSPX and its Double Face II," from which the material below is excerpted:
https://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2015/06/la-neo-fsspx-y-su-doble-cara-ii.html



"Did you know that the neo-FSSPX, in some of its official sites, promotes devotion to Faustina Kowalska:

The Facebook of the Neo-FSSPX of Poland publishes phrases from the "Diary" of Sister Faustina:





The weekly St. Mary's newsletter of December 7, 2014, includes "Saint" Faustina among the "Relics for Advent until the Christmas season":



And in the catalog 2010-2011 of the "Editorial Sarto", of the District of Germany, there are two books of Sister Faustina for sale (one is her "Diary"):




These few examples, taken from official SSPX websites, publishing houses, and newsletters suffice to illustrate a disturbing new openness to conciliar "saints" and devotions which stands in sharp contrast to the prudent spirit which animated Fr. Scott's article.

But if you are going to join the conciliar church, you must not reject its "saints" and devotions.


Offline X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
« Reply #52 on: March 06, 2019, 07:12:54 PM »
#52: Change (Modernist Books for Sale):

In post #50, we referenced a (since deleted) article from SSPX.org denouncing what it termed Pope Benedict XVI's "sweeping exoneration of the Jєωιѕн people for the death of Jesus Christ in his new book, the second volume of Jesus of Nazareth."

Yet, quite incoherently, here was that same book (Jesus of Nazareth) being promoted by the SSPX German District's "Editorial Sarto," in addition to several other modernist works and authors (even one by arch-modernist, Hans Urs von Balthasar):




But that is not all. Did you know that this catalog also offers the following modernist works for sale:



"Jesus of Nazareth", by Benedict XVI



"The Spirit of the Liturgy", by  Benedict XVI





"Reflections on the Priesthood", by Benedict XVI

"Luz y Sombra", by  Card. Walter Brandmuller

"Dominus est", by  Mons. Athanasius Schneider

And that they not only include these books by modernist "conservative" authors, but also sell "extreme" modernist works?
"Basic works of three great women of Helfta", by  Hans Urs von Balthasar  - Margot Schmidt

And it also draws attention to the fact that, in the Editorial Sarto, the "Saint" has [been] removed the authors canonized by the Church, according to modernist usage:






Offline X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
« Reply #53 on: March 07, 2019, 06:20:33 AM »
#53: Contradiction (Modesty in Dress):

On 6/21/15,  SSPX.org published a great article in "The Pastor's Corner" titled "How Catholics Ought to Dress," which included among many other timely reminders, this statement:

"An even further consideration for men and women is to dress properly according to their nature, or respectively, according to their masculinity or femininity. For men, this means they should not wear tight-fitting clothes or in general, go shirtless in public (especially for fathers, even around the home in front of their children).

For the ladies, to dress like a man (such as wearing pants) is improper and contradicts a woman’s God-given femininity. That this is not merely an “old fuddy duddy’s” quibble, should be evident when we realize that the proponents of unisex clothing have also been the same “gender theory” people behind the promotion of sins against nature.

It is interesting to note that the “Lion of Campos”, Bishop de Castro Mayer, once famously remarked in a pastoral letter that he would prefer a woman to wear a mini-skirt rather than pants. For while the mini-skirt was immodest, it was at least feminine, while pants contradicted a woman’s nature (thus the former attacked the senses, while the latter warped the intellect).

Therefore, so-called “woman’s pants” (usually worn out of pleasure or commodity) are not the proper garb of a Catholic (or Marian-like) girl or lady, either in the parish, domestic or social life."
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/how-catholics-ought-dress-2203
[NB: It appears access to the link above is denied.  However, the entire article is also available here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/how-catholics-ought-to-dress-(email-from-sspx)/]

However, just yesterday, in a post titled “Another Look Inside Operations of the Regina Coeli House - Assistant Priests & Staff,” the very same district office which less than four years prior published the above letter included a picture of its office staff:


https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/another-look-inside-operations-regina-coeli-house-assistant-priests-staff-45732

With every single female employee unanimously flaunting the Church’s (and SSPX's) own moral norms for modesty in dress (i.e., they are all wearing pants), the message sent is unmistakable:

Either the SSPX no longer endorses traditional norms for modesty, or, they have no wish to be taken seriously when they do.

MODERATOR POSTSCRIPT 3/13/19:
The SSPX just edited the picture, so that it conveniently cuts off before showing that all the women wear pants. I have added the "after" photo to this post as an attachment. This is why every website article, photo, etc. referenced in this CCCC thread has to be archived: the SSPX isn't above changing or deleting embarrassing data "down the memory hole" Ministry of Truth style when their cause requires it. 

Offline X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
« Reply #54 on: March 07, 2019, 05:03:28 PM »
#54: Contradiction: (A Slip of the Lip?):

On October 24, 2012 the General House of the SSPX issued a communique announcing not merely the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, but also stating the reason for the expulsion:

"Bishop Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the management and the government of the SSPX for several years, and refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors, was declared excluded from the SSPX by decision of the Superior General and its Council, on October 4th, 2012. A final deadline had been granted to him to declare his submission, after which he announced the publication of an “open letter” asking the Superior General to resign."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/10/sspx-williamson-removed.html

We covered this in post #40, so why is it getting mention again?

Because on March 19, 2015 (i.e., the day of the episcopal consecration of Bishop Jean Michel Faure by Bishop Williamson), Menzingen issued another communique designed to please its Roman handlers in which it gave a completely different reason for the expulsion of Bishop Williamson (and we might add, that which is most likely the true reason):

"Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure have not been members of the Society of St. Pius X since 2012 and 2014, respectively, because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities. According to them, such contacts were incompatible with the apostolic work of Archbishop Lefebvre."
https://sspx.org/en/consecration-of-fr-jean-michel-faure

It doesn't matter for our present purposes that this latter/true reason for the expulsion of Bishop Williamson is a caricature of Bishop Williamson's posture vis-a-vis Rome (i.e., He opposed relations aimed at obtaining a practical accord with unconverted Rome, but not as regards a willingness to help them convert back to Tradition, should they ever want to do so).  What does matter, is that it corroborates the indiscreet admission of SSPX German District spokesman, Fr. Andreas Steiner, that, "The decision [to expel Bishop Williamson] will certainly facilitate the talks [with Rome]."
https://religion.orf.at/stories/2555877/

The minions of Menzingen had insisted for three years that the expulsion of Bishop Williamson had nothing to do with the elimination of an obstacle standing in the way of a practical accord, but was instead (as the 10/24/12 communique stated) purely and simply a matter of disobedience.  

But anxious to show their Roman handlers how "different" they had become from the old SSPX "Williamsonites," particularly as regards their newfound respect for authority, the Society issued that strident denunciation, and in the course of doing so, unwittingly showed their true motivations.