MarcelJude, thanks for posting this news.

However, posting pictures "fresh from the digital camera" is NOT recommended.

You need to scale them down using some kind of cheap or free photo editing software. Each of your (6) graphics was 3 or 4 MB. That's a lot of downloading, unless you have a University connection to the Internet or something.

Cost is no issue or excuse, either -- "Gimp" works great and is free for all operating systems. There are countless utilities available online that will scale pictures down for you. Anyhow, 2800 X 3000 pixels is not necessary :)

And some of your graphics were completely redundant, so I left them out.

Now that I've fixed the thread, my comments:

How outrageous. These priests act like they're in a cult. They make claim to "supplied jurisdiction" where the needs of the Faithful cause the Church to supply jurisdiction where it is normally lacking. Which is fine -- but then they can't pick and choose which Faithful they will serve. If someone crosses the Church door, they are obligated to offer the Sacraments.

Since when can a priest deny a person the Sacraments because they don't like him, they don't like his face, or because he's a Packers fan?

That's what it comes down to. Supporting the Resistance is NOT like being a public notorious sinner, or being excommunicated. When an SSPX Father is confronted with a Resistance supporter, what he sees is an "opponent" or someone he disagrees with at best. He can't deny him the Sacraments because they have a personal disagreement.

The SSPX here is acting like a parallel church, a schismatic sect, a cult, which presumes to excommunicate members. Is Bishop Fellay now the pope? Is Fr. Couture? He sure acts like he is.

In the 1940's or 1950's, could a priest excommunicate a member of the Church on his own volition? I doubt it.

"If anyone from this group is caught actively promoting it here in this chapel, this person will be denied the sacraments." This is the crux of the matter. The rest is much ado about nothing. If you are a Resistance person nobody stops you from attending Mass in an SSPX chapel. All that the SSPX-Asia is saying ( and only one chapel has put up such a notice) is not to promote the Resistance on their property. All over the district Resistance people, including Organizers, are attending Mass at SSPX chapels, some because of the low frequency of Resistance Masses in their respective areas.

Marcel Lefebvre, were he alive, was a big enough soul to have perhaps navigated us out of this growing cultish sectarianism.  Obviously, leaders like Bp. Fellay, Frs. Courtier and Rostand, et al. do not have this largeness of soul.  They are incapable of seeing the bigger picture.  After awhile, the siege mentality sets in, and these leaders take refuge behind the walls of their own narrow traditional Catholic interests.  It becomes a mindless battle for turf.  

Marcel Lefebvre, were he alive, was a big enough soul to have perhaps navigated us out of this growing cultish sectarianism.  Obviously, leaders like Bp. Fellay, Frs. Courtier and Rostand, et al., do not have this largeness of soul.  They are incapable of seeing the bigger picture.  After awhile, the siege mentality sets in, and these leaders take refuge behind the walls of their own narrow traditional Catholic interests.  It becomes a mindless battle for turf.  

That's an apt measure of the crisis in the XSPX.  

They're incapable of seeing the bigger picture because they are caught up in the same unclean spirit that ABL fought against.  ABL founded the Society with a fighting spirit to battle Modernism and the liberal roots of Newrome's aggiornamento with the "satanic scourge" of the Church (which is atheistic Communism -- cf. DR, 1937, Pius XI).  

For inasmuch as they are blind to this satanic scourge and persist in their pursuit of making a 'deal' with modernist Rome (even while they lie and claim that no such thing is afoot!), the Menzingen-denizens in their train blindly headed for Rome (and "those who want to get off will get off" - Fr. Nicolas Pfluger), is nothing but the blind being led by the blind, and the train together with Newrome will fall into the pit.  


Wouldn't it be terrible if that literally were to happen?




This "fighting spirit" that ABL BUILT IN to the fledgeling Society was under subtle undermining even while he was alive, which was a cause of much grief for him, but only 3 years after he died, the mistake-bishop whom he regrettably consecrated was raised to Superior General, even though ABL had made it clear that he wanted a priest, not any bishop, to hold that position.  Right away, upon his election, +F, the inexperienced non-pastor, began his slow, steady work (like that of termites) infesting the Society with his minions, promoting his yes-men, and gradually turning that fighting spirit that ABL had aimed at the enemy, turning it around so as to now attack the solid and good priests within the Society itself.  

For now, +F and his Fellayite minions do not make war with the unclean spirit of Vat.II anymore, they make war with +W and Fr. Girouard and Fr. Pinaud and Fr. Chazal, and Fr. Altamira and Fr. Faure, among others.  

Now, Vat.II is "95% acceptable," even though every time +F refers to some part of Vat.II as something he wants to accommodate, it's something in that dirty 5% that is UNACCEPTABLE (or so he would lead you to believe).

Do You Want Him To Be YOUR Leader?

If he had any common decency, he would step down.

.

Is the SSPX (in all its chapels) supposed to be a disinterested outpost of the One True Church, or a private club set up for its own benefit?

Is the SSPX a club/cult/business, or a mere branch of the Catholic Church that only exists for the sake of the Faithful?

Quote from: Francisco

Quote from: Matthew

Now that I've fixed the thread, my comments:

How outrageous. These priests act like they're in a cult. They make claim to "supplied jurisdiction" where the needs of the Faithful cause the Church to supply jurisdiction where it is normally lacking. Which is fine -- but then they can't pick and choose which Faithful they will serve. If someone crosses the Church door, they are obligated to offer the Sacraments.

Since when can a priest deny a person the Sacraments because they don't like him, they don't like his face, or because he's a Packers fan?

That's what it comes down to. Supporting the Resistance is NOT like being a public notorious sinner, or being excommunicated. When an SSPX Father is confronted with a Resistance supporter, what he sees is an "opponent" or someone he disagrees with at best. He can't deny him the Sacraments because they have a personal disagreement.

The SSPX here is acting like a parallel church, a schismatic sect, a cult, which presumes to excommunicate members. Is Bishop Fellay now the pope? Is Fr. Couture? He sure acts like he is.

In the 1940's or 1950's, could a priest excommunicate a member of the Church on his own volition? I doubt it.

"If anyone from this group is caught actively promoting it here in this chapel, this person will be denied the sacraments." This is the crux of the matter. The rest is much ado about nothing. If you are a Resistance person nobody stops you from attending Mass in an SSPX chapel. All that the SSPX-Asia is saying ( and only one chapel has put up such a notice) is not to promote the Resistance on their property. All over the district Resistance people, including Organizers, are attending Mass at SSPX chapels, some because of the low frequency of Resistance Masses in their respective areas.

Precisely. Can you imagine if someone from the Indult Masses, coming to an SSPX chapel to actively promote the Indult and distribute flyers trying to lure ppl to the Indult Mass? No sane pastor would tolerate that.

Yes I'm also surprised that people dont want to see it like it is! This non-issue has been blown up by Fr Chazal's small, but over enthusiatic, Young Men's Brigade, who keep arranging Masses (usually one-off per venue) for him to say here, there and everywhere in the Philippines.

 :dancing-banana:
The issue is not that the priest has the right to approve or veto promotion of extracurricular activities in the chapel over which he is pastor.  A priest has a duty to censure what happens on church grounds.  The problem is that he is abusing his authority by misuse of the Sacraments.  Does he not realize that God holds him responsible for unjustly withholding graces based upon personal politics?  
The matter needs to be looked upon in the broader sense.  If the SSPX as a whole wants control over the whereabouts and associations of the laity, then they are nothing but a cult whose main interest is enslavement of its members, certainly not the Church founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of souls.  
Since when does a Catholic priest refuse the Sacraments to souls in need  because he disapproves of a fellow priest?  Or does this priest believe Fr. Chazal is no longer a priest?!!!  If he has a problem with Fr. Chazal, he should be man enough to confront Fr. Chazal instead of withholding graces from the sheep.