Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on August 03, 2014, 08:49:41 PM
-
St. Pius V Catholic Church
Announcement
July 20, 2014, Cebu City
There is a group calling themselves “the resistance” (they may go by other names as well) which organizes Traditional Latin Masses on the island of Cebu who are actively working against the society of St. Pius X.
This notice serves as warning from our District Superior, Fr. Daniel Couture:
If anyone from this group is caught actively promoting it here in this chapel, this person will be denied the sacraments.
(Note: If a visiting priest comes to this chapel, he will be forewarned about such activities and will be instructed to deny the sacraments to such a person.)
For questions about this matter, please refer to me directly.
Fr. John Hattrup
SSPX
-
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.
-
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.
-
Outrageous? Yes! Surprising? Barely!
===
Fr. Arnaud Rostand;
1:22 "I will not let people play two games, in one hand they attack us and on the other they play angel at the communion rail(...)" [*Round of applause from the sectarian Fellayites]
1:40 "I told one person who've we decided to refuse communion that it is inconsistent to have a website where you explain that bishop Fellay has made a new religion
and still come to our church, this is the church of Bishop of Fellay(...)"
_______________
There you have it! To attack Bishop B'nai Fellay and be an inconsistent person have become grounds to deny holy communion in the "canon law" of the "church of Bishop Fellay".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkSWDi7oJgM
-
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.
-
Outrageous? Yes! Surprising? Barely!
===
Fr. Arnaud Rostand;
1:22 "I will not let people play two games, in one hand they attack us and on the other they play angel at the communion rail(...)" [*Round of applause from the sectarian Fellayites]
1:40 "I told one person who've we decided to refuse communion that it is inconsistent to have a website where you explain that bishop Fellay has made a new religion
and still come to our church, this is the church of Bishop of Fellay(...)"
_______________
There you have it! To attack Bishop B'nai Fellay ..
Is it okay for me to laugh or is that forbidden now? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
.. and be an inconsistent person have become grounds to deny holy communion in the "canon law" of the "church of Bishop Fellay".[/b]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/GkSWDi7oJgM[/youtube]
.
-
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?
(http://api.ning.com/files/8Bw4zzYpOOiW4G6EWMBPe4kbhAW3LPC870aY9N6CRfBTVkL3ABiWUiPnDcwA5q3DSKaeoVwn2gKPRIffY1qfY7KtX0fN50Dt/2000_server_down_train_wreck.jpg)
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.
.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Am I misreading, or does the title of the "announcement" read "Pius V" instead of "Pius X"? What has Fr Coture have to do with SSPV? Why should Pius V care about the Resistance?
:confused1:
-
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.
-
I miss Cebu.
-
: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.
-
Am I misreading, or does the title of the "announcement" read "Pius V" instead of "Pius X"? What has Fr Coture have to do with SSPV? Why should Pius V care about the Resistance?
:confused1:
Don't be confused - the name of the SSPX chapel is St Pius V.
-
Am I misreading, or does the title of the "announcement" read "Pius V" instead of "Pius X"? What has Fr Coture have to do with SSPV? Why should Pius V care about the Resistance?
:confused1:
Don't be confused - the name of the SSPX chapel is St Pius V.
Does the SSPV have any chapels named "St. Pius X?"
We'll know it's REALLY getting bad when the SSPX opens a new chapel named,
"St. John XXIII." :tv-disturbed:
.
-
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.
And when it gets posted on Cathinfo, the Resistance folks get all worked up over nothing as if it has never happened before in the history of the SSPX. I recall similar action against the Feeneyites who were propagating Feeneyism and causing discord in SSPX chapels, as well as against certain parishioners who were writing poison pen letters against the priests.
-
Perhaps the SSPX are working off the principle that "a house divided against itself cannot stand"?
How does the Resistance deal with say priests and laity that not only hold SV sympathies but spread them around before and after mass? How does the Resistance deal with its own "splitters"
I know some of the key figures in the resistance and have known them and known of them for decades. In the most part, whenever they have had the power to do so, they have dealt with dissent in a similar fashion. It's just now they are on the receiving end of the power of censure and being cast out.
Add to this, this is the Philippines we are talking about here. They are not cold blooded Englishmen. I'm pretty sure things get heated and passionate very quickly in that culture.
-
<I know some of the key figures in the resistance and have known them and known of them for decades. In the most part, whenever they have had the power to do so, they have dealt with dissent in a similar fashion. It's just now they are on the receiving end of the power of censure and being cast out>
Ditto two of the M-C priests when they were in the SSPX ......
-
I'm convinced that the clerical taliban has existed as long as anyone can remember and pre-dates Vatican II by at least 100 years. Don Bosco's life was full of other priests ganging up on him.
-
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?
You hit the nail on the head! "The" should be changed to "it's" faithful, meaning faithful to those particular group of priests or Bishop.
-
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.
And when it gets posted on Cathinfo, the Resistance folks get all worked up over nothing as if it has never happened before in the history of the SSPX. I recall similar action against the Feeneyites who were propagating Feeneyism and causing discord in SSPX chapels, as well as against certain parishioners who were writing poison pen letters against the priests.
How in the world does one "propagate Feeneyism" pray tell?
Is it somehow reprehensible to advocate reading Scripture? Or are there certain passages that are for whatever reason to be avoided at all costs?
Or, like Fr. Pfeiffer did recently, is deliberate misinterpretation (like no commentary on Scripture has ever said) to construe I John v. 7-8 as referring to Baptism and the so-called three kinds thereof, instead of the divinity of Jesus in the Trinity (which is the only reasonable context, since that's the topic of chapter five), somehow become the norm? If deliberate misinterpretation of Scripture is to be now the norm, how are Catholics any different from Protestants or 7th Day Adventists or Mormons?
How does one propagate "Feeneyism"?
By openly proclaiming that there is no salvation outside the Church? What a crime! Wait. That's being Catholic.
Or is it by announcing from the housetops that your goal is the conversion of America?
EEEkkkk ---- how dare they be so unecuмenical!?!?
Wait. Isn't that what Catholics are SUPPOSED to be doing?
Please explain. Or, is explaining what you mean too much trouble?
.
-
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?
You hit the nail on the head! "The" should be changed to "it's" faithful, meaning faithful to those particular group of priests or Bishop.
How many times have we heard the Menzingen-denizens claim that it's the "Church of Fellay?"
.
-
.
I think I know why the SSPX has habitually been so irritated with the St. Benedict Center.
I think I know the reason, and it has nothing to do with "baptism of desire" at all.
That's just a smokescreen. There is a much bigger reason.
MUCH BIGGER.
.
-
.
I think I know why the SSPX has habitually been so irritated with the St. Benedict Center.
I think I know the reason, and it has nothing to do with "baptism of desire" at all.
That's just a smokescreen. There is a much bigger reason.
MUCH BIGGER.
.
Now please dont leave us suspense - tell us all about this bigger reason!
-
Now I'm curious
-
.
I think I know why the SSPX has habitually been so irritated with the St. Benedict Center.
I think I know the reason, and it has nothing to do with "baptism of desire" at all.
That's just a smokescreen. There is a much bigger reason.
MUCH BIGGER.
.
Well?
-
.
I think I know why the SSPX has habitually been so irritated with the St. Benedict Center.
I think I know the reason, and it has nothing to do with "baptism of desire" at all.
That's just a smokescreen. There is a much bigger reason.
MUCH BIGGER.
.
Well?
Why wait for him? I have just recently posted 4 articles from the SSPX on this very issue on the CathInfo library. Go right to the source and read the SSPX explanation from their own words.
-
.
I think I know why the SSPX has habitually been so irritated with the St. Benedict Center.
I think I know the reason, and it has nothing to do with "baptism of desire" at all.
That's just a smokescreen. There is a much bigger reason.
MUCH BIGGER.
.
Well?
Why wait for him? I have just recently posted 4 articles from the SSPX on this very issue on the CathInfo library. Go right to the source and read the SSPX explanation from their own words.
Ambrose, while you have developed such a liking for SSPX articles why con't you post two or three, or four of their articles about sedevacantism in the library to give some balance?
-
Does/did the Church not refuse the sacraments to those organizations help bent on her destruction (i.e., members of communist parties and the freemasons)?
So if the Society is subject to such attacks, attacks designed for her destruction, is she not allowed to refuse the sacraments to such perpetrators?
The Church allows for the refusal of Holy Communion to both public and occult sinners (in certain circuмstances) and those who are not properly disposed.
What is/are the specific issues here?
-
Does/did the Church not refuse the sacraments to those organizations help bent on her destruction (i.e., members of communist parties and the freemasons)?
So if the Society is subject to such attacks, attacks designed for her destruction, is she not allowed to refuse the sacraments to such perpetrators?
The Church allows for the refusal of Holy Communion to both public and occult sinners (in certain circuмstances) and those who are not properly disposed.
What is/are the specific issues here?
You (like a lot of other people) seem to be mistaking the SSPX for "The Church" It is not "THE" Church. There are many different religious orders and societies/fraternities within the Catholic Church; the SSPX is one of them. Only priests can actually belong to it- the faithful are merely adherents who attend their Masses and support them. They (the SSPX superiors or priests) have no right to withhold Sacraments from faithful who are not in grave mortal sin. Disagreeing with the actions of the Superior General of an order to which one does not even belong (and thus has no authority over you) doesn't qualify as a mortal sin. Nor do they have the right (jurisdiction) to impose a sort of de facto "excommunication" the people who attend their chapels. If I have misstated this, then I will accept correction.
Also, when you say that 'the Society has been subject to attacks designed for her destruction"- ( I am assuming you mean by the Resistance) then you are mistaken. The Resistance priests and laity do not wish to destroy the SSPX, but rather to prevent it from the suicidal straying from the course of its founder into the lap of an unconverted Rome. If the SSPX sinks, it will not be because of the Resistance, but rather because the Superiors refused to heed the alarms coming from the Resistance which warn of the impending iceberg.
-
Does/did the Church not refuse the sacraments to those organizations help bent on her destruction (i.e., members of communist parties and the freemasons)?
So if the Society is subject to such attacks, attacks designed for her destruction, is she not allowed to refuse the sacraments to such perpetrators?
The Church allows for the refusal of Holy Communion to both public and occult sinners (in certain circuмstances) and those who are not properly disposed.
What is/are the specific issues here?
You (like a lot of other people) seem to be mistaking the SSPX for "The Church" It is not "THE" Church. There are many different religious orders and societies/fraternities within the Catholic Church; the SSPX is one of them. Only priests can actually belong to it- the faithful are merely adherents who attend their Masses and support them. They (the SSPX superiors or priests) have no right to withhold Sacraments from faithful who are not in grave mortal sin. Disagreeing with the actions of the Superior General of an order to which one does not even belong (and thus has no authority over you) doesn't qualify as a mortal sin. Nor do they have the right (jurisdiction) to impose a sort of de facto "excommunication" the people who attend their chapels. If I have misstated this, then I will accept correction.
Also, when you say that 'the Society has been subject to attacks designed for her destruction"- ( I am assuming you mean by the Resistance) then you are mistaken. The Resistance priests and laity do not wish to destroy the SSPX, but rather to prevent it from the suicidal straying from the course of its founder into the lap of an unconverted Rome. If the SSPX sinks, it will not be because of the Resistance, but rather because the Superiors refused to heed the alarms coming from the Resistance which warn of the impending iceberg.
This is making a mountain out of a molehill. If you go to any church to distribute literature hoping the faithful there to leave that church and go to the Resistance chapel instead, is there any surprise why you wouldn't be welcomed?
As far as I know, those who attend Resistance chapels and SSPX chapels just for Mass and for the sacraments are not denied the sacraments, at least in Asia. Only the troublemakers are, simple as that.
-
Does/did the Church not refuse the sacraments to those organizations help bent on her destruction (i.e., members of communist parties and the freemasons)?
So if the Society is subject to such attacks, attacks designed for her destruction, is she not allowed to refuse the sacraments to such perpetrators?
The Church allows for the refusal of Holy Communion to both public and occult sinners (in certain circuмstances) and those who are not properly disposed.
What is/are the specific issues here?
You (like a lot of other people) seem to be mistaking the SSPX for "The Church" It is not "THE" Church. There are many different religious orders and societies/fraternities within the Catholic Church; the SSPX is one of them. Only priests can actually belong to it- the faithful are merely adherents who attend their Masses and support them. They (the SSPX superiors or priests) have no right to withhold Sacraments from faithful who are not in grave mortal sin. Disagreeing with the actions of the Superior General of an order to which one does not even belong (and thus has no authority over you) doesn't qualify as a mortal sin. Nor do they have the right (jurisdiction) to impose a sort of de facto "excommunication" the people who attend their chapels. If I have misstated this, then I will accept correction.
Also, when you say that 'the Society has been subject to attacks designed for her destruction"- ( I am assuming you mean by the Resistance) then you are mistaken. The Resistance priests and laity do not wish to destroy the SSPX, but rather to prevent it from the suicidal straying from the course of its founder into the lap of an unconverted Rome. If the SSPX sinks, it will not be because of the Resistance, but rather because the Superiors refused to heed the alarms coming from the Resistance which warn of the impending iceberg.
This is making a mountain out of a molehill. If you go to any church to distribute literature hoping the faithful there to leave that church and go to the Resistance chapel instead, is there any surprise why you wouldn't be welcomed?
As far as I know, those who attend Resistance chapels and SSPX chapels just for Mass and for the sacraments are not denied the sacraments, at least in Asia. Only the troublemakers are, simple as that.
You may think it is "making a mountain out of a molehill", but then you aren't the one being denied Sacraments out of spite. I'm pretty sure that it isn't a "molehill" to some of the people here. At least once this has included Last Rites. So long as Mass is not being disrupted there is no reason to deny any Catholic attendance. Even the worst of sinners such as murderers or abortionists are not denied entry to Mass! And unless they are in mortal sin- and publicly known to be so, as to cause scandal- a Catholic is not to be denied Sacraments. (To do so is a mortal sin on the part of the priest, if I am not mistaken.) I don't think supplying pertinent and truthful information to other Catholics qualifies. I understand the complaint about handing out the info in the chapels- but what about off the property? On the street, in homes, private conversations, the internet, snailmail? (Or hacked email, for that matter.) They don't just object to handing out info at the chapel, but rather want to keep all the faithful totally in the dark. To try to squash the ability of the faithful to receive important information even outside of their chapels, and to smear and persecute those who offer it is a cult-like behavior. Those who supply the info are not trying to convert their chapel-members to another religion, but rather allow them the opportunity to examine the facts;`to make sure that they remain on the proper course and are not being misled.
-
Above reference to "hacked email" referred to the pending criminal case in France against the SSPX for hacking into the email of a resistance priest, I did not mean that the resistance has or should hack in order to send info- thought I should post a clarification in case there was confusion--- :reporter: