During an exorcism of an adult convert in the Sacrament of Baptism, the person felt the devil come out of her spine.

I've heard of the devil being "on your back" -- but having the devil literally IN your back, in your actual spinal column? That's a new one.

And an angel is only present by his action in a place. Angels (good or bad) don't have length/height/depth -- they are pure spirits.

So if the devil was in her spine, what was the devil DOING to her spine? I didn't think the spine was a common locus of demonic activity in the possessed.

Let's just say I'm becoming increasingly not-impressed by Fr. Poisson.

Imprudent, emotional, unstable -- and that's the best-case scenario.

Now we understand why he is at olmc.

Interestingly, the catacombs.com absolutely refuses to publish this letter by fr. Poisson.  I have tried four times, without any commentary, and they deleted the post/thread each time.

I wonder why?

Interestingly, the catacombs.com absolutely refuses to publish this letter by fr. Poisson.  I have tried four times, without any commentary, and they deleted the post/thread each time.

I wonder why?

They are probably rightly embarrassed by it.

Though to be honest, I don't know all the fine details about OLMC, its splinter groups, chapels, ex-chapels, clerical personalities, lay personalities, several micro-fora (each with < 130 members) and handful of priests, each with complex background and loyalties. And yes, a lot of those positions/loyalties/associations change with time, and that's the worst part. I can't keep up, and I am usually well-informed about the Trad world.

Take everything you've ever heard negative about the Resistance -- it actually applies to these people. They really do give the Resistance a bad name. Too bad there's no way to gatekeep or restrict usage of the term "SSPX Resistance" -- unfortunately, anyone can join or claim membership. Including the mentally ill and all sorts of malicious people.

As I said in another thread, the only answer is to distinguish "Is this a symptom of a fundamental problem, from the top-down, it HAD to happen" or is it just a case of a bad individual coincidentally being part of a group? One shouldn't dismiss the whole group if the latter is true.

If you leave every group you find a bad person in, you will end up living in the desert, alone. Because Original Sin.

Take everything you've ever heard negative about the Resistance -- it actually applies to these people. They really do give the Resistance a bad name. Too bad there's no way to gatekeep or restrict usage of the term "SSPX Resistance" -- unfortunately, anyone can join or claim membership. Including the mentally ill and all sorts of malicious people.

Well, that's because there's no actual formal group called "The Resistance" ... as per Bishop Williamson.  Bishop Williamson has long resisted calls to formalize a group but wants to think of the situation in the Church as just pockets of Catholics around the world attempting to keep the faith.  To prevent this kind of thing from happening, someone would have to formally create some kind of organization.

Though I do not have a high regard for the author of this post, ...

You're being too kind, and grossly understating this  

but, yes, my understanding of Bishop Williamson's philosophy regarding a Resistance lines up exactly with how you described it.

So people simply "self-identify" as Resistance.  I claim to support the Resistance and be aligned with its principles, and there's no organization to say, "no you don't".

This does create issues.  So, for instance, there are a group of Flat Earth advocates who constantly promote Bishop Williamson and the Resistance ... in such a way as to imply that Bishop Williamson endorses their position on that subject.  But when pressed on the issue, the admit that His Excellency does not.

Yet this creates a ton of gray.  And Bishop Williamson doesn't necessarily think it's a bad thing, considering it just to be in the nature of this crisis.  It does have its pros and its cons not to have a formal organization.  We could go through them, but I'm sure everyone can come up with many.

What if Bishop Williamson did create a group back in 2012 or decide he made a mistake in not staring an organized central group (but still keep all his personal beliefs about all the other controversies) and started a centralized group now. Would Pablo, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Raphael, Greg Taylor and all the rest join him? What about all the other French priests that joined the Resistance back in 2012-2013 only to become independent sedevacantist or non una-cuм?
Most likely if there was a group headed by Bishop Williamson, I still think there would be the same division as we have now. Maybe the only thing that would be different is that MCSPX and SAJM would be one organization.

This is only my personal opinion, but I thought the same thing. Namely, that it would be worse if +W attempted to bring everyone in and had marginal success.

Just the idea that you wanted something that didn't happen suggests your will is out of line with God's will or something. Archbishop Lefebvre succeeded with the SSPX -- because that was God's will. It was a different time. But was +ABL lucky? Or did he attempt to create the SSPX *because* and only because it was God's will?

When you try to do something and fail, it makes you look bad. And not just from a shallow, selfish, PR standpoint either. It makes you look out of touch with God's will, like you weren't very wise or prudent, not being able to read the board.

On the other hand, it is true that God wants us to try our best and He is not so concerned with results. So, for example, offering Mass to the Faithful, setting up Resistance chapels -- "you have to try" because not trying really isn't an option. We need the Sacraments. The priests have to keep being faithful priests (for someone, for some group) and the Faithful need Mass as often as possible. So even if the Resistance doesn't take off like gangbusters, you still have to stick with it, because the alternative is what, waiting for death? Giving up on the Faith? Compromise? These aren't valid alternatives.

But starting a large, centralized, monolithic, Trad group is not essential to the Faith or the salvation of souls. So if a bishop for example looked at the board and realized it wasn't called for, it reflects well on him to not have attempted it in the first place.

Just for starters, the numbers aren't there. I'd like to know what year +ABL had the same number of priests and Faithful. Probably 1970. Seriously, the Resistance is extremely tiny, and so many priests who jumped ship just wanted to be independent, and almost used the SSPX sellout as an excuse or a chance to strike out on their own. Priests are human too, and who wouldn't prefer to be their own boss, when it comes right down to it? To live where you want, have Mass where you prefer, hang around the people you like, keep your own schedule, travel as much/little as you want, etc.

Priests AND laymen suffer from the same problem: only a small percentage have what it takes to be saints, to really make headway over human nature and sinful inclinations.

He was ordained in the Fraternity of St. Peter. If you don't think Fr. Poisson is a real priest, you should say the same about all the other priests of the FSSP. And the ICKSP, IBP, etc.

That would be the logical conclusion. An alarming one, too.