I had a recent conversation with a Society priest regarding the crisis in the SSPX, and his general perspective was that there was no longer a crisis in the SSPX, since Bishop Fellay's deal was refused by Rome.

I explained to him that the present danger was not so much in the signing of a deal with modernist Rome (though that could still happen at any time), but in the mutations that have occurred, and are occurring, in the SSPX in order to set the table.

He asked for examples.

It was a 3 hour conversation, but to the best of my recollection, here is what I cited:


1) Mutation in seminary formation:

Emphasis on spirituality over doctrine.  He acknowledged the present formation in Winona was not a Bishop Williamson formation, but was not necessarily evil.  I told him I agreed spirituality was not bad, but that it seems to be a set-up to create a better impression in Rome to create priests who are not always criticizing V2.  I noted it also seems to be in line with the scandalous letter Archbishop Di Noia sent to all SSPX priests, telling them we need to set aside doctrinal differences and concentrate on spirituality if relations are ever to improve (link to that letter is here: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300258.htm

2) Mutation in Sermon Content:

There no longer seems to be the same willingness to fight for doctrine at any cost; instead priests prefer to stick to a course safer for their careers, and preach on the virtues, rather than the errors of Vatican II (lest they be thought to oppose Menzingen).  Whether this is a result of the new soft-batch seminary formation for the younger priests, or a conscious career move for the older priests, it seems to be in line with the letter Archbishop Di Noia sent to all SSPX clergy.

3) General Chapter Declaration Still Stands:

And it stands as a treacherous broadcast to Rome that we are willing to overlook doctrine and discuss a merely practical arrangement.  So long as that declaration remains unrepudiated, it remains a permanent cause of instability in the SSPX.

4) 6 Conditions Still Stand:

Surrender terms handed to the enemy.  Forget about the weak/limp nature of the terms themselves.  They are a permanent offer on the table, and another revolutionary cause of discord and instability.

5) Doctrinal Declaration of Bishop Fellay:

I said it was against the Faith, and that based on it's contents (Vatican 2 is traditional), Bishop Fellay and I do not share the same religion, because his religion can accept Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae, and mine cannot.  He said the statement was merely ambiguous.  I responded that we are not lawyers in a court of law where I have to rule out every possible beneficial interpretation; the whole world knows what Bishop Fellay wanted to accomplish with his statement, and it was a sellout against the faith.  He stood his ground, stating that it was merely ambiguous.  I responded that on the side of the resistance, I do not have to worry about ambiguity, whereas on the Menzingen side, I no longer recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd; I said even if you are correct that the doctrinal declaration was merely ambiguous, there is undeniably a weakening, lessening, or sullying of the Faith coming from Menzingen.

6) Compromised Priests:

I said that insofar as you are able to retain your faith, and fidelity to your duties of state within the SSPX, you are doing so in spite of the influence of Menzingen, and not because of Menzingen.  10-15 years ago it was Menzingen that facilitated you; today it is Menzingen that hampers you.  He acknowledged this.

7) Compromised Duty of State?

I said one of the reasons the SSPX used to tell us we could not go to the indult was because even if everything else that happened there was positively Catholic, still, the priest would never be allowed to warn us against the poisonous doctrines of Vatican II, and that attending such Masses was therefore precluded as a danger to the faith in the form of an omission to warn.  He responded that he was not precluded from preaching against Vatican II.  I said yes, but you are precluded from preaching against the dangers of Menzingen (such as the doctrinal declaration's acceptance of V2 as traditional; etc).  He acknowledged he had to be careful what he said, but did not consider that he had a duty to preach on something almost none of the parishioners were aware of, stating probably only 20% had even read the doctrinal declaration.  I told him that it was not sufficient to protect the faith of the faithful by allowing them to remain ignorant.  Furthermore, that they were more likely to go along with the revolution if they did not understand that Bishop Fellay was willing to accept religious liberty, etc, and that this ignorance would be the cause of them having unwittingly lost the faith one day!  He seemed to reflect on that point a bit, and responded that Bishop Fellay's letter to Archbishop Di Noia that the Pope's response to the signed sellout (my words) could not serve as the basis of an agreement was tantamount to a repudiation of the declaration, and therefore a formal repudiation was not necessary, and he had no duty to go teaching against an irrelevant docuмent (more or less).  

8) Untrustworthy Leadership:

Following from the deceptions coming out of Menzingen, and from them through the various District offices, there is a permanent trust issue.  We were deceived, and those of us who informed ourselves cannot possibly trust the leadership who treacherously betrayed us.  So long as they stay in power, they represent a permanent source of instability and discord.  Their infidelity has been discovered, and we are supposed to think up clever exemptions to pretend what they tried (are trying?) to do never happened?  That would seem to oppose prudence.

There was much more that was discussed, but the general point, is that people need to understand that the crisis has not passed.

Rather, it has worsened: The maneuvers which were executed in an attempt to get a deal have become cemented in place as permanent fixtures.

The danger remains so long as the mutations remain (and the people who invented the mutations remain).

Sorry, SeanJohnson, not Neil Obstat...Getting old.

Sounds about right to me.

What'd the priest say?

It was not Archbishop Di Noia's letter of Jan 20, 2013 to which Bishop Fellay replied that he could not accept BXVI's demand for total capitulation.

There was a different communication between the two.

It is probably out in internet land somewhere.

But I do agree: Bishop Fellay telling Archbishop Di Noia he cannot accept BXVI's terms is not the same thing as repudiating the declaration he signed and submitted to Rome.

I had a recent conversation with a Society priest regarding the crisis in the SSPX, and his general perspective was that there was no longer a crisis in the SSPX, since Bishop Fellay's deal was refused by Rome.

I explained to him that the present danger was not so much in the signing of a deal with modernist Rome (though that could still happen at any time), but in the mutations that have occurred, and are occurring, in the SSPX in order to set the table.

He asked for examples.

It was a 3 hour conversation, but to the best of my recollection, here is what I cited:

Did he mention prudence a few hundred times when you talked to him? That's what I heard Fr. Themann kept bringing up over and over ad nauseam with my parents.

It was not Archbishop Di Noia's letter of Jan 20, 2013 to which Bishop Fellay replied that he could not accept BXVI's demand for total capitulation.

There was a different communication between the two.

It is probably out in internet land somewhere.

But I do agree: Bishop Fellay telling Archbishop Di Noia he cannot accept BXVI's terms is not the same thing as repudiating the declaration he signed and submitted to Rome.

It was the Easter Cor Unum  -- that made mention of this
conversation (not letter) between B.F. and Abp de Noia --
referenced in at least two docuмents, but AFAIK not
divulged in its entirety to the general public.  

I suspect that any SSPX priest who received the Cor Unum and
divulges its contents would be therefore expelled post haste.

This is how the contents (like this conversation topic) of the
Cor Unum can be guarded with an attitude of 'HUSH' and
GNOSTICISM, such that it achieves a kind of mystic and
sacredness, an UNTOUCHABILITY.  It becomes a sort of
holy thing, and B.Fellay becomes a kind of godlike creature.

One of the consequences of being 'expelled' is that you no
longer get the Cor Unum.  And perhaps - just a hunch - one of
the sanctions against priests who are 'disobedient' and are to
therefore be subjected to reprisals is, that they might be
forbidden to see copies of the Cor Unum - that is, they are then
'out of the loop' and are getting a taste of what a terrible thing
it is to be 'excluded' -- like the Modernists do in Pascendi.

Neil Obstat said (among many other  good things, as Magdalena acknowledged):

 “One of the consequences of being 'expelled' is that you no longer get the Cor Unum.  And perhaps - just a hunch - one of the sanctions against priests who are 'disobedient' and are to therefore be subjected to reprisals is, that they might be forbidden to see copies of the Cor Unum - that is, they are then 'out of the loop' and are getting a taste of what a terrible thing it is to be 'excluded' -- like the Modernists do in Pascendi”.

IMIgnorantOpinion, they would be blessed by not reading the Cor Unum. Or, should I enjoy listening to, at the beginning of the homily, in front of the Crucifix (still there): “The Ascencion of Our Lord is an idea, a thought…a mystery…a mystery, that’s what it is [low voice]”. Will I lose my Faith or not by listening to that? Because words do have their meanings and they do enter into my 64-year old head (I have many examples with my 2-year old grandson, and I also talk to the 4-month old one, unborn yet). Will the priests lose their Faith or not by reading Cor Unum? See, that is the quid. I can tell by reading or listening to what they say (Father Hewko is just an example) that priests that have crossed the Rubicon River are happy ones. Why? Because “La Verdad os hará libres”. Why not apply that to myself, an ignorant laity? But, I might be wrong, naturally.

Quote from: magdalena

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Sounds about right to me.

What'd the priest say?

I believe a number of us are wondering the same thing, Md.  Thank you, Sean, for persisting.  Most of us on CathInfo, I imagine, are hoping that our priests will see the light sooner or later and not be so naïve.  Hopefully, sooner.  I'm sure they're afraid, but the more resisters we have to the trajectory the better.  

What was the question here?

Wondering if you can give us a general (or even specific) description of the priest's disposition and reception (or lacktherof) towards these issues during this exchange.