I believe he's pointing out here, the hypocrisy of the people who would gladly dialogue with Rome, and their unequivocal maligning of Traditional Catholics who are sedevacantist.

And Bishop Williamson is quite a poet.

Here's the important points:

Meanwhile, as it seems to me, a letter published in the latest issue of the Angelus, official magazine of the Society of St Pius X in the USA, goes astray to the left. Fr. S (Simoulin?) has several reasons for urging the SSPX to put itself “in the hands...of the Pope as soon as possible.” Firstly, to think that the Roman churchmen are intentional destroyers of the Church is implicit sedevacantism. ... Secondly, for the SSPX to wait until the Romans’ full doctrinal conversion to put itself into their hands, is unrealistic. ... Thirdly, the SSPX must give back to Rome as soon as possible the doctrine and practice of the true Faith. ... In brief, Fr. S. has lost sight of just how seductive and deadly for the Faith is the error of modernism.

Whenever anyone has this letter please publish it here.

Meanwhile, I suggest that Fr. Simoulin is simply a hireling that wants to live the easy life, to go along to get along. Nothing new there, the majority of the clergy in history have done the same, no different than all the laity and all men in their dealings with governments and life. There are few men born with the conviction to follow truth when it goes against ease.

http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/avoiding-false-spirit-resistance-3764

Avoiding a false spirit of resistance

Certainly there is a crisis in the Church, but how should we go about resisting it? What is the Catholic spirit for such circuмstances and how has this been consistently practiced by the SSPX in recent years?

In the image above, Archbishop Lefebvre ascends the steps into St. Peter's Basilica during the Credo Pilgrimage of 1975.

We are happy to feature another editorial of Fr. Michel Simoulin from the April issue of Le Seignadou (The Sign of God), newsletter of the SSPX's priory in Montreal de l'Aude, France. [see the last editorial: Why I love the SSPX]
Editorial

The great question that we, and above all our superiors, have to face is doubtless the following, as a friend so well put it:

    Is there no danger for the Faith if we accept to place ourselves under an authority, be it a Pope or a bishop, that for the last 50 years has worked unfailingly for the destruction of this Faith, without first coming to terms on the doctrinal questions at stake?"

The first answer is obviously: of course, the danger is great and real, we are all aware of this, and we have always said so and even insisted upon it. It is easy to refer to all the studies we have done on the Council, the New Catechism, John XXIII and John Paul II, for example. It is very obvious that if no “agreement” has yet been concluded, as Bishop Fellay so clearly explained, it is precisely because we do not wish to submit unconditionally to an authority without being sure that it wishes our good and will allow us to continue serving the Tradition of the Church without forcing us to accept Vatican II unconditionally.

That being said, can we really consider this authority as working for the destruction of the Faith? It would seem more accurate to call it an authority that does not profess the Faith, or does not confess it in its integrity, and that professes notions that are dangerous or even against the Faith. For there is a distinction to be made between an intention to destroy the Faith and an effect that was not directly wished for. It is clear that this loss of the Faith is a consequence of the conciliar doctrine that has been professed for the past 50 years, but can we say that this was and still is the intention of its promoters? If such were the case, these authorities would no longer have the Faith and would no longer be formally Catholic, and to believe this would be implicitly sedevacantist. Absit.

As for the need to “agree on doctrinal questions first”, we all agree that it is an ideal that we desire with all our heart. It is the ultimate goal of our resistance and of all our procedures. We can call it the “conversion” of Rome, or Rome’s return to the full and integral Tradition. Yes, “as far as the end is concerned, there is no limit to be respected,” but this limit must be respected “in all that is relative to the end, says Aristotle.” (St. Thomas Aquinas—IIa IIae, 184, 3) And it is prudence that inspires the choice of the means to be used to obtain this end. So we must be realistic or pragmatic! Is it not utopic, for example, to imagine (and demand) that today’s Rome re-establish today the obligation to take the anti-Modernist oath, renew the condemnations proclaimed by Quanta Cura and the Syllabus, Pascendi, Humani Generis, or reaffirm the doctrine of Quas Primas on the kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Can we imagine these things being done immediately? Of course, it would be ideal, and we all desire it, but can we hope for it to happen before several generations, or even for it to happen at all if the movement is not kept up by members whose faith and obedience are in no way doubtful? We cannot put our hope in the Ecclesia Dei communities, for they have accepted Vatican II in order to be recognized, and they have promised to raise no doctrinal objection to the current theses. We remain the only and last witnesses to the Tradition of the Church in its integrity, but we cannot keep this treasure for ourselves alone. We must rather aspire to placing it in the hands of the Church, and therefore of the Pope, as soon as possible.

This desire is the meaning of the decisions and declarations of our General Chapters in 2006 and 2012:

    If, after (the two conditions) are fulfilled, the Society waits for the possibility of doctrinal discussions, it is again with the goal of letting the voice of the traditional doctrine resound all the more loudly in the Church. Indeed, the sole purpose of the contact that it occasionally renews with the Roman authorities is to help them to reclaim the Tradition that the Church cannot reject without losing her identity, and not to seek any advantage for itself, or to conclude an impossible purely practical ‘agreement’. The day Tradition is restored to all its rights, the problem of a reconciliation will no longer exist and the Church will be restored to a new youth."

The condition of doctrinal discussions was added in 2001-2002 to the two other conditions decreed by Archbishop Lefebvre, when contact was renewed with Rome. Begun after the realization of the first two conditions in 2007 and 2009, these discussions, that lasted a year, did not come to any agreement. Without any doubt, the conditions necessary for establishing a normal relationship are still far from being fulfilled, and there is still a real danger, it is true, in a canonical agreement without a doctrinal agreement first. But must we wait for a miracle without doing anything to restore a new youth to the Church? And what can we reasonably expect and demand at present as far as a doctrinal agreement goes? The only thing that we can hope for and ask for, it seems, is the freedom to discuss Vatican II. Let them stop trying to impose upon us an unconditional acceptance of Vatican II as a condition. Let them admit that this council was and still is “pastoral” and not dogmatic, and that it can therefore legitimately be disputed. By ceasing to impose upon us a complete acceptance of Vatican II, and by granting us this liberty, they would already be making an important step, for they would be implicitly recognizing that our arguments are not worthless. An authority that consents to this would already be an authority that is not hostile to Tradition, and maybe even desirous of reestablishing it in the Church, and that would already be a true conversion for Rome. We are not there yet, and that is why nothing has been done. But if Rome accepted to no longer make of Vatican II a super-dogma, it would already be a great victory of grace, and could allow us to imagine reestablishing a certain canonical connection. When will this day dawn? No one knows, but we await it with confidence.

And now we must open our eyes to another danger, that is not hypothetical, but very real: that of no longer wishing to return to our legitimate place among the societies recognized by Rome, of losing the desire for the Church and for Rome. No longer desiring a normal relation with Rome and the Church is a shadow of the schismatic spirit. We have been living in independence from the Pope and the Bishops for a very long time, as if that were normal. We pretend to defend the doctrine, but we all run the risk of establishing a chosen doctrine, abandoning certain dogmas, those that bother us, especially those concerning the primacy of Peter. We all run the risk of becoming accustomed to the abnormal, of living in a comfortable situation, as if it were right and in conformity with the spirit of the Church. The Pope and the bishops are little by little confined to the realm of the beings “of reason”, with no influence on concrete life; Rome is no more than a pilgrimage site, and the Church is a Mystical Body with Jesus Christ for a head, the Holy Ghost for a soul, and the “Trads” for members. Our priests can quickly become gurus. Everyone could be a Pope with his Denzinger in hand, and every father of every family could be the Pope of his family. In these conditions, our children would no longer have any idea of what the real Church is in its full incarnation, from head to members, in all the realities of daily life.

As for authority… recognized in principle but not admitted in fact as far as the Pope is concerned, it risks no longer being recognized at any degree whatsoever. Every superior runs the risk of being challenged, criticized even publicly… and even families will fall apart. Why obey a father who does not obey the Pope, the bishop, the priest?

A summit implies danger on both sides. That of an unsafe recognition is one; the internal danger we have just described is another. While the former remains very hypothetical, the latter is not imminent; it is not even knocking at the door… It has already entered into our city and our families!

Are we right, then, to fear the first danger? Certainly, but without going so far as to lose hope and faith in the grace of the Church. And we will be able to face and conquer it only if we are able to unite our strengths instead of dividing them, to face it under the wise and prudent direction of the leaders God has given us. “A kingdom divided against itself will fall,” and the dialectics diffused by the “resistance” only weaken us in our true resistance against the sickness that eats away at the Church, and in our fidelity to the path wisely laid out and followed by Archbishop Lefebvre. One would think that the resistance has no other enemy than Bishop Fellay and the Society. They have obviously rejected any reference to Rome, and all that is left to justify their resistance is us! And if we are told that these “resisters” have been treated unfairly, we can suggest reading and meditating the lives of the saints and the great figures of the Church, who knew what the virtue of obedience is, and knew how to present their difficulties to their superiors without calling the entire planet to witness, on the pretext of saving the Faith, justice and truth. Who is more unjust: an authority that can be severe, perhaps even too severe, or a subordinate who diffuses all his resentment without the slightest prudence, and does not hesitate to publicly dishonor his superiors?

Read and meditate the example of Archbishop Lefebvre. When he left his congregation of the Holy Ghost Fathers who were falling apart, how many fathers did he call to follow him? Not one. How many pamphlets and books did he write to denounce his congregation’s decline? Not one. He did not return to the General Chapter and he left with a simple suitcase. And read the life of St. Therese Couderc, founder and first superior of the Sisters of the Cenacle, who was deposed and replaced by a rich widow, who had only just entered the congregation, and who was named founder and superior. St. Therese, who had done nothing wrong, withdrew without a murmur against this flagrant injustice, while the congregation fell to pieces little by little. (It would revive after this trial, see complementary text.) How different from the noisy departures of the last few months that show clearly that the preoccupations of some have little in common with those of the men and women in love with God.

On the pretext of the crisis in the Church, must we resign ourselves to no longer trying to imitate the saints? Must we let this crisis behead the hope in our hearts?

Our Lady of Holy Hope, convert us.

.

Maybe it would help to make the enumerated points stand out better:

Number CCCLIII (353)   19th April 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BALANCE PROPOSED

“Keep therefore and do the things which the Lord God hath commanded you: you shall not go aside neither to the right hand nor to the left.” This instruction from the Lord God to be passed on by Moses to the Israelites (Deut.V, 32) is certainly valid for God’s Chosen People of the New Testament (Rom. IX, 25-26), but it is not so easy to apply in our own time when the Shepherd of the New Testament is struck, and we sheep are scattered (Zech.XIII, 7).

Is the Pope so lightly struck that Catholics need not take care how they obey him ? Or is he so seriously struck that he cannot be Pope ? In any case the sheep are scattered and will remain so, until Russia is consecrated to the Immaculate Heart.

Meanwhile, as it seems to me, a letter published in the latest issue of the Angelus, official magazine of the Society of St Pius X in the USA, goes astray to the left. Fr. S. has several reasons for urging the SSPX to put itself “in the hands...of the Pope as soon as possible.”

Firstly, to think that the Roman churchmen are intentional destroyers of the Church is implicit sedevacantism. But I need be no sedevacantist, implicit or explicit, to recall that their subjective intentions no way lessen the objective damage that they have done to the Church, and would do to the SSPX, if it came under their control.

Secondly, for the SSPX to wait until the Romans’ full doctrinal conversion to put itself into their hands, is unrealistic. But one heresy is enough to make an enemy of the Faith, and modernism is an all-embracing heresy (Pascendi, Pius X). Too much contact with the Romans has already seduced the SSPX’s leaders.

Thirdly, the SSPX must give back to Rome as soon as possible the doctrine and practice of the true Faith. But if Rome were still only half modernist, such a giving back would be to throw pearls before swine (Mt.VII, 6).

Fourthly, the SSPX has for so long kept its distance from Rome that it risks losing all Catholic sense of hierarchy, obedience and authority. But the true Faith must be kept at a safe distance from all-embracing heresy. If the heresy is not my fault, God can look after my Catholic senses, so long as I am faithful to him, for 40 years or more in the desert, just as he looked after the faithful Israelites (Exod. – Deut.).

And fifthly, the so-called “Resistance” is dividing and weakening the SSPX’s true resistance to Conciliar Rome. But unity around any non-doctrinal understanding with modernists will be unity around error, fatal for Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX.  In brief, Fr. S. has lost sight of just how seductive and deadly for the Faith is the error of modernism.

On the other hand, as it seems to me, a priest now refusing any longer to mention the Pope’s name in the Canon of the Mass is in danger of going astray to the right. If I see the deadly danger of modernism to the Faith, certainly I see the enormous objective damage done to the Church by Conciliar Popes. But can I truthfully say that there is nothing at all still Catholic left in them ? For example, as Fr. S. would say, do they not still have at least good subjective intentions ? Have they not all at least meant to serve the Church ? In which case can I not celebrate Mass in union with whatever is still Catholic in them ? The mainstream Church may be sick unto death, but I for one could not maintain that there is nothing Catholic whatsoever still happening within it.  It is not yet completely dead.

“In things certain, unity.  In things doubtful, liberty.  In all things, charity.”

Kyrie eleison.

True priests should neither flirt with Rome today,
Nor cut the Pope out of their Mass, I say.

Is that any better?


It seems to me that +W likes to provide blocks of paragraphs that are not too short, for whatever reason.  It's a style that was very commonplace 54 years ago, for example, when the Third Secret of Fatima was supposed to be revealed.  Funny how that date keeps coming up, ain't it?  Right about 1960 the attention span of readers grew shorter and shorter paragraphs became more intelligible.  But apparently not to +W.  Somehow he missed that effect.


And H.E. likes to be brief, and that's nice, but it seems to me there is a real danger in abbreviation when it comes to this:  

"In any case the sheep are scattered and will remain so, until Russia is consecrated to the Immaculate Heart."

Because it's all too likely that there will be those who forget the rest of the request, and then when the Consecration is done, it would run the risk of being inadequate yet again, since too many have forgotten what Our Lady actually asked for.  To remedy that, it would be better stated thusly:

In any case the sheep are scattered and will remain so, until Russia (by name) is consecrated, by the Pope together with all the bishops of the world, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We should not be worried that there will be the inevitable reader(s) who protest for whatever reason, sometimes even being in positions of power of one kind or another, saying that "you're obsessed with details" or "There you go again on that same old, tired canard," or, "Fatima is OVER and it's too late now, we MISSED THE BOAT," as one otherwise traditional priest is wont to say, repeatedly, or, "That's not going to happen," as one traditional bishop told me to my face.  Kyrie eleison.

Don't be surprised when you hear those kind of things, because it WILL happen.  And so will the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, by the Pope together with all the Bishops of the world.  


.

.

To be 'brief' this EC is about the UNA cuм question.    

And this is an EC of inherent irony.

For here we are on page 4 of the CI thread on EC cccliii and no mention of una cuм is to be found, that is, except in the EC itself (albeit not with the Latin phrase, ironically).


H.E. does mention praying for the Pope, and he also mentions the request of Our Lady of Fatima for the Collegial Consecration of Russia (by name) to the IHM by the Pope together with all the bishops of the world (albeit, ironically, not in those terms), that is, the message of Fatima which contains the principle of how important is is for us to pray for the Holy Father, since (in case it's not obvious) if we don't pray for the Pope how is he going to get the grace to do the Collegial Consecration?  


Therefore, this EC cccliii has THREE THINGS that are very important, and they are ALL related to the message of Fatima, even if "The Message of Fatima" is not mentioned in this EC (ironically).



One is how seductive and deadly to the Faith is the danger of Modernism.  (out of which grows....)


Two is the una cuм controversy, including the error of not praying for the Pope.  (out of which grows....)


Three is the importance of the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the IHM by the Pope together with all the bishops of the world.  (and this means....)



All 3 of these things are a serious problem for sedevacantists.


.

.

Quote from: +W

Number CCCLIII (353)   19th April 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BALANCE PROPOSED

“Keep therefore and do the things which the Lord God hath commanded you: you shall not go aside neither to the right hand nor to the left.” This instruction from the Lord God to be passed on by Moses to the Israelites (Deut.V, 32) is certainly valid for God’s Chosen People of the New Testament (Rom. IX, 25-26), but it is not so easy to apply in our own time when the Shepherd of the New Testament is struck, and we sheep are scattered (Zech.XIII, 7).

Is the Pope so lightly struck that Catholics need not take care how they obey him ? Or is he so seriously struck that he cannot be Pope ? In any case the sheep are scattered and will remain so, until Russia is consecrated to the Immaculate Heart.

Meanwhile, as it seems to me, a letter published in the latest issue of the Angelus, official magazine of the Society of St Pius X in the USA, goes astray to the left. Fr. S. has several reasons for urging the SSPX to put itself “in the hands...of the Pope as soon as possible.”

Firstly, to think that the Roman churchmen are intentional destroyers of the Church is implicit sedevacantism. But I need be no sedevacantist, implicit or explicit, to recall that their subjective intentions no way lessen the objective damage that they have done to the Church, and would do to the SSPX, if it came under their control.

Secondly, for the SSPX to wait until the Romans’ full doctrinal conversion to put itself into their hands, is unrealistic. But one heresy is enough to make an enemy of the Faith, and modernism is an all-embracing heresy (Pascendi, Pius X). Too much contact with the Romans has already seduced the SSPX’s leaders.

Thirdly, the SSPX must give back to Rome as soon as possible the doctrine and practice of the true Faith. But if Rome were still only half modernist, such a giving back would be to throw pearls before swine (Mt.VII, 6).

Fourthly, the SSPX has for so long kept its distance from Rome that it risks losing all Catholic sense of hierarchy, obedience and authority. But the true Faith must be kept at a safe distance from all-embracing heresy. If the heresy is not my fault, God can look after my Catholic senses, so long as I am faithful to him, for 40 years or more in the desert, just as he looked after the faithful Israelites (Exod. – Deut.).

And fifthly, the so-called “Resistance” is dividing and weakening the SSPX’s true resistance to Conciliar Rome. But unity around any non-doctrinal understanding with modernists will be unity around error, fatal for Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX.  In brief, Fr. S. has lost sight of just how seductive and deadly for the Faith is the error of modernism.

On the other hand, as it seems to me, a priest now refusing any longer to mention the Pope’s name in the Canon of the Mass is in danger of going astray to the right. If I see the deadly danger of modernism to the Faith, certainly I see the enormous objective damage done to the Church by Conciliar Popes. But can I truthfully say that there is nothing at all still Catholic left in them ? For example, as Fr. S. would say, do they not still have at least good subjective intentions ? Have they not all at least meant to serve the Church ? In which case can I not celebrate Mass in union with whatever is still Catholic in them ? The mainstream Church may be sick unto death, but I for one could not maintain that there is nothing Catholic whatsoever still happening within it.  It is not yet completely dead.

“In things certain, unity.  In things doubtful, liberty.  In all things, charity.”

Kyrie eleison.
True priests should neither flirt with Rome today,
Nor cut the Pope out of their Mass, I say.

Is that any better?
It seems to me that +W likes to provide blocks of paragraphs that are not too short, for whatever reason.  It's a style that was very commonplace 54 years ago, for example, when the Third Secret of Fatima was supposed to be revealed.  Funny how that date keeps coming up, ain't it?  Right about 1960 the attention span of readers grew shorter and shorter paragraphs became more intelligible.  But apparently not to +W.  Somehow he missed that effect.


And H.E. likes to be brief, and that's nice, but it seems to me there is a real danger in abbreviation when it comes to this:  

"In any case the sheep are scattered and will remain so, until Russia is consecrated to the Immaculate Heart."

Because it's all too likely that there will be those who forget the rest of the request, and then when the Consecration is done, it would run the risk of being inadequate yet again, since too many have forgotten what Our Lady actually asked for.  To remedy that, it would be better stated thusly:

In any case the sheep are scattered and will remain so, until Russia (by name) is consecrated, by the Pope together with all the bishops of the world, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We should not be worried that there will be the inevitable reader(s) who protest for whatever reason, sometimes even being in positions of power of one kind or another, saying that "you're obsessed with details" or "There you go again on that same old, tired canard," or, "Fatima is OVER and it's too late now, we MISSED THE BOAT," as one otherwise traditional priest is wont to say, repeatedly, or, "That's not going to happen," as one traditional bishop told me to my face.  Kyrie eleison.

Don't be surprised when you hear those kind of things, because it WILL happen.  And so will the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, by the Pope together with all the Bishops of the world.  

.

Thank-you, Neil, for your so perceptive arrangement of the Bishop's words-- this helps a lot! As usual, the Bishop is sitting so much on the fence , he risks getting impaled by the stakes. Would that he come down on one side or the other on many issues. Of course, trust that we love him dearly, but we can't put words into his mouth. He says what he feels, and he feels closely to all sides, it sometimes seems. We recall the days before he was consecrated Bishop. He was in Ridgefield, giving us blow by blow accounts of the on-goings between Rome and the Archbishop. (Of course, then we didn't know that there were weaklings like deGallaretta and Tissier de Mallerais next to the Archbishop, nor did we realize then that Fellay, Lorans, Schmidberger and Aulegnier were such scoundrels (read: traitors). Anyway, Williamson was happy that there was (almost) a deal, as if he was cheering for one. We never liked the smell of it-- Rome had lost the faith long before-- how could any deal be trusted?

But that's all background.

ONE,  The Romans in control are intentional destroyers of the Catholic Church-- and this includes Bergoglio. From Bugnini to Montini to Bea to Roncali to (card) O'Connor, to (card) Egan to Wyjtola to Lustinger to (card) Law to Cards Dolan and Lori to almost all the German and French Cardinals to Ratzinger to Bergoglio---they are all destroyers of the Church. Deliberate. Premeditated. We're not talking about a couple of petty thieves who slipped a candy bar into their pocket without paying. We're talking about International Terrorists-- set out on a deliberate plan to rob the Catholic faithful of their faith, and keep the same faithful ignorant of the very same robbery!
    The supporting of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, sɛҳuąƖ abuse and paedophilia, the secret attack upon innocent and vulnerable children and women, and the hiding and nurturing of their attackers ( in thousands and thousands of cases), in a deliberate plan to secret those criminals away from prosecuting authorities and "pay off" the victims (as if money could buy someone their God-given human dignity), cannot be construed as anything else except the deliberate attempt to destroy the faith of Roman Catholics and Christians the world over.
    The secret, deliberative, destruction of the Holy Mass, under the guise of renewal, without ever exposing the overall plan and intent, and with deliberate, malicious harassment, threatening and financial ruin of priests and religious who refuse to go along, can be described as nothing else  but the deliberate attempt to destroy the Catholic faith, and merge it into a one-world socialistic/ communistic/athiestic religion.
      The deliberate, convoluted, frenzy to destroy, physically, the beautiful altars and churches built up to honor and worship Almighty God; built by hundreds and thousands of hard workers and laborers all over the world; built up in beauty with marble, granite, silver and gold only to glorify and honor the good and gracious God, can only be described as the willing attempt of evil men to destroy the religion and faith of God's chosen people.
   So, as to count number one-- it has nothing to do with sedevacantism. These are criminal terrorists , usurpers of positions to which they have no right. As Archbishop Lefebvre said  "they have built a conciliar church", and "Ratzinger is no Catholic."

TWO,   If, as is true, even one heresy is enough to make one the enemy of the faith, then none of those in positions in Rome  (or the dicasteries) are of the Catholic faith-- they are , to a man, enemies of the faith. Surely, to deceive the elect, they will from time to time say some things which tear at the Catholic heart strings, make us long for the "olden days" once more, and to "forgive and forget" all the heresies and failures of the impostors. But Our Lord instructs us to "turn the other check" when it concerns an attack upon our own person-- we are never allowed to Turn the other check when it concerns an attack on the person or good name of the Lord Jesus Christ. When Christ ordered St.Peter to put away the sword, it was NOT because man should not fight against evil and injustice-- it was because Jesus Christ was there to fulfill the scriptures, and said fulfillment required Him to be apprehended by the Romans. Once St Peter had received the infusion from the Holy Ghost of Pentecost, it is highly unlikely that He would have ever tried to stop an act he now knew the Christ was obligated to fulfill---as terrible as the scourging and crucifixion was to be.
   Further, the Archbishop was eminently correct and reasonable in assessing, and publicly claiming, "I have gone too far (with these Romans)-- I have given them too much leash. From now on I will insist that they swear acceptance of all the great truths and encyclicals of the Catholic faith-- there is no other way to trust them!" ( paraphrased).

THREE In Rome is an apostate church. Period. There is no possible way to justify "giving back" to an apostate church the truths of the Catholic faith. In times past, the apostates, who wanted to take instruction, were allowed to listen to the readings and lessons-- but were then excluded from the mystery of Jesus Christ Crucified, the Action of the Eucharist. The only correct position is that of the great Pope Leo XIII, when invited by the apostates and false religionists to "come and study" for the true religion of man. He declared to them " My dear friends, we have the true faith of Almighty God. Anytime you truly wish to learn how to save your souls, you are more than welcome to visit with us, and we will teach you the true faith-- we have no need to spend our time with you trying to discern it.." ( paraphrased).
    What did the snakes in Rome do with the one-year so-called "Doctrinal Discussions" which they promised they would hold with the SSPX? Nothing but a joke! At the conclusion of the one year study program (at which the SSPX supposedly sent it's most-qualified theologians), Bishop Alphonso deGalaretta exclaimed in New Jersey" There can be no agreement with these people-- they do not have the Catholic faith!" WOW !! But what did the Romans say to Fellay when (supposedly) Fellay was called to Rome to receive the final assessment of said "discussion"?  They presented him with the infamous "preamble"!! When he asked about the "discussions', they explained (paraphrased) "silly little boy-- those discussions were not for you to learn anything of us--we know where we stand;they were just so we knew where you stand.Now, silly little boy, sign this preamble and we'll give you a nice little place here in Rome"
   The SSPX has no right even considering any union with an apostate Rome. let Rome realize it has lost it's faith, and is losing its eternal soul-- then tradition has an obligation to instruct them.

  FOURHow dare we place a time limit are the workings of Our Lord-- or the wanderings in the desert! The reason the Israelites had to spend forty years is because of their unfaithfulness! They rejected, sometimes even after hours or days of manifest blessings from Almighty God, the leadership of their resistance leaders. They were hardly outside of Egyptian captivity, and many of them were murmuring against their leaders , and desiring to go back into captivity where it was warm, and cozy, with  plenty of food and water! ( That's right, they would rather be in slavery than in Freedom with Christ!). It wasn't more than two days after the manna had been delivered by heavenly command, that they murmured again against their God and their leaders-- claiming that their leaders were going to allow them to starve to death!
    For sure, the Archbishop, as well as Bp de Castro Meyer, Msgr dePauw, Father Fenton, Msgr Donoghue, and hundreds of other faithful Catholic priests, thought the Churchmen would come to their senses long, long ago--only to see this "resistance" to modernism we call the "traditionalist movement" drag out fifty years or more.When the people are faithful, when the people are deserving of a catholic hierarchy, and when God so wills, thous crises will end. And not one second before.
     If there is a timeline, beyond which the faithful Catholics cannot exist without being united to a false hierarchy in Rome, only Almighty God knows that timeline. His Blessed Mother has given some great hints, and His saints have given some great indications. But, thus far, the total destruction and annihilation of the Church they seem to point to has yet ( amazing as it seems) not occurred. So, we must still watch and pray, keep our candles ready, our oil in supply, and our souls pure. The great extraction has yet to come-- and when it does, woe unto those inside of apostate Rome! Hell has no fury like a woman scorned. When the good Lord avenges the crimes against Himself and His Blessed Mother, the source of those crimes will be routed out first!

 FIFTH ( Skipping one paragraph due to the subject being covered above)
   It is a strict duty NOT to pray with heretics and apostates-- this we learned as little children. My pastor, Msgr Anderson, if he saw us playing with the fellas from the Episcopalian Church across the street would call us over , and with that long bony finger of his would say " Boys-- what are you doing with the Reverend so and so's children? There are plenty of good Catholic children on your block, and in this parish, for you to play with. TYYour parents work hard to send you to this school; your Mother works hard to press your cassocks and get you to Mass on time-- do you really want to suffer the loss of your soul for some easy playtime and kickball?" Monsignor Anderson was what we would call a "traditionalist" today. He knew clearly that you can be tolerant of people, but not of error. He also knew that error crept in ever so slowly: first by association, then by acceptance, then by "praying with", then by "practical agreements without the faith."
      To place the name of a heretic in the Te Igitur of the Holy Mass is to destroy entirely the meaning of the Mass itself. Its like what the Jєωs do on their day of atonement: Oh Lord, I swear today that any oath I take this year I am now disowning!"  That covers them for a whole year. Putting the name of a heretic, of a communist, of a liberal, of a modernist ( Fellay: what we have is a modernist!) in the prayer leading to THE ACTION[/b] of the Mass, is calling down upon the "faithful" the curse of Almighty God. "Thou shalt not have strange Gods before Me!"  We may certainly believe that we have a merciful God. But we better also know He is just. And He is a Jealous God.

     It is totally irrelevant as to whether there is "something still Catholic" in such and such a person. I'm sure there was a lot "still Catholic" in Henry the Eighth. Big deal! There was probably something "still Catholic" in Martin Luther-- what good did it do him?  All the bishops who followed the heretics into apostasy-- of course there was "something Catholic" in all of them-- should we follow them into hell? There was "something good" in all the swine, too-- yet they were full of the devil and God commanded they all perish!. There certainly was "something good" in the twenty three thousand in the Israelite camps-- yet because they rejected God's command they were swallowed into hell in one hour! Listen again to fell ay's great Adelaide tape-- this is almost his entire argument ( paraphrased) "yes, we know it's bad; we know they are perverts; we know they are sodomites; we know they crucify Christ; we see the Christ bloodied and beaten by our very own, but we can't just desert them!! Like an old sick father, we must take care of them, we must work with them!…." ( interestingly, he was saying this even as he was plotting to get rid of Bp Wiolliamson, Fr Pfeiffer, and Fr Chazal-- and had already dismissed others "who were sick and old").
     No, the way to make these heretics SEE the truth is to STAND for the truth-- in season and out of season!

Ok -- I cleaned up the thread.

I kept Fr. Simoulin's letter, since it was mentioned in the EC.

I kept Sean's awesome response, because I don't want SSPX propaganda posted by itself without the good rebuttal it deserves.

We don't want to lead people astray, or give the neo-SSPX any more "airtime" than it already has with its huge war chest, bursting with thirty pieces of silver among other monies...

The other dozen posts discussing the above two posts -- gone. Now the thread is a bit easier to digest.