Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Next step to SSPX "Regularization"  (Read 8764 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Next step to SSPX "Regularization"
« Reply #50 on: January 15, 2018, 12:50:50 AM »
Hmmmm....

Re: Next step to SSPX "Regularization"
« Reply #51 on: January 15, 2018, 02:06:09 AM »
Smaller resistance centers put in the money and the work, too.  It is not our fault if we cannot find interested traditional Catholics in our area, is it?

Weekly mass?  Lucky You!
Monthly mass, lucky you, too!
We are lucky to get mass every other month.

Why do the priests have to afford to go where there is one or two families?  Don't the families pay for the trip and a stipend as well?  If they don't, we're doing this all wrong...

We appreciate every single mass we receive and I look forward to the day when a son of mine will be taught and mentored by a fine priest.

God will provide.
I'm sorry for you Fanny.
Where I am, the SSPX vs SSPX Resistance issue proved to be a bonanza for both sides. The SSPX chapel was getting Mass once or twice a month. The Resistance group, with just one priest available to start off with, were getting Mass twice a month or even more! Now the SSPX group - and I attend that chapel - get Mass every Sunday. I believe that the M-C has a similar service. They now have two priests. And they get a bonus when Fr Chazal or Fr Pfeiffer drop by!


Re: Next step to SSPX "Regularization"
« Reply #52 on: January 15, 2018, 09:33:41 AM »

Thanks for your input Sam.  This forum is about the exchange of opinions, ideas and perspectives.

>> Is it fair to say the SSPX split-off factions still lack doctrinal clarity?

I would rather call it disagreements on non essentials, which you will find just as much (if not more) outside of the Resistance. Look for example how some sedes condemn and excommunicate each other.

I submit that the SSPX has always been shaky on doctrine, especially VII.  But the implicit Baptism issue needs to be rectified.
I honestly think, Menzingen infiltrators plugged the Implicit Baptism into +ABL's book after the fact. I'm incredulous that +ABL ever believed this heresy.  I make this comment simply because Bp. Fellay's group was caught red handed doctoring +ABL's 228 sermons, which were justifiably harsh on Rome.

>> (e.g., Valtorta poems, Novus ordo miracles, implicit baptisms, partial acceptance of Vatican II and the Novus ordo missae).

To prove my point about non essentials, consider that the Archbishop spent a mere 10 minutes of his long public life talking about (and disagreeing with) Maria Valtorta, without ever saying one single negative word about Fr. Barielle who was a staunch fan of that "poem". This clearly shows that good Catholics can still disagree without splitting from, and excommunicating each other. If the Archbishop managed to rise above these trivialities, why should we settle for less?

Most on this forum know Bp. Williamson lost a significant amount of support after his condescending remarks to a teary-eyed Catholic lady who wanted to hold onto the Novus ordo missae.  The event was not trivial, but rather a display of softening, at a time when the Resistance needed hardening.

>> This is why we ask for Apostolic action!

What Apostolic action were you thinking of? Since our bishops have no ordinary jurisdiction, all they can do is "lead the horse to water", which I believe is what bishop Faure has done with the SAJM.

How to measure Apostolic action?  The objective way to evaluate it, is by counting the number of priests in the field.
Msgr. Williamson and the three Bishops, can recruit new priests from the tyrannical SSPX. A windfall of priests are at hand, now. They can also accelerate seminary training, ordain and help with the administration of relocating priests and the mentoring of seminarians under de-centralized priestly guidance.


>> In such a state of emergency, we're reduced to getting our hands on any validly ordained priest, SSPX, Thuc line, pre-VII to hold onto the Sacraments.

I hope you have more criteria than just "validly ordained". So what are these criteria? In the good old days it used to be "in communion with" all the other Catholics. But some revolutionaries now think that is cultish. As for me, it is "communion with the other priests and bishops of the Resistance". If they're not team players, they're not Catholic imho.

To keep Catholic tradition alive, Our Lord does not require that the Sacrament of the "laying of hands", to be SSPX kosher.
Even newChurch would like you to believe this.


In conclusion, there are a number of "Resistance 3" supporters who suspect the Bishops of benign neglect.

Would that Fr. Pfeiffer's apostolate
"Resistance 2" not have gone of the rails, because he has the fighting spirit.

For all practical purposes, it seems the traditional movement, will be left to
"Resistance 1" The original, independent TLM/SSPX break-off groups that intuitively opposed any and all neo-SSPX compromises with newChurch.

This last group is a better fit for the reality of Our Lady of Fatima's warning:
That things will get so bad, we will lose the Holy Mass (Symbolized by the Sacred Heart of Jesus) an be left with her Rosary and Devotion to her Immaculate Heart.


Re: Next step to SSPX "Regularization"
« Reply #53 on: January 15, 2018, 02:02:30 PM »
Quote
..
>> I honestly think, Menzingen infiltrators plugged the Implicit Baptism into +ABL's book after the fact. I'm incredulous that +ABL ever believed this heresy.

I think you are wrong there. I have some audio recordings of the Archbishop talking about baptism of blood and baptism of desire, in 1974, 1987 and 1988. I don't think Menzingen infiltrators would have been able to plug his microphone.

>> Most on this forum know Bp. Williamson lost a significant amount of support after his condescending remarks to a teary-eyed Catholic lady who wanted to hold onto the Novus ordo missae.  The event was not trivial, but rather a display of softening, at a time when the Resistance needed hardening.

Some of that support we lost has been our gain, but I agree that overall it was (and still is) a thorny issue. Still, as far as I know nobody has proven yet that there can be no grace had from a Novus Ordo Mass. On the contrary, the Council of Trent clearly says otherwise imho. So, rather than a display of softening, I see it as an effort to avoid us going over the top.

The real issue though is how do people react when they disagree? Do they consider only their own opinion as de fide? Or are they able to discuss the matter, based on doctrine? It is mainly those who don't care about doctrine that we lost after (and already before!) that Mahopac episode. I would say that we are better off without those proud roosters anyway.

>> How to measure Apostolic action?  The objective way to evaluate it, is by counting the number of priests in the field.

That could be one way, but not without giving them the time necessary to get those priests in the field. Do you know how long it took the Archbishop to do this, in much better circuмstances than ours?

One thing that does worry me is that I have never heard bishop Williamson encourage vocations, on the contrary. But this is where the other bishops are now making up for it.

>> In conclusion, there are a number of "Resistance 3" supporters who suspect the Bishops of benign neglect.

That does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

>> Would that Fr. Pfeiffer's apostolate "Resistance 2" not have gone of the rails, because he has the fighting spirit.

I don't know what is worse, sound doctrine without a fighting spirit, or a fighting spirit without sound doctrine.

>> For all practical purposes, it seems the traditional movement, will be left to "Resistance 1" The original, independent TLM/SSPX break-off groups that intuitively opposed any and all neo-SSPX compromises with newChurch. This last group is a better fit for the reality of Our Lady of Fatima's warning:
That things will get so bad, we will lose the Holy Mass (Symbolized by the Sacred Heart of Jesus) an be left with her Rosary and Devotion to her Immaculate Heart.


I agree with this, if you mean those who neither err on the left (liberalism) or on the right (sedevacantism).

Re: Next step to SSPX "Regularization"
« Reply #54 on: January 15, 2018, 02:10:54 PM »
>> I honestly think, Menzingen infiltrators plugged the Implicit Baptism into +ABL's book after the fact. I'm incredulous that +ABL ever believed this heresy.

I think you are wrong there. I have some audio recordings of the Archbishop talking about baptism of blood and baptism of desire, in 1974, 1987 and 1988. I don't think Menzingen infiltrators would have been able to plug his microphone.

Thanks for your answers.

Yes, the debate on BOD and BOB will take Papal intervention to clarify the issue.

But not for implicit Baptism.  That's full-on universal salvation and a heresy.

I know Bp. Fellay personally supports it, but no one in the SSPX has the guts to promote it publicly , for now.