Venenum in cauda:

"Their Founder repudiated the Romans whom they love, and with whom they are today, reportedly, plotting to change the Statutes of the Society with which he gave it its structure. If the report is true, no wonder the Roman modernists insist on a new structure, open and no longer closed to appropriation by the traitors of Rome and of the Newsociety."

The prelature lives?

So far, Fr. Pagliarani has done nothing to change the orientation that Bp. Fellay gave the SSPX. They belong, apparently, to the same party.

I imagine that they are simply waiting for a new Pope to come to start new negotiations, since things seem to have hit a wall with Pope Francis.

Remember how patient Freemansons and Jews are. They plan for decades, centuries ahead.

So far, Fr. Pagliarani has done nothing to change the orientation that Bp. Fellay gave the SSPX. They belong, apparently, to the same party.

Which is why Fr. pagliarani defended +Fellay at the 2012 General Chapter, and then succeeded him at the 2018 General Chapter (and surrounded himself by two new "General Counselors:" +Fellay and Schmidberger).

The questions a I would ask +Williamson

1) Is SSPX still a viable organization in fighting modernism and advancing a return to Tradition?

2) Have Fellay & Co. betrayed SSPX faithful partially or fully?

3) Where does the bulk of money come to run the apostolate?
     From average donors attached to its chapels?
     From real estate and other business investments?
     From Jєωιѕн sources?

I'm pretty sure they bailed on the Statutes once already.  I seem to remember reading in Letters to the Rector that everyone was pretty happy when +Fellay was voted in as the Superior General, even though no bishop was supposed to run the Society according to the Statutes.  

Maybe someone can look that up to verify.  I no longer have the books.

"For at Vatican II a diabolical plot to destroy the Catholic Church succeeded in persuading the Church’s leading churchmen to replace the true God-centred Faith with a false man-centred parody of that Faith. And these churchmen – two Popes and about 2,000 bishops – went on in turn to persuade a large majority of Catholic souls all over the world to adopt the new humanist religion, because these Popes and bishops seemed to be that Authority..."

So a canonized pope, who created a new mass that produces miracles, is the same pope who succeeded in leading a diabolical plot to destroy the Catholic Church?

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Correct.  Would you like me to explain?

Bishop Williamson:

Quote

For a sin to be mortally grave, three things are required: that the sin be in itself, objectively, grave enough to cause the spiritual death of the soul; secondly, that the sinner be aware that his act is mortally sinful; and thirdly that he give his full consent to committing the sinful act. What this means is that if somebody commits what is in fact a mortal sin without his knowing that it is, then the act is objectively sinful, but not subjectively, because of his ignorance. Such was the case of many Catholics after Vatican II.

His Excellency is missing a piece.  Ignorance only excuses if it's inculpable.  Ignorance of Catholic doctrine, for instance, can never be an excuse for a "Pope" or for "Bishops" because they have a strict obligation in their duties of state to know Catholic doctrine.

Take a layman who refuses to take the time to learn even the basics of the faith.  Let's say he thinks (due to his ignorance) that it's OK to receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin.  His ignorance does not excuse him from gave sin because this is a basic pinciple of faith that he was duty bound to know and to have learned, i.e. since his ignorance is culpable, he's guilty of the sin as if he had full knowledge.

Bishop Williamson:

Therefore the ringleaders of Vatican II who knew exactly what they were doing to destroy the Church were supremely guilty, while any bishops, priests and laity beneath them who were duped – and that was the mass of them – were relatively innocent.

I take exception to the assertion that bishops could be innocently duped into accepting a false religion.  They were duty bound to know the Catholic faith and to reject the innovations.

Bishop Williamson:

Now the exact degree of guilt or innocence in each single soul that has taken part in that betrayal ever since, is known to God, but common sense is enough to tell that a large proportion of Catholics following the apostasy of Vatican II ever since have been more sinned against than sinning, and here is the common sense reason for ourselves to judge them leniently.

Speculations regarding the subjective inculpability of those in the Conciliar Church have no bearing on the assessment regarding whether the Conciliar Church is Catholic.  Even the Church does not judge the internal forum, and the matter is irrelevant.  Either the Conciliar Church is manifestly / visibly / objectively the Catholic Church or it's not.  Either its "leadership" (V2 papal claimants) are manifestly Catholic Popes / Bishops or they are not.  Period.  Whether or not or to what extent they were / are culpable is not our concern, cannot be know by us with certainty, and is absolutely irrelevant where it comes to making assessments regarding the crisis.

Unfortunately, His Excellency is sliding into a form of subjectivism or relativism here, and it's the same tendency whereby stated that it was potentially OK / permissible for someone to assist at the NOM.  This thinking is closely related to the principles enunciated by Bergoglio in Amoris Laetitia where he claims that something that is objectively evil can be OK given the "internal forum" dispositions of the one committing the actions.

Is it possible that some ignoramus is not guilty of grave sin, given a certain amount of ignorance or confusion?  Certainly.  But that's not for anyone but God to decide.  Nor can a priest advise someone "in the internal forum" that adulterous cohabitation may be OK.  It's the priest's obligation to dispel any ignorace regarding the matter.

Is it possible that some people are not guilty of sin for attending the NOM?  Of coursre.  But that's not for anyone but God to decide.  Nor can a priest (or bishop) advise someone that it may be Ok "in the internal forum" somehow.

His Excellency's justification of assisting at the NOM and the principles behind Bergoglio's Amoris Laetitia are eerily similar.  And this is suprirsing given how THE central or core emphasis of Bishop Williamson's analysis of the entire crisis and the roots of the crisis rightly call out subjectivisim as the culprit.