Sean Johnson, you are admirably correct on all points. As there is less and less to fight against concerning the SSPX's stand, the desperation to find something, anything to be dissatisfied with does make it look as though the same elements who have been trying to take down the Society are working through this forum also.

The discernment of spirits is very helpful in determining who is genuinely moved by God and who is moved by His adversary. Agitation does not come from God. It is one of the very first lessons we learn from St. Ignatius.

This resistance will peter out. It is already happening. And those who chose to stay within the SSPX to watch and wait and pray for better times, have been
vindicated. The Society of Saint Pius X is an order within the Catholic Church and no one can change that. It is still alive and doing marvelous work. Let's have the humility to acknowledge that there has been a correction of course with the Society and I beg those who have truly loved the SSPX to continue to pray for her and for her leaders. Don't let misguided allegiance to any bishop or priest lead you away from the only organized body within the Catholic Church that is truly fighting modernism in a meaningful way.

There is so much wrong with this post, I can't even begin to respond. But I should try -- it certainly doesn't take much thought. I'll let others pick up where I left off.

1. What are you talking about "who have been trying to take down the Society?" Can you elaborate? How long have "they" been trying to do this? Who are you describing?  

Because I assure you that I and most members of the Resistance were busy volunteering in countless ways: accounting, helping with special ceremonies/processions, serving Mass, singing in choirs, putting checks in the collection basket, and in general supporting the SSPX in every way possible for a layman. In general, those in the Resistance have been long-standing supporters of the SSPX, part of "the 10%" that does 90% of the work at the various chapels, rather than the 90% who come for Mass and disappear right afterward, don't help out, don't get involved, etc.

2. The SSPX is as pious union, and part of the Catholic Church. That much has never been in dispute. Straw man?

3. The SSPX with 10,000 people -- assuming they compromise with modernism even a little -- will do less to fight modernism than 5 or 10 laymen that don't make any compromise with modernism. Numbers are not as important as keeping the Faith pure and undefiled, with no admixture of Modernism, which is the synthesis of all heresies.

4. Your statement about agitation is neither here nor there. Are you saying the Resistance is unduly agitated, so they must be motivated by the devil? Let me ask you: if you heard the Blessed Mother blasphemed, would you be at peace, or would you be filled with righteous indignation?  What if Our Blessed Lord were blasphemed?  Not all "agitation" is from the devil. It depends on what you mean by "agitation".
Did Our Lord not "agitate" himself to be angry with the sellers in the Temple?

Thank you for your tone Sean.  I will respond in blue…

Quote

Machabees-

Since your post appears to have been made in good faith and sincerity, I will answer a few of your observations:

1) You correctly observe that I consider myself part of the internal resistance.  I do so because of my love of the SSPX, and the belief that mistakes which have been made are now realized, and measures are being taken to incrementally rewind (perhaps too slowly for some) the damage. I do not flee from the field of battle when all appears lost.  I do not believe the SSPX is toast.  I am not soft because I am respectful. If I give the benefit of the doubt to the SSPX, it does not mean I am blind to the concerns voiced by the external resistance.  I am respectful because it is befitting a Catholic man.  

Sean, Bishop Fellay and Menzingen did not make a “mistake”.  That would be down-playing the crisis; they had deliberately and secretly imposed a new modernist doctrine with a heavy hand on every priest, faithful, and religious congregations attached to the fight of Tradition that was discovered in those three main docuмents (letters of the Bishops, Doctrinal declaration, and 6-conditions).  As such, the “rewind” that you are speaking of, is antics of rebranding for “public consumption”.  Bishop Fellay and Menzingen adamantly refuse to retract the modernist doctrines they are still imposing on us; so there is no “rewind”.   Look at the thread “Bp. Fellay on Francis: "What we have before us is a genuine Modernist!"  that flushes this out.  As you are overlooking, there is NO sincerity from the sspx leaders to go back to the “old” sspx.  http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Bp-Fellay-on-Francis-What-we-have-before-us-is-a-genuine-Modernist  

In all things respectful to others, yes I do believe that you are sincere that you love the sspx as we all do; and we all suffer within this new crisis.  Some of us were born in the sspx and have known no other identity.  Some have converted to the sspx with its honesty, purity of the Mass, Sacraments, and the true Doctrine that Archbishop Lefebvre had preserved in the greater crisis in the Church; however, as the saying is: “While we are of the world we are not inordinately “attached” to the world.”  So too, we are of the sspx fabric we are not inordinately “attached” to the sspx.  So if the sspx falls doctrinally, we must resist with a Catholic Spirit…and restore all things in Christ.

2) You are correct in your observation that over time, as the resistance has split into internal and external groups, I have moved away from the external resistance.  Mostly, this is because of the reasons just described.  When members of that group say things such as "don't bother me with talking about respect," or make ad hominems devoid of charity (thereby showing a disregard for Catholic morality), it indicates to me there is something sick in their spirit, despite making some legitimate observations.  I choose not to be infected by the sickness.

Sean, isn’t that “personalizing” your position, especially when you had also said “despite making some legitimate observations” to fight for?  Secondly, isn’t it always Catholic to look past those who are “uncharitable” and pray for them so not to lose the focus of the True cause?  

3) You say that the practical agreement sought is a consequence of modernist doctrine.  I say precisely the opposite: That the scandalous docuмents and statements, the new teachings, branding campaign, etc are all put in place to facilitate a practical agreement, not the other way around.  Therefore, if the practical agreement is scrapped (and measures put in place to prevent one in the futire, such as abolishing the 6 conditions), these new ideas lose their reason for being.  It is precisely because I see things in this light that I side with the internal resistance (hope + charity - naivity).

This is a “cart before the horse”.  In your scenario to put “measures in place” just to “stop a practical agreement”, how does that stop the modernist DOCTRINE, and its influences that continue to take hold in Menzingen and has trickled down to the priests and all of us to swallow?  It doesn’t.  That is why your scenario of a practical agreement, and not DOCTRINE, being the cause of discrepancy is a “cart before the horse”; when, it is the DESIRE of modernist doctrine that is FIRST, as it is expressed in those 3-docuмents, which is the basis of a “practical agreement”.  

Further, to position yourself in your scenario of the practical agreement being the contention, you validate Bishop Fellay, Fr. Rostand, and Menzingen in their own position that they have been parading around with for 1 ½ years in order to continue to disguise the DOCTRINAL issues.  The fight of 50-years for Catholic Tradition does not fall for that; it is the same trick of Vatican II.

Also, in your scenario to put the practical agreement first and then to put “the scandalous docuмents, statements, the new teachings, and branding campaign, etc, as tools to facilitate a practical agreement is even a worse position.  That is stating that Bishop Fellay is using the Catholic Faith as a bargaining tool to acquire his “personal” gain; which is worthy of a Catholic Resistance all by itself.  As with, if Bishop Fellay wants to get out of his practical agreement, how does he remove the scandalous docuмents, etc, without compromising the Faith?  Answer, he can’t.  Hence, the Catholic Resistance is based on the scandalous Doctrinal errors.  If the sspx does not go away from the modernists errors, then they are just like the other 9-"traditional"groups that fell before them and was absorbed into the conciliar apparatus.

4) Finally, regarding the process of rewinding: As one educated and experienced in both political consulting and salesmanship, I understand the dynamics involved in trying to change course without further damaging your own authotity.  Menzingen has to figure out a way to revert to the old SSPX without disturbing those who have backed them all along, while simultaneously assuring the internal resistance (there being no point in worrying about the external resistance) it is rewinding.  I suspect this is presently happening, but the definitive proof would be for Menzingen to find a way to eliminate the 6 conditions (e.g., Perhaps it could say that circuмstances have changed again, with the ascension of Francis, and the conditions are no longer prudent?).

There again you point out that Bishop Fellay, and Menzingen, is looking to, and acting out, a subversion of CHANGING course through their new modernist Doctrines that is expressed in those 3-docuмents; yet, you dismiss those acts, as Matthew had pointed out, into a “conservative” position…  

This is a world-wide movement of a Catholic Resistance that includes other Religious Congregations who are also fighting against these same Doctrinal errors that are within the sspx.  Sean, this is bigger than you are limiting this to.  Please discern with the indifferentism that St. Ignatius speaks about in looking at the “objectivity” of the true cause of the Catholic fight.


Sincerely,

Sean Johnson

With prayers,
Machabees

Machabees-

Sorry I did not see this come through earlier.

A few responses to your latest comments:

1) When I say that I suspect Bishop Fellay may now realize he has made a mistake, and that he may be trying to unwind 13 years of preparation for what is now possibly being abandoned, I do not mean to say it as a matter of fact.  I mean to say it as an act of giving him the benefit of the doubt.  And I mean to say it while pointing out (in my responses to Mater in this thread) my grounds for entertaining the possibility.

2) I also believe that some of the things Bishop Fellay has said and done in recent years were the result of human weakness rather than liberalism.  Eventually, such weakness would have ended in accepting liberalism, because of a broken spirit, but if 4,200 bishops can lose their heads at Vatican II (many of whom were definitely not liberals, but later became liberals), then it is certainly possible for a fallible man to have lost himself for while under the Roman spell.  It does not excuse what has happened, but it explains it.  Weakness can be understood and remedied; liberalism cannot.

3) You believe the SSPX was ready to sign a deal because it had imbibed liberalism many years before, such that an accord was simply a natural conclusion.  I think this is exactly backwards:  There were 13 years of preparations that went into getting an accord, and those liberalizing and conditioning statements, docuмents, and communiques and campaigns were put in place to facilitate the achievement of it.  If I am right, then giving up on the accord begins to evaporate those liberalizing statements, docuмents, campaigns, etc, since they will serve no further purpose.  

4) Since nature abhors a vacuum, I anticipate old-style SSPX teachings to regain ascendance, filling the void.  Time will tell.  

5) With regard to an inordinate attachment to the SSPX, my past posting history ought to have pre-empted that suspicion.  To have organized resistance to the SSPX infers a readiness to leave it, if a threshold is crossed.  For me, that threshold was an accord.  While I keep my eyes and ears open, I nonetheless hope for more rewinding from Bishop Fellay.  The abolition of the 6 conditions would represent to me incontrovertible sincerity, and intent to back away from a future practical agreement with an unconverted Rome that would destroy the SSPX.

6) Regarding your desire to see Bishop Fellay make clear retractions of specific doctrinal statements (e.g., those contained in the Doctrinal Declaration, etc), that would be nice, but unrealistic.  A complete and convincing unwinding can be done without that.  Menzingen will be concerned with preserving what moral authority it has left, and as JPII demonstrated, continual retractions, apologies, and mea culpas only deteriorate it.  That said, Menzingen will count on your intelligence to read between the lines.  It will do what it thinks it can without undermining its own authority.  I would expect, as said previously, that it could abolish the 6 conditions without hurting itself, by simply noting that conditions changed when Francis came to the papacy which have helped it to see that those conditions are not in the best interest of the SSPX.  Consider that in the imperfect Summorum Pontificuм, and "lifting" of the excommunications, Rome did the same thing: They couldn't simply do a clean about face and admit ABL was right all along, the excommunications were bogus, and we have all been traitors for having done these things.  The first thought is always, "What will become of our leadership and authority if I say it this way or that way?"  Perhaps it ought not be that way, but that is the way it is.

In short, I have hope, and give the benefit of the doubt because just in the last couple weeks, I see evidence that can be construed in such a way as to back my suspicion of an unwinding.

And if the future should prove me wrong, I can change my position again.

But meanwhile, I will have complied with the dictates of the norms of Catholic morality, and acted accordingly.

Pax tecuм,

Sean Johnson

It seems that from the beginning, many promoters of the resistance wanted to capitalize on the issues at play. Cliques were formed and self-assumed 'true traditionalists' self-righteously took on the agenda of seeking out who they would consider truly traditional, and who was not. If you did not see eye-to-eye on their 'theory', you were a disgrace, did not follow truth, and were out of their elitist group. Unfortunately, they Church, even in the hands of the remnant, is bigger than they would assume. The Resistance is not some 'elite corps' of traditionalists, as Matthew might have you believe. If you go over to SpiritusSanctus' new forum, they would tell you Matthew is a modernist, and that 'they' are the elite corps. This is what I was trying to say in my original post. This is a disorganized flavor of the month club, and that is borderline embarrassing; scratch that- it is embarrassing. Its really pathetic and sad. And I would argue it was that kind of thinking which lead to many many problems within the SSPX from the get go.

yep

It is now something I would be ashamed to be aligned with, characterized by sloppy/misleading theology (e.g., the AFD is official SSPX policy; the SSPX is the same as the FSSP, so you cant attend Mass on Sunday; Bishop Fellay wants to start a schism and back BXVI, etc), contemptuousness, disrespect, and foul-mouthed punks who exhibit few (if any) of the moral virtues.

I think this can be described simply as a problem of a lack of leadership. Even if each of the things you described above do not represent me, I have no single source to point you to which would show that this isn't what the "Resistance" represents. There are only a few docuмents which were drafted and signed by a good number of Resistance priests and these do not cover all of the issues at hand.

So, because you don't wish to be aligned with this wide variety of opinion (neither do I) and you also don't wish to be considered as someone who believes there was never any problem to begin with (me neither!), you've created a new group -- the internal resistance. But, how do you define the difference between internal and external? Is this simply a rehash of the red-light, yellow-light discussion or is it something new?

Menzingen has to figure out a way to revert to the old SSPX without disturbing those who have backed them all along, while simultaneously assuring the internal resistance (there being no point in worrying about the external resistance) it is rewinding.  

Here is the comment I attempted to inquire about before.

Presuming Menzingen has in fact realized it has made a mistake and wishes now to correct its course, why would there be "no point in worrying about the external resistance"? It is due to their mistakes that this resistance exists in the first place. Since they are priests and their foremost concern is souls, wouldn't bringing this group back to the Sacraments (or regular Sacraments) be their first concern? I doubt openness and honesty about the situation would suddenly push away those who've supported Menzingen all along.

Agreed. The Society has moved on and now is opportunistically interested in the internal void created with JR's resignation. It will continue to be in contact with conservative elements although they are now less powerful. It is playing politics and knows the membership and laity will follow it regardless.

The year ends with the situation of the SSPX continuing to be a messy one. Better if it had joined the ED allowing the broad resistance movement (to the conciliar church) to organise itself better. But the fudge and lack of clarity that is the Society's hallmark eats into the minds of trads creating confusion and inertia. The policy of not having an agreement with Rome but wanting one successfully drives it on like a mystery tour. It can go where it wants; has any other religious corporation been as flexible?

I forgot to add:

The neo-SSPX is toast!

Agreed. The Society has moved on and now is opportunistically interested in the internal void created with JR's resignation. It will continue to be in contact with conservative elements although they are now less powerful. It is playing politics and knows the membership and laity will follow it regardless.

The year ends with the situation of the SSPX continuing to be a messy one. Better if it had joined the ED allowing the broad resistance movement (to the conciliar church) to organise itself better. But the fudge and lack of clarity that is the Society's hallmark eats into the minds of trads creating confusion and inertia. The policy of not having an agreement with Rome but wanting one successfully drives it on like a mystery tour. It can go where it wants; has any other religious corporation been as flexible?

Who is "JR?"