Author Topic: Evolutionary Stages in the Resistance: (Read 18227 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** October 29, 2013, 06:59:16 PM »

Stage 1: Forming Contingency Plans

Roughly from the time of the beginning on the doctrinal discussions with Rome, until the Feb 2, 2012 Candlemas sermon of Bishop Fellay.

At this stage, resistance was nearly all internal, and the goal was simply to form a back-up plan, should the SSPX sign a merely practical accord with Rome.

There was no thought of forming a replacement for the SSPX at this time.

Stage 2: Compilation of Evidence and Expulsions[/u]

Roughly from the time of the Candlemas sermon announcing a merely practical accord was acceptable to Bishop Fellay to the expulsion of Bishop Williamson

During this stage, many incriminating docuмents surfaced which convinced some internal lay resisters that the SSPX could no longer be saved; this coincided with penal expulsions and voluntary resignations of like-minded clergy.

This had the effect of building an external resistance.

Simultaneously, it divided the resistance into internal resistance (whose goal was to rewind the deleterious actions and statements put in place to get a deal with Rome), and external resistance (whose goal was to begin anew).

Stage 3: The Transcendence of the External Resistance[/b]

Roughly from the time of Bishop Williamson's expulsion to the present.

By this point, there is bad blood on all sides. Many feelings have been hurt, and injustices committed by all.

While Bishop Fellay gives the appearance of rewinding his recent actions, the remaining internal resistance (now is a marked minority within the resistance population) are willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and see how things play out.

The external resistance grows in agitation, citing those things which have not yet been undone as evidence of insincerity.

The external resistance is now as hostile to the remaining internal resistance as it is to Menzingen.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** October 29, 2013, 08:20:29 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Many feelings have been hurt, and injustices committed by all.

Speak for yourself, Sean.

I, for one, have nothing to apologize for in this matter. I have done nothing other than promote the Resistance, which is a righteous cause. The so-called Resistance is nothing less than the core of the Traditional Movement itself (if by "Traditional movement" one means a fight against Modernism) in 2013.

There are many Catholics who call themselves "traditional", but who are the real traditionalists? The ones who know the enemy and aim for the General during the battle -- that is to say, Modernism, which is the SOURCE and cause of Vatican II and all the other things "trads" hate: Novus Ordo Missae, altar girls, liturgical dancing, use of vernacular in worship, lay takeover of churches, etc.

So I would call the Resistance the core, heart, or "elite corps" of Traditionalists. They're the ones who don't get distracted with side issues, who know the enemy and what the battle is about in the first place. They also do more damage to the Modernists than all the other so-called "trads" put together.

The SSPX used to be synonymous with these True Trads. Not anymore, unfortunately.

s2srea · « **Reply #2 on:** October 29, 2013, 09:06:35 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

The so-called Resistance is nothing less than the core of the Traditional Movement itself (if by "Traditional movement" one means a fight against Modernism) in 2013.

There are many Catholics who call themselves "traditional", but who are the real traditionalists? The ones who know the enemy and aim for the General during the battle -- that is to say, Modernism, which is the SOURCE and cause of Vatican II and all the other things "trads" hate: Novus Ordo Missae, altar girls, liturgical dancing, use of vernacular in worship, lay takeover of churches, etc.

So I would call the Resistance the core, heart, or "elite corps" of Traditionalists. They're the ones who don't get distracted with side issues, who know the enemy and what the battle is about in the first place.

I disagree with this. The so-called Resistance is nothing more than a bunch of people who tend to agree with each other on certain issues, but because the nature of this resistance has no source of centralized authority, they otherwise have disagreements on whatever they see fit. You can't claim Bishop Williamson as authority since even Fr. Pfieffer has disagreed with him publicly on some issues.

Its almost laughable to say they don't get distracted with side issues- have you been on Cathinfo in recent months (rhetorical)? You may feel fine thinking this of yourself, but the truth is is that the Resistance, as it is largely known, is right about a practical agreement with Rome- almost everything else IS a side issue. And that's it. There is nothing special about it and it is certainly not comparable to the Society as it was when founded by its holy founder.

Charlotte NC Bill · « **Reply #3 on:** October 29, 2013, 09:08:14 PM »

I don't believe Sean is that far off the mark unfortunately...Although I don't believe that any injustices were committed by the Resistance...and I'm not hostile towards the internal Resistance..
And yet I grow more frustrated and tired of the SSPX as this all grinds on...Last week was the Feast of Christ the King and though I was told fm the pulpit that our Faith is more than "just smells and bells.." I didn't hear the kind of militancy that I would expect on such a feast day...Of course, if the priest gave specifics about the traditional social doctrine of the Church and how it would be reflected in the Social Reign of Christ the King the Americanists and the shallow " consrvative atmosphere" seekers would've been turned off..Perhaps we've always expected too much.

Skunkwurxsspx · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2013, 01:12:37 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Stage 1: Forming Contingency Plans

Roughly from the time of the beginning on the doctrinal discussions with Rome, until the Feb 2, 2012 Candlemas sermon of Bishop Fellay.

At this stage, resistance was nearly all internal, and the goal was simply to form a back-up plan, should the SSPX sign a merely practical accord with Rome.

There was no thought of forming a replacement for the SSPX at this time.

Stage 2: Compilation of Evidence and Expulsions[/u]

Roughly from the time of the Candlemas sermon announcing a merely practical accord was acceptable to Bishop Fellay to the expulsion of Bishop Williamson

During this stage, many incriminating docuмents surfaced which convinced some internal lay resisters that the SSPX could no longer be saved; this coincided with penal expulsions and voluntary resignations of like-minded clergy.

This had the effect of building an external resistance.

Simultaneously, it divided the resistance into internal resistance (whose goal was to rewind the deleterious actions and statements put in place to get a deal with Rome), and external resistance (whose goal was to begin anew).

Stage 3: The Transcendence of the External Resistance[/b]

Roughly from the time of Bishop Williamson's expulsion to the present.

By this point, there is bad blood on all sides. Many feelings have been hurt, and injustices committed by all.

While Bishop Fellay gives the appearance of rewinding his recent actions, the remaining internal resistance (now is a marked minority within the resistance population) are willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and see how things play out.

The external resistance grows in agitation, citing those things which have not yet been undone as evidence of insincerity.

The external resistance is now as hostile to the remaining internal resistance as it is to Menzingen.

Sean,

That's an interesting perspective you share. I believe the resistance movement is a just and important cause to which there is no moral equivalent in Menzingen. That said, if I understand you correctly, the instances of lack of charity on the part of those who associate themselves with the resistance movement do not seem to me like such a far-fetched thing. After all, we are all human and have the propensity to go somewhat overboard with the wording of our rightful criticisms. I know I do, anyway.

My point: as far as the moral position of the resistance itself, I have no doubt that we're in the right. As far as we individuals go, well, there things can and should be taken on a case-by-case basis, as well-meaning as each of us may be. We are only human, after all, and can get carried away sometimes in the heat of our outrage.

I know for myself that when I hear a troubling piece of news such as a pending expulsion of a good, solid SSPX priest, I naturally get upset. That's fine, since the anger flows from an injustice about to be perpetrated. But, it would be wrong of me to then resort to malicious name-calling or to vent my feelings through the use of hurtful and insulting words.

As outraged as I am over what Bishop Fellay is doing to the Society, I do continue to pray for him and all the members of the SSPX. They definitely need our prayers and sacrifices more than ever.

Incredulous · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2013, 01:31:24 AM »

Sean,

I think your time-line is wrong.

The SSPX Resistance was born the same month Max Krah was exposed,
December 2010.

Maximillian Krah - A cause for serious concern?

That article created a tsunami within the SSPX that is still "moving inland", over all traditional Catholic groups.

Machabees · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2013, 01:50:09 AM »

SeanJohnson,

You have brought out an observation that has truly evolved organically, from an “internal” Catholic Resistance to an “external” Catholic Resistance, which has been based on the circuмstances and the dangers to the integral Catholic Faith.

I am interested to find in your OP that you have described that there is a “division” between the internal and the external (as you have described it). Is there? Or, is there a misunderstanding of the “cause” of the resistance, and what is it that a Catholic must RESIST to?

Other than your surprising statement in another thread, of: “I was the one who began the Resistance, so I am pretty sure I know what it is all about.”, when it is the Holy Ghost that is the Alpha and the Omega in all things, as expressed through many letters, articles, and sermons of SSPX priests calling out the alarm that there is a change in direction, theology, and orientation of the SSPX throughout the 2000’s (internal); much BEFORE your claim that it “started” with you by putting a news scoop up on Cathinfo on Feb. 4, 2012 http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=17438 which could hardly constitute a “call for resistance” as you what it to be.

That in your own description of the internal and external resistance, you have pointed out that there is a “different” set of causes that motivates the two; and you have also, surprisingly, re-defined what is the whole cause of the resistance in the first place; namely, the fight against modernist DOCTRINE to something practical.

You say that there are two camps. The: “internal resistance (whose goal was to rewind the deleterious actions and statements put in place to get a deal with Rome), [and] While Bishop Fellay gives the appearance of rewinding his recent actions, the remaining internal resistance (now is a marked minority within the resistance population) are willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and see how things play out.” (I notice that this is also a part of your expression within your own “colored-light” definitions to stay attached to the familiarity of the SSPX even though it has new doctrinal errors.)

And the second camp as you describe, is the: “external resistance (whose goal was to begin anew). The external resistance grows in agitation, citing those things which have not yet been undone as evidence of insincerity. The external resistance is now as hostile to the remaining internal resistance as it is to Menzingen.” Really? Is the cause of Doctrine downplayed and superficial?

It is obvious in your “division”, and calling for a division, that you want to be in the “internal” resistance and have the “amenities” of the Mass and just leave me alone mentality that follow that position. Just “rewind” Bishop Fellay’s statements and everything is “fine”, is it? And, anything outside of [your] “internal cause” has morphed into a different cause altogether of resisting just for a “goal to begin anew”?

Sean, you really seem to disassociate more and more from the evolution and organic growth of the real Catholic cause in the “internal to external” expressions, and its ONENESS of resistance to the errors in the Doctrinal domain.

You clearly show that you are putting more interest into a “rewind” than the reality to protect the Faith in the forced consequence of an “external” Catholic Resistance many have had to make to remove oneself from a “hostile” environment, like many SSPX priests had to do, as those priests and faithful in Campos had to do, stemming from the new perverse modernist Doctrines that were taking them over.

If you do not see this, or are not a victim of this, then do not condemn those who are forced to protect themselves in the situations that have befallen them. If you find “security” in your solo sspx priest as you have described before that because “he still fights against Vatican II”, that is to your responsibility. Though, it also is disconnected to the real fight because that “solo” sspx priest you want to find “comfort” with, is an accordist to Bishop Fellay and Menzingen. You cannot hide in a “cave” Sean and have the rest of the Catholic world suffer under a heavy hand of Bishop Fellay in the new modernist direction.

Bishop Fellay, and Menzingen are committed, as he said in his letter to the Pope, and is NOT changing, nor retracting. Their actions are LOUD and CLEAR.

In perspective Sean, the “error” of Bishop Fellay, and Menzingen, is one of DOCTRINE. The “practical” agreement with conciliar Rome is a consequence of that new hermeneutic doctrine. In other words, Bishop Fellay’s new doctrinal direction is closer in harmony to the entity and environment of conciliar Rome than Traditional Catholicism. To resist Bishop Fellay limited on, and based on, the end result of that modernist Doctrine in order not to have a “practical deal” with Rome is pretty shallow. The whole Catholic Resistance is based on one cause, and its consequence, –the error and infiltration of modernist DOCTRINE.

The “practical deal” of Bishop Fellay, and Menzingen, is a “natural conclusion” of the Doctrinal shift. Conciliar Rome did not change after the 2-years of Secret Doctrinal discussions; it was Bishop Fellay and Menzingen that have morphed into the conciliarists.

The whole and entire Catholic Resistance is based on our Baptism to hold to the True Faith, its Doctrine, and to fight error; regardless of what “face” it wants to hide itself under; or, under some appearance of good.

In conclusion, what is an organic Catholic resistance, starting from an “internal” resistance from many SSPX priests over many years, only to be unjustly ignored, transferred, put on silence, and evicted is the real INJUSTICE to the truth and the Faith. When, after those many years of fighting the “internal” Catholic Resistance going “up the ladder” to the superiors for calling out to light the errors and to defend the True DOCTRINE, to no avail, and hands of hostility, there organically turned into the “external” Catholic Resistance with the SAME CAUSE to fight for the True DOCTRINE while letting the world know of the secret betrayals of the Catholic Faith coming from the SSPX and its leaders; as with, the false misguided belief of many people, like Vatican II, to “obey” the superior –the Authority- over the true Faith and Her Doctrine.

For you to say that: “By this point, there is bad blood on all sides. Many feelings have been hurt, and injustices committed by all.”, is also striking. Tell that to the Catholic Saints and Martyrs who defended the Faith from error. Whoever has the truth does not have “bad blood”, unless one sees a ‘Catholic Resistance” as a horizontal humanistic cause.

You have acknowledged in prior posts that there is a “Doctrinal shift” that took place in the SSPX from “many incriminating docuмents [have] surfaced”, yet you dismiss the consequence of those errors played out in the practical day to day operation and policies of the SSPX administration, letters, sermons, associations (a Doctrinal slide is also a compromised moral slide); so that you present a “comfortable” position like many other “inside” sspx priests who continue on to “obey” even though their flock is confused and eaten little by little by the modernist wolves.

The Catholic Resistance is to resist error, regardless of who it is; Pope, Bishop, neighbor, family, or a Superior General of a pious religious union. The organically evolved internal and external Catholic Resistance is the SAME cause.

The Catholic Resistance is based on DOCTRINAL error; not a practical error.

Error is evil…and must be resisted!

With prayers,
Viva Christo Rey…

Machabees · « **Reply #7 on:** October 30, 2013, 02:09:35 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Matthew
The so-called Resistance is nothing less than the core of the Traditional Movement itself (if by "Traditional movement" one means a fight against Modernism) in 2013.

There are many Catholics who call themselves "traditional", but who are the real traditionalists? The ones who know the enemy and aim for the General during the battle -- that is to say, Modernism, which is the SOURCE and cause of Vatican II and all the other things "trads" hate: Novus Ordo Missae, altar girls, liturgical dancing, use of vernacular in worship, lay takeover of churches, etc.

So I would call the Resistance the core, heart, or "elite corps" of Traditionalists. They're the ones who don't get distracted with side issues, who know the enemy and what the battle is about in the first place.

I disagree with this. The so-called Resistance is nothing more than a bunch of people who tend to agree with each other on certain issues, but because the nature of this resistance has no source of centralized authority, they otherwise have disagreements on whatever they see fit. You can't claim Bishop Williamson as authority since even Fr. Pfieffer has disagreed with him publicly on some issues.

Its almost laughable to say they don't get distracted with side issues- have you been on Cathinfo in recent months (rhetorical)? You may feel fine thinking this of yourself, but the truth is is that the Resistance, as it is largely known, is right about a practical agreement with Rome- almost everything else IS a side issue. And that's it. There is nothing special about it and it is certainly not comparable to the Society as it was when founded by its holy founder.

Wow...that is a very humanistic and democratic view of the Catholic Resistance.

Please meditate on the consequences of the Doctrinal shift towards modernism that has infiltrated the organs of the SSPX and how the "disease" trickles and effects everyone inside of it.

If you think you are immune to that environment, then look at the Catholics of Vatican II...

John Grace · « **Reply #8 on:** October 30, 2013, 07:34:33 AM »

Firstly, the resistance is a Holy Crusade.

Remember the words of scripture.

"If this work be of Men,
it will come to nought:
But if it be of God,
Ye cannot overthrow it."

John Grace · « **Reply #9 on:** October 30, 2013, 07:40:51 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Many feelings have been hurt, and injustices committed by all.

Speak for yourself, Sean.

I, for one, have nothing to apologize for in this matter. I have done nothing other than promote the Resistance, which is a righteous cause. The so-called Resistance is nothing less than the core of the Traditional Movement itself (if by "Traditional movement" one means a fight against Modernism) in 2013.

There are many Catholics who call themselves "traditional", but who are the real traditionalists? The ones who know the enemy and aim for the General during the battle -- that is to say, Modernism, which is the SOURCE and cause of Vatican II and all the other things "trads" hate: Novus Ordo Missae, altar girls, liturgical dancing, use of vernacular in worship, lay takeover of churches, etc.

So I would call the Resistance the core, heart, or "elite corps" of Traditionalists. They're the ones who don't get distracted with side issues, who know the enemy and what the battle is about in the first place. They also do more damage to the Modernists than all the other so-called "trads" put together.

The SSPX used to be synonymous with these True Trads. Not anymore, unfortunately.

I finally got to watch 'For Greater Glory' (Cristiada) yesterday and I have always believed the resistance must and will be an elite.

JPaul · « **Reply #10 on:** October 30, 2013, 08:13:04 AM »

The next part of this evolution is for the resistance to untie itself from the SSPX and move on to become a new work of the Church.

As it was with the SSPX so it is with the resistance, the lifeboat cannot save the foundering ship. They will only be dragged down with it.

The Society has been changed at its core and its new course made unalterable. Nothing will return it to its former place as a solid defense against the modernism which has infected it. To believe that the resistance can save it, is folly.

The resistance has the beginnings of a true congregation of religious which they must build and form lest they simply remain as a castoff from the old Society.

The true enemy awaits in Rome and in the chanceries of the apostate Bishops. There is the only meaningful places to go forth and resist.

Menzingen is lost.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2013, 08:14:09 AM »

Quote from: Machabees

SeanJohnson,

You have brought out an observation that has truly evolved organically, from an “internal” Catholic Resistance to an “external” Catholic Resistance, which has been based on the circuмstances and the dangers to the integral Catholic Faith.

I am interested to find in your OP that you have described that there is a “division” between the internal and the external (as you have described it). Is there? Or, is there a misunderstanding of the “cause” of the resistance, and what is it that a Catholic must RESIST to?

Other than your surprising statement in another thread, of: “I was the one who began the Resistance, so I am pretty sure I know what it is all about.”, when it is the Holy Ghost that is the Alpha and the Omega in all things, as expressed through many letters, articles, and sermons of SSPX priests calling out the alarm that there is a change in direction, theology, and orientation of the SSPX throughout the 2000’s (internal); much BEFORE your claim that it “started” with you by putting a news scoop up on Cathinfo on Feb. 4, 2012 http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=17438 which could hardly constitute a “call for resistance” as you what it to be.

That in your own description of the internal and external resistance, you have pointed out that there is a “different” set of causes that motivates the two; and you have also, surprisingly, re-defined what is the whole cause of the resistance in the first place; namely, the fight against modernist DOCTRINE to something practical.

You say that there are two camps. The: “internal resistance (whose goal was to rewind the deleterious actions and statements put in place to get a deal with Rome), [and] While Bishop Fellay gives the appearance of rewinding his recent actions, the remaining internal resistance (now is a marked minority within the resistance population) are willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and see how things play out.” (I notice that this is also a part of your expression within your own “colored-light” definitions to stay attached to the familiarity of the SSPX even though it has new doctrinal errors.)

And the second camp as you describe, is the: “external resistance (whose goal was to begin anew). The external resistance grows in agitation, citing those things which have not yet been undone as evidence of insincerity. The external resistance is now as hostile to the remaining internal resistance as it is to Menzingen.” Really? Is the cause of Doctrine downplayed and superficial?

It is obvious in your “division”, and calling for a division, that you want to be in the “internal” resistance and have the “amenities” of the Mass and just leave me alone mentality that follow that position. Just “rewind” Bishop Fellay’s statements and everything is “fine”, is it? And, anything outside of [your] “internal cause” has morphed into a different cause altogether of resisting just for a “goal to begin anew”?

Sean, you really seem to disassociate more and more from the evolution and organic growth of the real Catholic cause in the “internal to external” expressions, and its ONENESS of resistance to the errors in the Doctrinal domain.

You clearly show that you are putting more interest into a “rewind” than the reality to protect the Faith in the forced consequence of an “external” Catholic Resistance many have had to make to remove oneself from a “hostile” environment, like many SSPX priests had to do, as those priests and faithful in Campos had to do, stemming from the new perverse modernist Doctrines that were taking them over.

If you do not see this, or are not a victim of this, then do not condemn those who are forced to protect themselves in the situations that have befallen them. If you find “security” in your solo sspx priest as you have described before that because “he still fights against Vatican II”, that is to your responsibility. Though, it also is disconnected to the real fight because that “solo” sspx priest you want to find “comfort” with, is an accordist to Bishop Fellay and Menzingen. You cannot hide in a “cave” Sean and have the rest of the Catholic world suffer under a heavy hand of Bishop Fellay in the new modernist direction.

Bishop Fellay, and Menzingen are committed, as he said in his letter to the Pope, and is NOT changing, nor retracting. Their actions are LOUD and CLEAR.

In perspective Sean, the “error” of Bishop Fellay, and Menzingen, is one of DOCTRINE. The “practical” agreement with conciliar Rome is a consequence of that new hermeneutic doctrine. In other words, Bishop Fellay’s new doctrinal direction is closer in harmony to the entity and environment of conciliar Rome than Traditional Catholicism. To resist Bishop Fellay limited on, and based on, the end result of that modernist Doctrine in order not to have a “practical deal” with Rome is pretty shallow. The whole Catholic Resistance is based on one cause, and its consequence, –the error and infiltration of modernist DOCTRINE.

The “practical deal” of Bishop Fellay, and Menzingen, is a “natural conclusion” of the Doctrinal shift. Conciliar Rome did not change after the 2-years of Secret Doctrinal discussions; it was Bishop Fellay and Menzingen that have morphed into the conciliarists.

The whole and entire Catholic Resistance is based on our Baptism to hold to the True Faith, its Doctrine, and to fight error; regardless of what “face” it wants to hide itself under; or, under some appearance of good.

In conclusion, what is an organic Catholic resistance, starting from an “internal” resistance from many SSPX priests over many years, only to be unjustly ignored, transferred, put on silence, and evicted is the real INJUSTICE to the truth and the Faith. When, after those many years of fighting the “internal” Catholic Resistance going “up the ladder” to the superiors for calling out to light the errors and to defend the True DOCTRINE, to no avail, and hands of hostility, there organically turned into the “external” Catholic Resistance with the SAME CAUSE to fight for the True DOCTRINE while letting the world know of the secret betrayals of the Catholic Faith coming from the SSPX and its leaders; as with, the false misguided belief of many people, like Vatican II, to “obey” the superior –the Authority- over the true Faith and Her Doctrine.

For you to say that: “By this point, there is bad blood on all sides. Many feelings have been hurt, and injustices committed by all.”, is also striking. Tell that to the Catholic Saints and Martyrs who defended the Faith from error. Whoever has the truth does not have “bad blood”, unless one sees a ‘Catholic Resistance” as a horizontal humanistic cause.

You have acknowledged in prior posts that there is a “Doctrinal shift” that took place in the SSPX from “many incriminating docuмents [have] surfaced”, yet you dismiss the consequence of those errors played out in the practical day to day operation and policies of the SSPX administration, letters, sermons, associations (a Doctrinal slide is also a compromised moral slide); so that you present a “comfortable” position like many other “inside” sspx priests who continue on to “obey” even though their flock is confused and eaten little by little by the modernist wolves.

The Catholic Resistance is to resist error, regardless of who it is; Pope, Bishop, neighbor, family, or a Superior General of a pious religious union. The organically evolved internal and external Catholic Resistance is the SAME cause.

The Catholic Resistance is based on DOCTRINAL error; not a practical error.

Error is evil…and must be resisted!

With prayers,
Viva Christo Rey…

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.

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.

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).

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?).

Sincerely,

Sean Johnson

hollingsworth · « **Reply #12 on:** October 30, 2013, 08:39:44 AM »

Quote

Sean,

I think your time-line is wrong.

The SSPX Resistance was born the same month Max Krah was exposed,
December 2010.

I've never been sure that there is a 'resistance movement,' much less that it has evolved along some recognizable lines. I know this: I began to resist just after Bp. Fellay went to der Speigel and dissociated himself from the h0Ɩ0cαųst remarks made by Bp. Williamson during his infamous interview. Suddenly the lights came on. I was no longer a Fellay-led sspxer.

Matthew · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2013, 08:54:03 AM »

I can't help but draw parallels between the "internal resistance" as coined by Sean, and the "Conservative movement" within the conciliar church.

If the fall of the SSPX is history ~~repeating~~ "rhyming" Vatican II, then this "internal resistance" is the rhyming of the conservative movement. Just as the so-called "external resistance" is the rhyming of the Traditional movement.

Conservatives act out of an exaggerated, sentimental attachment to the Church in her buildings and structures. Likewise, there are some who are overly attached to the "dear SSPX".

Bishop Williamson and the true Traditionalists on the other hand, are quick to acknowledge that the organization they themselves have spent decades in and given their whole lives to might very well fall, if the organization ever stops representing the Truth. +W always taught that God doesn't need the SSPX. The SSPX needs God and His Truth.

(A side note: People often forget this, but don't you suppose Abp. Lefebvre was attached to the Church, after his many decades of service? Don't you suppose +Williamson was attached to the SSPX in some way, after almost 4 decades of service therein? But both of these men had the virtue to know that truth and doctrine come first!)

Conservatives also hope to rewind the Church-destroying changes wrought by Vatican II, by staying under the authority of diocesan structures and the conciliar church hierarchy. They also say, "patience -- these things take time. We'll have to take what we can get, enduring the many setbacks, and hope that someday..."

While Traditionalists look at the big picture -- how virtually all Cardinals and bishops are modernist, and that things aren't going to turn around EVER, humanly speaking. Only a chastisement is going to "fix" the conciliar Church. The errors are too widespread, established, and deep. No action of a few priests, no political action, no letter-writing campaign is going to fix the destruction wrought by Vatican II.

Likewise, it's not just Bishop Fellay and a few of his close friends. It's a huge portion of the priests, especially in Europe. Modernism and Liberalism apparently have a very compelling siren song (which is news to me; I have always hated both, but I digress). When you have a tidal wave vs. an organization, you can't pin your hopes on incremental improvements against the tidal wave!

In other words, for every "small rewind" or victory we observe within the SSPX, the Tidal Wave (of liberalism, secularism, and modernism) will set us two steps back. It's more likely for the Tidal Wave to win, than the "conservatives". Which is more appealing to human nature? Which is more alluring? (see: Bishop Fellay's apparent obsession with numbers, as evidenced by the softening of rhetoric, building of a massive seminary, expulsion of "radical" elements, etc.) Which is easier?

As a student of history, I've learned to always put your money on what is easier and in line with human nature -- unless you LIKE to be disappointed.

You can (and should) root for the best team -- your favorite, etc. -- but you put your money on the team that's most likely to win.

PAT317 · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2013, 08:59:36 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

I can't help but draw parallels between the "internal resistance" as coined by Sean, and the "Conservative movement" within the conciliar church.

Haven't even finished reading your post - got this far and said, "my thought exactly" when reading Sean's post. Even the idea that one's SSPX pastor is a good, hardline priest who still speaks out - guess what? He gets transferred and they put a more liberal priest in his place. Been there; done that. Déjà vu all over again.

Quote from: Matthew

In other words, for every "small rewind" or victory we observe within the SSPX, the Tidal Wave (of liberalism, secularism, and modernism) will set us two steps back.

Likewise here; when +BF speaks to a Trad audience, and thus says more Trad-sounding things than he got caught saying last year to other audiences, the conservatives hang their hat on, "see, he's unwinding!" Just like the conservatives would jump for joy at every "conservative" sounding crumb they were thrown by the post-conciliar popes.