Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Maximilian-Krah-and-Menzingen-A-Cause-for-Serious-Concern)
That article created a tsunami within the SSPX that is still "moving inland", over all traditional Catholic groups.
(http://static.hdw.eweb4.com/media/thumbs/1/24/232609.jpg)
-
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…
-
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...
-
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."
-
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.
-
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,
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Exactly.
And I'll go further --
With apologies to Sean (since I hope I'm wrong in his particular case),
I could see a man such as the OP becoming near-despondent when that near-infinite store of patience begins to run out -- when a new, liberal pastor is brought in who commits even 1 injustice per month. When he has to deal with the SSPX equivalent of a Pope Francis, a De Noia, or one of the many notorious bishops in the conciliar church.
I could easily see a man such as the OP ending up extreme sedevacantist, and/or Home Aloner, once he gets fed up with all the setbacks and lack of progress on the "rewind".
Oddly enough, a man such as the OP would likely NOT join the resistance in such a dark hypothetical case. He would knee-jerk too far the other direction, if experience is any kind of reliable guide.
It might sound negative or extreme, but reality bears me out. I've heard horror stories about where some former SSPX Catholics (even seminarians!) have ended up. I've heard stories of young men who left the seminary ending up NON-CATHOLIC. Can you imagine that? Going from a state where you're theoretically willing to give your life to God, to giving up the Faith entirely?
What about all the SSPX priests who have left the priesthood and/or the Faith? It happens.
My only point in this post is that there is a great danger of being in the wrong position, even if that position sounds good. "I'm staying under the authority of the Pope." Doesn't that just give you warm fuzzies to read it? But the reality is much more grim.
-
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.
Exactly.
And I'll go further --
With apologies to Sean (since I hope I'm wrong in his particular case),
I could see the OP becoming near-despondent when that near-infinite store of patience begins to run out -- when a new, liberal pastor is brought in who commits even 1 injustice per month. When he has to deal with the SSPX equivalent of a Pope Francis, a De Noia, or one of the many notorious bishops in the conciliar church.
I could easily see a man such as the OP ending up extreme sedevacantist, and/or Home Aloner, once he gets fed up with all the setbacks and lack of progress on the "rewind".
Oddly enough, a man such as the OP would likely NOT join the resistance in such a dark hypothetical case. He would knee-jerk too far the other direction, if experience is any kind of reliable guide.
It might sound negative or extreme, but reality bears me out. I've heard horror stories about where some former SSPX Catholics (even seminarians!) have ended up. I've heard stories of young men who left the seminary ending up NON-CATHOLIC. Can you imagine that? Going from a state where you're theoretically willing to give your life to God, to giving up the Faith entirely?
What about all the SSPX priests who have left the priesthood and/or the Faith? It happens.
My only point in this post is that there is a great danger of being in the wrong position, even if that position sounds good. "I'm staying under the authority of the Pope." Doesn't that just give you warm fuzzies to read it? But the reality is much more grim.
That the pastor you reference was transferred 3 months ago refutes your entire post.
-
I didn't reference him; PAT317 did.
And if you think my post can be "refuted", you totally missed the nature of my post. There is no way it can be wrong, unless you can demonstrate that there's no such danger in cases of extreme swings or being on the wrong side. I doubt you'd ever be able to do that.
I even said explicitly that I wasn't talking about you in particular. Did you even read my post, Sean? Maybe you should admit and come clean that you didn't.
Like the famous song by Carly Simon:
"Sean Johnson, you probably think this post is about you..."
And even if my post were betting its credibility on something happening to YOU personally (which it ISN'T) -- right now you're on day what, 90? of the new pastor. Anyone is full of vim and vigor at the beginning. Most people have some measure of patience before they get fed up.
After 5 or 10 years of "conservatism", however, you might be singing a different tune. Look at how the conservative movement fared within the conciliar church. Some of them became so blind, they still talk about how Pope Francis is going to rebuild the Church!
How naive and blind can people get?!
So apparently they became totally detached from reality during those years/decades of "patiently enduring and hoping for incremental improvements within the official Church structures". A danger that will certainly exist for those joining the so-called internal resistance.
-
I added a few words to my post to make it more clear.
In two cases, I said "A man such as the OP" but there was one case where I said "the OP".
I changed it to be more clear. I was never intending to focus on one man. Only to mention him in passing, as the springboard and occasion of my philosophical musing.
-
Many feelings have been hurt, and injustices committed by all.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I had to comment on this point.
We see this comment made often enough, especially in the political realm. It's just presented as an obvious fact that is self-evident. However, in my experience, it is always made, without presenting evidence, by the party that truly is the party at fault.
In psychology it is called "projection", "A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, in which what is emotionally unacceptable in the self is unconsciously rejected and attributed (projected) to others." (Psychology Dictionary)
The "injustices" of Menzingen have been identified on numerous topics here on CathInfo and they've been discussed at length. But, unless the "injustices" of the Resistance are the Resistance's leaders actions in combatting the injustices of Menzingen then I simply don't know what the injustices are that have been committed by the Resistance group(s) alleged in the opening post.
No one should ever simply declare that "everyone is at fault". If this is true, then the evidence should simply be put forward and the facts will speak for themselves. To simply make the declaration without presenting the evidence is, I think, a desperate measure to attempt to sway an argument on purely emotional grounds.
-
After 5 or 10 years of "conservatism", however, you might be singing a different tune. Look at how the conservative movement fared within the conciliar church. Some of them became so blind, they still talk about how Pope Francis is going to rebuild the Church!
How naive and blind can people get?!
This is a very key point. At the recent pro-life protest in Limerick, I was asked by an individual "What do you think of the new Pope"? I responded things are getting worse. What interested me was the person who asked me attends an Institute of Christ the King chapel. He is pro SSPX also.
He would be more a conservative Catholic than a Traditionalist.
On the point of Pope Francis his comments on 'pro-life' are sufficient for many.
A few years ago there was 'objections' to Fr Paul Kramer mentioning Jews and Freemasons in his sermon. The objector regarded it as 'too emotive' and could 'alienate' people from the Latin Mass.
-
Many feelings have been hurt, and injustices committed by all.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I had to comment on this point.
We see this comment made often enough, especially in the political realm. It's just presented as an obvious fact that is self-evident. However, in my experience, it is always made, without presenting evidence, by the party that truly is the party at fault.
In psychology it is called "projection", "A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, in which what is emotionally unacceptable in the self is unconsciously rejected and attributed (projected) to others." (Psychology Dictionary)
The "injustices" of Menzingen have been identified on numerous topics here on CathInfo and they've been discussed at length. But, unless the "injustices" of the Resistance are the Resistance's leaders actions in combatting the injustices of Menzingen then I simply don't know what the injustices are that have been committed by the Resistance group(s) alleged in the opening post.
No one should ever simply declare that "everyone is at fault". If this is true, then the evidence should simply be put forward and the facts will speak for themselves. To simply make the declaration without presenting the evidence is, I think, a desperate measure to attempt to sway an argument on purely emotional grounds.
A very astute and impartial observation from TKGS. I will vouch for the fact that he doesn't have a dog in this fight. He doesn't attend SSPX or Resistance -- I believe his Trad affiliation is sedevacantist/independent. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).
The best part is the last paragraph. Very, very good point. Why not just post the facts and let them speak for themselves? Exactly. Just like Menzingen likes to make COUNTLESS statements without any evidence, presenting them as undisputed facts. I frequently criticize that behavior as the Communist tactic "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth".
-
I didn't reference him; PAT317 did.
I was never intending to focus on one man. Only to mention him in passing, as the springboard and occasion of my philosophical musing.
And just to clarify, I knew that Sean's more hardline pastor was already transferred some time ago; I too was speaking hypothetically. Just using that as an example of the parallel we were speaking of. That happened to us all the time in the 1970s; our conservative pastor would be transferred and a more liberal one brought in. Each successive pastor was more liberal than the previous.
-
I didn't reference him; PAT317 did.
And if you think my post can be "refuted", you totally missed the nature of my post. There is no way it can be wrong, unless you can demonstrate that there's no such danger in cases of extreme swings or being on the wrong side. I doubt you'd ever be able to do that.
I even said explicitly that I wasn't talking about you in particular. Did you even read my post, Sean? Maybe you should admit and come clean that you didn't.
Like the famous song by Carly Simon:
"Sean Johnson, you probably think this post is about you..."
And even if my post were betting its credibility on something happening to YOU personally (which it ISN'T) -- right now you're on day what, 90? of the new pastor. Anyone is full of vim and vigor at the beginning. Most people have some measure of patience before they get fed up.
After 5 or 10 years of "conservatism", however, you might be singing a different tune. Look at how the conservative movement fared within the conciliar church. Some of them became so blind, they still talk about how Pope Francis is going to rebuild the Church!
How naive and blind can people get?!
So apparently they became totally detached from reality during those years/decades of "patiently enduring and hoping for incremental improvements within the official Church structures". A danger that will certainly exist for those joining the so-called internal resistance.
Thank you for also proving my observation in the OP that the external resistance is now as opposed to the internal resistance as it is to Menzingen.
-
How did I prove that assertion? By arguing against your position? Does that make me a "meanie" who is "against" you?
Give me a break.
I believe an introduction is in order.
Ad Hominem, Cathinfo. Cathinfo, Ad Hominem.
-
A good example of perhaps a confused laity? These 100 pilgrims seem more 'resisting from within' which is a fantasy. Leave SSPX chapels is my opinion. I am not hostile to them but don't agree with laity remaining with the SSPX. Reforming from within is something I couldn't support. The SSPX has sank.
On a point of principle I wouldn't have attended this pilgrimage. It's all very strange laity would still support them. Given Krahgate and other episodes.
Fr Paul Morgan SSPX
http://fsspx.co.uk/page_DS.htm
Knock pilgrimage and Cork
I was happy to have paid a brief visit to Father Ed MacDonald, the new prior in Athlone, in September and then to have celebrated our annual pilgrimage Mass in Knock on Saturday 21 st September for some 100 pilgrims. Fathers MacDonald and Gallagher then led the faithful for the traditional outdoor Way of the Cross and Holy Rosary, recited whilst processing around the apparition chapel. It was my first visit to this important Marian sanctuary where Our Blessed Lady had appeared in 1879 in the company of St Joseph and St John the Apostle.
The following day I was in Cork for Sunday Mass at our Church of the Holy Rosary, replacing Fr Ballini who was away on his annual leave. The full church highlighted the need for a church hall where the faithful can gather after Mass, but which is presently lacking. A recent quote for ground works behind the church and a suitable structure exceeds our possibilities and hence we are exploring other possibilities.
-
Thank you for your tone Sean. I will respond in blue…
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
-
It was easier for me to not support the SSPX as I am not married or have children attending a SSPX school. I never became Third order based on prudent advice so easy to walk away.
The resistance deserves all our support. The neo SSPX is a finished force, Zionist, neo con and a surrendered Society. The FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King have been more honest with their laity. When you attend their chapels, you expect compromise.
-
A good example of perhaps a confused laity? These 100 pilgrims seem more 'resisting from within' which is a fantasy. Leave SSPX chapels is my opinion. I am not hostile to them but don't agree with laity remaining with the SSPX. Reforming from within is something I couldn't support. The SSPX has sank.
On a point of principle I wouldn't have attended this pilgrimage. It's all very strange laity would still support them. Given Krahgate and other episodes.
Fr Paul Morgan SSPX
http://fsspx.co.uk/page_DS.htm
Knock pilgrimage and Cork
I was happy to have paid a brief visit to Father Ed MacDonald, the new prior in Athlone, in September and then to have celebrated our annual pilgrimage Mass in Knock on Saturday 21 st September for some 100 pilgrims. Fathers MacDonald and Gallagher then led the faithful for the traditional outdoor Way of the Cross and Holy Rosary, recited whilst processing around the apparition chapel. It was my first visit to this important Marian sanctuary where Our Blessed Lady had appeared in 1879 in the company of St Joseph and St John the Apostle.
The following day I was in Cork for Sunday Mass at our Church of the Holy Rosary, replacing Fr Ballini who was away on his annual leave. The full church highlighted the need for a church hall where the faithful can gather after Mass, but which is presently lacking. A recent quote for ground works behind the church and a suitable structure exceeds our possibilities and hence we are exploring other possibilities.
-
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.
:applause: Though 100 pilgrims from Ireland probably don't agree with me. The SSPX is gone.
-
Nothing will return it to its former place as a solid defense against the modernism which has infected it.
On that point are the 100 or so who went to Knock shrine with Fr Morgan aware that the SSPX no longer fights Modernism? Even having Mass offered where the Novus ordo takes place is interesting in itself.
-
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.
Moving on is key. We are already seeing 75 or so Resistance chapels, seminaries opening, convents flourishing. All very positive and necessary.
People need to move away from the SSPX. Others will disagree but there cannot be resistance from within.
-
Nothing will return it to its former place as a solid defense against the modernism which has infected it.
On that point are the 100 or so who went to Knock shrine with Fr Morgan aware that the SSPX no longer fights Modernism? Even having Mass offered where the Novus ordo takes place is interesting in itself.
Interesting yes, but more so it is indicative of a low grade infection.
To say Mass outside and apart from the place in which the sacrilege takes place would be the proper action for the uncompromised and uncompromising.
-
1) ... 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.
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
Sean,
1) Are you aware of any actions which lead you to believe that the Society is attempting to rewind?
2) I'm disturbed by Bp Fellay's (your?) attitude toward how much concern should be placed on bringing those scandalized by these "mistakes" back into the care of the SSPX. If you make a mistake which leads someone away from the Sacraments, wouldn't that person be your first concern? I don't see how admitting your mistakes would disturb those who supported you all along.
I know that those who have left the Sacraments haven't left the Faith, but the Shepherd and His lost sheep certainly comes to mind.
-
1) ... 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.
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
Sean,
1) Are you aware of any actions which lead you to believe that the Society is attempting to rewind?
2) I'm disturbed by Bp Fellay's (your?) attitude toward how much concern should be placed on bringing those scandalized by these "mistakes" back into the care of the SSPX. If you make a mistake which leads someone away from the Sacraments, wouldn't that person be your first concern? I don't see how admitting your mistakes would disturb those who supported you all along.
I know that those who have left the Sacraments haven't left the Faith, but the Shepherd and His lost sheep certainly comes to mind.
Hello Mater:
1) Yes, I am aware of some actions which lead me to believe Menzingen is attempting a face-saving rewind.
2) The actions I have in mind squarely contradict the branding campaign, which was designed to foster a public image more appealing to the modern world (and therefore make Rome less reluctant to offer/accept an accord).
3) One such action would be the willingness to attempt funeral rites for the (unjustly) convicted war criminal, Eric Priebke in Albano, Italy. Such a thing would not have been attempted last year (the unfortunate clarification of the Italian District superior notwithstanding).
4) Yet another would be the recent comments of Bishop Fellay against Pope Francis (i.e., calling him an overt modernist, when the branding campaign was supposed to cease fire on Vatican II).
5) The plain statement of Bishop Fellay that a practical agreement would have been disastrous. Yes, he pushed mightily for it! But it would be most difficult for him to switch course again and chase after one, having just made such a statement. That realization causes me to think this is a humble admission of bad judgment, without actually saying so.
6) WHat do you think the practical consequence of these things in Rome will be? If Francis dies tomorrow, do you think the next Pope will not be a little hamstrung by these things?
These would be just a few of the actions that come to mind off the top of my head.
I do not understand your 2nd question; could you please rephrase?
Sincerely,
Sean Johnson
-
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
Wow...that is a very humanistic and democratic view of the Catholic Resistance.
Not at all. I merely stated a fact, not how I wish the Resistance would be. There is very little to what makes up any structure of the resistance. Do you disagree?
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...
Hogwash. I know I am not immune to anything. But you have a perverse view of what I just said. If I misstated my position, or am confusing, then I accept the cause of our disagreement. But I stand by my word and I am anything but humanistic and democratic. Give me a break... this is laughable.
-
SJ
1) Yes, I am aware of some actions which lead me to believe Menzingen is attempting a face-saving rewind.
2) The actions I have in mind squarely contradict the branding campaign, which was designed to foster a public image more appealing to the modern world (and therefore make Rome less reluctant to offer/accept an accord).
3) One such action would be the willingness to attempt funeral rites for the (unjustly) convicted war criminal, Eric Priebke in Albano, Italy. Such a thing would not have been attempted last year (the unfortunate clarification of the Italian District superior notwithstanding).
I realise your comments are directed to MD but regarding 'face-saving' any action or actions by Bishop Fellay are far too late.
Regarding Erich Priebke, who died recently. Priebke was a soldier and a hero. Not a 'war criminal'. I never met him but would have regarded it as an honour to shake his hand.
Your defence of Bishop Fellay is pathetic as is your naive comments here.
Let us get some comment from 'Cassini' now. Cassini is more than welcome to share my views with Fr Angles.The gloves are off now.
-
SeanJohnson,
This is a resistance forum. Bishop Fellay and his crowd can take their 'face-saving' and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.Liberal rats and traitors.Traitors one and all.
-
SeanJohnson,
This is a resistance forum. Bishop Fellay and his crowd can take their 'face-saving' and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.Liberal rats and traitors.Traitors one and all.
What an exemplary Catholic you are!
-
It's a shame to see SeanJohnson defend and make excuses for Bishop Fellay.
-
SeanJohnson,
This is a resistance forum. Bishop Fellay and his crowd can take their 'face-saving' and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.Liberal rats and traitors.Traitors one and all.
What an exemplary Catholic you are!
:jester:
Laughable. Do you still believe you started the resistance?
-
I have no doubt Bishop Fellay is embarrassed and is trying to save face. Most SSPX priests are. However, an apology from him would not be sincere and far too late.
-
SeanJohnson,
This is a resistance forum. Bishop Fellay and his crowd can take their 'face-saving' and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.Liberal rats and traitors.Traitors one and all.
What an exemplary Catholic you are!
Perhaps I should of phrased it differently but I shall adhere to the principles my great grandfather adhered to when he quarrelled with a priest many years ago. My great grandfather adhered to his principle.He is dead for many years, the seminary associated with the cleric is long gone but the stone pillars built by my great grandfather about a hundred years ago are still standing.
-
I have no doubt Bishop Fellay is embarrassed and is trying to save face. Most SSPX priests are. However, an apology from him would not be sincere and far too late.
His window for you to forgive him closed, then?
It would be very difficult to trust Fellay without some sign of good will. Not sure what that would include, but certainly rescinding the six conditions. Natually, some apology to the priests and Bishop that were kicked out for doing *apparently* what Fellay is doing now.
But even if he did that, JohnGrace, you would not forgive him? That is what I took from your post. This personal animosity is understandable, though throwing around teenager-like axioms like "it's too late to apologize" is embarrassing to the Resistance.
-
Sean,
1) Are you aware of any actions which lead you to believe that the Society is attempting to rewind?
2) I'm disturbed by Bp Fellay's (your?) attitude toward how much concern should be placed on bringing those scandalized by these "mistakes" back into the care of the SSPX. If you make a mistake which leads someone away from the Sacraments, wouldn't that person be your first concern? I don't see how admitting your mistakes would disturb those who supported you all along.
I know that those who have left the Sacraments haven't left the Faith, but the Shepherd and His lost sheep certainly comes to mind.
Hello Mater:
1) Yes, I am aware of some actions which lead me to believe Menzingen is attempting a face-saving rewind.
2) The actions I have in mind squarely contradict the branding campaign, which was designed to foster a public image more appealing to the modern world (and therefore make Rome less reluctant to offer/accept an accord).
3) One such action would be the willingness to attempt funeral rites for the (unjustly) convicted war criminal, Eric Priebke in Albano, Italy. Such a thing would not have been attempted last year (the unfortunate clarification of the Italian District superior notwithstanding).
4) Yet another would be the recent comments of Bishop Fellay against Pope Francis (i.e., calling him an overt modernist, when the branding campaign was supposed to cease fire on Vatican II).
5) The plain statement of Bishop Fellay that a practical agreement would have been disastrous. Yes, he pushed mightily for it! But it would be most difficult for him to switch course again and chase after one, having just made such a statement. That realization causes me to think this is a humble admission of bad judgment, without actually saying so.
6) WHat do you think the practical consequence of these things in Rome will be? If Francis dies tomorrow, do you think the next Pope will not be a little hamstrung by these things?
These would be just a few of the actions that come to mind off the top of my head.
I do not understand your 2nd question; could you please rephrase?
Sincerely,
Sean Johnson
Thank you, Sean. I can't give much credit to #4 or #5 as those are words and Bp Fellay has lost my trust in what he says. I do, however, hope to see more actions which support your thesis.
My #2 was not a question but rather a comment in which I'd like to hear your thoughts. I will rephrase later when more time permits.
-
Mithrandylan,
though throwing around teenager-like axioms like "it's too late to apologize" is embarrassing to the Resistance.
I appreciate the honesty though wasn't aware one is a member of the resistance.
http://www.therecusant.com/resistance-objections
Everyone knows that the Resistance is full of crazy people among the laity, ‘wierdos,’ losers, misfits, obsessives and people with no social skills. I don’t want to be associated with the likes of them.
This is an unworthy argument, which may be why so few people are prepared to own up to thinking it. Personally I know some very fine Catholics who support the Resistance. But let us assume for argument’s sake that what you say is true. The same was surely said about the SSPX faithful in the 1970s: where would you be now had it not been for them? God uses the humble and lowly to accomplish his work. Impressive people are often proud and pride blinds. Finally, by using this argument are you not essentially admitting that your ‘image,’ your ‘brand’ if I may use the term, matters more to you than the truth? When you go to Mass, are you not going there in order to associate with God? During all these (however many) years that you’ve been attending the SSPX, were you really only ever there in order to ‘be associated’ with the other people in the chapel!?
The Resistance is full of larger than life personalities. It is all about egos. These people left because their egos are too big.
Like the previous question, this way of thinking smacks of human respect by focusing on (alleged) personalities and not on principles. What matters is the doctrine and all that flows from it. Besides, are you really in a position to know why anyone else supports the Resistance? And even if you could know it, it would not change the fact that you are not answerable for them, you are only answerable to God for your own actions (or lack thereof!)
-
My understanding is laity have been going to resistance chapels to avail of the sacraments.
-
SeanJohnson would probably disagree with the strong comment from Niamh Uí Bhriain, associated with the SSPX in Ireland. Niamh Uí Bhriain like her mother is a fighter for all that is good and true.
Her comment was
I would remind the Bishop that the days of belting Irish citizens with the crozier are thankfully long gone,”
People speak their mind in Ireland. I disagree with her comment but to raise this business of embarrassing the resistance is necessary
There is nothing wrong with adhering to principle.
How many SSPX laity continued to finance the SSPX after the revelations of Krahgate? Those folk in my opinion lacked principle.
-
SeanJohnson would probably disagree with the strong comment from Niamh Uí Bhriain, associated with the SSPX in Ireland. Niamh Uí Bhriain like her mother is a fighter for all that is good and true.
Her comment was
I would remind the Bishop that the days of belting Irish citizens with the crozier are thankfully long gone,”
People speak their mind in Ireland. I disagree with her comment but to raise this business of embarrassing the resistance is necessary
There is nothing wrong with adhering to principle.
How many SSPX laity continued to finance the SSPX after the revelations of Krahgate? Those folk in my opinion lacked principle.
My point is her comment was strong and not an accurate comment. Whilst nothing to do with the thread, it came to mind as a very obvious strong comment.
-
There is a very clear disclaimer on Cath Info regarding comments and opinion. I am not a 'member' of the Resistance. Anything official from the resistance comes from the priests via articles and videos.
The posts on CathInfo are the words and opinions of the individual members who posted them, and do not reflect the views of CathInfo or its owner.
One offers opinion on these internet fora.
-
This business of giving Bishop Fellay the benefit of the doubt was a massive problem on the Ignis Ardens forum. Any criticism was ridiculed or one branded a troublemaker.This was several years ago. There was a massive problem with blind obedience.
-
SeanJohnson,
This is a resistance forum. Bishop Fellay and his crowd can take their 'face-saving' and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.Liberal rats and traitors.Traitors one and all.
What an exemplary Catholic you are!
:jester:
Laughable. Do you still believe you started the resistance?
Not this resistance.
The resistance I started was groups of people banding together to form a contingency plan, should there be a practical accord which would endanger the faith of all.
Eventually, it went further, and disclosed and commented upon troubling docuмents, statements, communiques, etc.
But (almost) always with respect and objectivity, without ad hominem and insult.
But the creation of the external resistance changed both the scope and spirit.
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.
These are all indications that the spirit motivating them is not the Holy one.
In fact, I don't even want to be affiliated with this website, and would consider an immediate ban quite an honor.
-
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; etc), contemptuousness, disrespect, and foul-mouthed punks who exhibit few (if any) of the moral virtues.
These are all indications that the spirit motivating them is not the Holy one.
There is some merit in what you say, SeanJohnson. But I do believe you should distinguish who is saying what. I now believe this movement was hijacked long ago by some who were not even SSPX supporters to begin with. Interestingly, they have been some of the most vocal about certain positions. But I would be careful about calling all persons of the resistance by those names; lets not forget that there are holy priests and monks aligned with the resistance who are far from all of that. But I am not far from your own belief's.
-
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; etc), contemptuousness, disrespect, and foul-mouthed punks who exhibit few (if any) of the moral virtues.
These are all indications that the spirit motivating them is not the Holy one.
There is some merit in what you say, SeanJohnson. But I do believe you should distinguish who is saying what. I now believe this movement was hijacked long ago by some who were not even SSPX supporters to begin with. Interestingly, they have been some of the most vocal about certain positions. But I would be careful about calling all persons of the resistance by those names; lets not forget that there are holy priests and monks aligned with the resistance who are far from all of that. But I am not far from your own belief's.
The word "all" is not contained in my post.
The word "characterized" (i.e., general trend) is used in my post.
-
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.
-
The word "all" is not contained in my post.
The word "characterized" (i.e., general trend) is used in my post.
That was noted.
-
Mithrandylan,
though throwing around teenager-like axioms like "it's too late to apologize" is embarrassing to the Resistance.
I appreciate the honesty though wasn't aware one is a member of the resistance.
http://www.therecusant.com/resistance-objections
Everyone knows that the Resistance is full of crazy people among the laity, ‘wierdos,’ losers, misfits, obsessives and people with no social skills. I don’t want to be associated with the likes of them.
This is an unworthy argument, which may be why so few people are prepared to own up to thinking it. Personally I know some very fine Catholics who support the Resistance. But let us assume for argument’s sake that what you say is true. The same was surely said about the SSPX faithful in the 1970s: where would you be now had it not been for them? God uses the humble and lowly to accomplish his work. Impressive people are often proud and pride blinds. Finally, by using this argument are you not essentially admitting that your ‘image,’ your ‘brand’ if I may use the term, matters more to you than the truth? When you go to Mass, are you not going there in order to associate with God? During all these (however many) years that you’ve been attending the SSPX, were you really only ever there in order to ‘be associated’ with the other people in the chapel!?
The Resistance is full of larger than life personalities. It is all about egos. These people left because their egos are too big.
Like the previous question, this way of thinking smacks of human respect by focusing on (alleged) personalities and not on principles. What matters is the doctrine and all that flows from it. Besides, are you really in a position to know why anyone else supports the Resistance? And even if you could know it, it would not change the fact that you are not answerable for them, you are only answerable to God for your own actions (or lack thereof!)
That's a convenient way to avoid the point, John Grace.
Let's face it. The best thing for Catholic Tradition isn't for the Resistance to become some mecca-center of traditionalism. That would take years and years-- that's not to say that it isn't a goal worth achieving-- it is, considering what we know. But the best thing, as unlikely as it may *seem* at the moment, would be for the SSPX under Bishop Fellay to recant of it's error in attempting to fornicate with heretics and at least apologize to +W, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko et al. and resume doing the work of ABL.
I mean, let's say whatever Catholic bishops who are left convened a council to depose whatever current heretic is occupying the Vatican and succeeded, and then a good and holy pope came about to begin the restoration. Would you deny allegiance to this pope because the restoration came too late?
Again, I haven't found a reason to begin trusting Fellay again. But I'm not going to act like a sixteen year old girl who was just jilted by her boyfriend and spit on a true apology, if it came. Such an instance, in our case, would be quite welcome.
-
More evidence of an unwinding, which directly violates the primary tenet of the branding campaign: Thou shalt not oppose modernism, and thou shalt not oppose Vatican II.
A few months ago, you would not see such a thing on an SSPX website, yet here it is.
But if you are expecting a JPII-type "Wailing Wall" apology, it aint gonna happen (because look what that did for his authority in the Church).
These things are done in a more inductive, inferential way (as anyone over 30 ought to know):
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/%E2%80%9Cpope-not-modernist%E2%80%9D-says-modernist-2723
-
Let's face it. The best thing for Catholic Tradition isn't for the Resistance to become some mecca-center of traditionalism. That would take years and years-- that's not to say that it isn't a goal worth achieving-- it is, considering what we know. But the best thing, as unlikely as it may *seem* at the moment, would be for the SSPX under Bishop Fellay to recant of it's error in attempting to fornicate with heretics and at least apologize to +W, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko et al. and resume doing the work of ABL.
I mean, let's say whatever Catholic bishops who are left convened a council to depose whatever current heretic is occupying the Vatican and succeeded, and then a good and holy pope came about to begin the restoration. Would you deny allegiance to this pope because the restoration came too late?
Again, I haven't found a reason to begin trusting Fellay again. But I'm not going to act like a sixteen year old girl who was just jilted by her boyfriend and spit on a true apology, if it came. Such an instance, in our case, would be quite welcome.
Its always interesting to see people say exactly what you feel... Well said mithrandylan!
-
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.
-
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?
-
SeanJohnson,
This is a resistance forum. Bishop Fellay and his crowd can take their 'face-saving' and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.Liberal rats and traitors.Traitors one and all.
What an exemplary Catholic you are!
:jester:
Laughable. Do you still believe you started the resistance?
Not this resistance.
The resistance I started was groups of people banding together to form a contingency plan, should there be a practical accord which would endanger the faith of all.
Eventually, it went further, and disclosed and commented upon troubling docuмents, statements, communiques, etc.
But (almost) always with respect and objectivity, without ad hominem and insult.
But the creation of the external resistance changed both the scope and spirit.
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.[/u]
These are all indications that the spirit motivating them is not the Holy one.
In fact, I don't even want to be affiliated with this website, and would consider an immediate ban quite an honor.
Punks, eh?
Wasn't this highly hysterical and hypocrite person accusing John Grace of being an "exemplary Catholic" just for calling a spade a spade a couple of pages back?????
This guy has a confused liberal mind and an extremely overinflated ego. That's what he should be ashamed of.
His extreme denial of a "yellow light" combined with the guidance of a neo-SSPX priest/friend could only end up on a cost what it may "green light". Very convenient, just not very honest.
And remember folks, the only reason Judas Fellay cannot apologize is because JPII's apology brought up some bad results to his authority.... MADNESS!
If +Fellay was to truly and honestly apologize it should necessarily follow he would give up his position of authority.
So why talk about 'sloppy theology' when you can't even think straight?
-
Thank you for your tone Sean. I will respond in blue…
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
-
SeanJohnson,
This is a resistance forum. Bishop Fellay and his crowd can take their 'face-saving' and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.Liberal rats and traitors.Traitors one and all.
What an exemplary Catholic you are!
:jester:
Laughable. Do you still believe you started the resistance?
Not this resistance.
The resistance I started was groups of people banding together to form a contingency plan, should there be a practical accord which would endanger the faith of all.
Eventually, it went further, and disclosed and commented upon troubling docuмents, statements, communiques, etc.
But (almost) always with respect and objectivity, without ad hominem and insult.
But the creation of the external resistance changed both the scope and spirit.
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.[/u]
These are all indications that the spirit motivating them is not the Holy one.
In fact, I don't even want to be affiliated with this website, and would consider an immediate ban quite an honor.
Punks, eh?
Wasn't this highly hysterical and hypocrite person accusing John Grace of being an "exemplary Catholic" just for calling a spade a spade a couple of pages back?????
This guy has a confused liberal mind and an extremely overinflated ego. That's what he should be ashamed of.
His extreme denial of a "yellow light" combined with the guidance of a neo-SSPX priest/friend could only end up on a cost what it may "green light". Very convenient, just not very honest.
And remember folks, the only reason Judas Fellay cannot apologize is because JPII's apology brought up some bad results to his authority.... MADNESS!
If +Fellay was to truly and honestly apologize it should necessarily follow he would give up his position of authority.
So why talk about 'sloppy theology' when you can't even think straight?
Quite erratic.
Have some milk and try again later.
-
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
-
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.
The simplest way to convince Catholics that you're the leader they should feel safe entrusting their souls to would be to admit when you have erred and to attempt to rectify the fact that your mistake has scandalized many and led them away from the Sacraments.
What you have written above sounds like a nice business strategy, but it's honesty and truth which draws in souls.
-
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?
-
I now believe this movement was hijacked long ago by some who were not even SSPX supporters to begin with. Interestingly, they have been some of the most vocal about certain positions.
Have you seen evidence of this?
I've thought of it more as a group of humans with human failings. Of course, these are also Trads, so more often than not, their sometimes-educated opinions are expressed in this manner: :dwarf: :argue: :heretic:
-
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.
-
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.
It's quite myopic to think that Menzingen has any intention or
desire to "revert" back "to the old SSPX." Why should they?
SeanJohnson is enjoying a pipe dream, and it's pretty sad.
They're on a roll, they have coaxed the sheeple into it with
them, and they have no vague longing for what they've left
behind. They don't even have an implicit desire!
Get over it! Times have changed.
Menzingen is AT WAR with the Resistance, internal, external and
e-ternal! It is a battle of principalities and powers in high places,
not of this world. This is the fight to the death that satan and
his fallen angels engaged before the foundations of the world.
It's not going to change now, nor will it ever.
The fence-sitters humming their tunes of "let's all get along"
were nonetheless demons too, and they all went to hell.
The good angels would have no part in that. They fought the
good fight.
.
-
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?
-
There is no "rewinding" of the neo-SSPX's position. In his sermon of Oct. 13, 2013, Bishop Fellay continued to downplay his abominable Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012. He does not find anything fundamentally wrong with it, other than that it has confused some people. Is not the ambiguity itself a problem, that is, playing games with the Faith for the sake of coming to a canonical agreement? Does this not itself show Bishop Fellay's abhorrent mindset?
As the churchmen tried to reconcile the Church with the Revolution of 1789 at Vatican II, now Bishop Fellay is trying to reconcile Tradition with Vatican II. And he will continue to do so. Furthermore, his poisonous mindset has and will continue to infect those whom over he exercises authority. Those who think otherwise are living in a dream world.
-
I forgot to add:
The neo-SSPX is toast!
-
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.
SSPX - Marian Corps
-
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?"
-
SJ
1) Yes, I am aware of some actions which lead me to believe Menzingen is attempting a face-saving rewind.
2) The actions I have in mind squarely contradict the branding campaign, which was designed to foster a public image more appealing to the modern world (and therefore make Rome less reluctant to offer/accept an accord).
3) One such action would be the willingness to attempt funeral rites for the (unjustly) convicted war criminal, Eric Priebke in Albano, Italy. Such a thing would not have been attempted last year (the unfortunate clarification of the Italian District superior notwithstanding).
I realise your comments are directed to MD but regarding 'face-saving' any action or actions by Bishop Fellay are far too late.
Regarding Erich Priebke, who died recently. Priebke was a soldier and a hero. Not a 'war criminal'. I never met him but would have regarded it as an honour to shake his hand.
Your defence of Bishop Fellay is pathetic as is your naive comments here.
Let us get some comment from 'Cassini' now. Cassini is more than welcome to share my views with Fr Angles.The gloves are off now.
I agree with you. The so called face saving is just that, nothing new. It is merely the normal activity for Bishop Fellay of reinterpreting events and circuмstances so as to avoid taking any real responsibility for past and current errors.
The talk about Francis being a genuine modernist is empty as well considering that Benedict XVI was every bit as genuine as Francis. You never heard the Bishop tout him as a genuine modernist in public.
He is only speaking this for public relations value to blunt the loud criticism that he has been silent on Francis's scandals.
In the end, he is still dancing the modernist reel with his counterpart, one says modernist, the other says pelagian......they both smile and things continue on as they were.
-
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?"
Sad to say, it's Sedevacantist slang for "Pope Benedict XVI"
-
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?"
Sad to say, it's Sedevacantist slang for "Pope Benedict XVI"
That's pope emeritus, to you!
-
The so called face saving is just that, nothing new. It is merely the normal activity for Bishop Fellay of reinterpreting events and circuмstances so as to avoid taking any real responsibility for past and current errors.
The talk about Francis being a genuine modernist is empty as well considering that Benedict XVI was every bit as genuine as Francis. You never heard the Bishop tout him as a genuine modernist in public.
He is only speaking this for public relations value to blunt the loud criticism that he has been silent on Francis's scandals.
Precisely.
There is no "rewinding" of the neo-SSPX's position. In his sermon of Oct. 13, 2013, Bishop Fellay continued to downplay his abominable Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012. He does not find anything fundamentally wrong with it, other than that it has confused some people. Is not the ambiguity itself a problem, that is, playing games with the Faith for the sake of coming to a canonical agreement? Does this not itself show Bishop Fellay's abhorrent mindset?
As the churchmen tried to reconcile the Church with the Revolution of 1789 at Vatican II, now Bishop Fellay is trying to reconcile Tradition with Vatican II. And he will continue to do so. Furthermore, his poisonous mindset has and will continue to infect those whom over he exercises authority. Those who think otherwise are living in a dream world.
Yes, in that same sermon, he mentions again this new teaching of the N-SSPX that you have to accept what's good in Vatican II. (He gives the example of, if VII teaches something right about the Trinity, we have to accept that.) This idea has been repeated with increasing frequency by N-SSPX priests. At one of the largest SSPX Mass centers in the USA, the pastor dedicated a whole catechism class to this theme. The old SSPX used to teach that it was a poison soup. Even if the poison soup has 95% good ingredients, you don't even take a sip if it is 5% poison! As Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Perez and others have pointed out, when the Church had the Index, if a book had any errors in it, She put the whole book on the Index, not the erroneous passage! Since when do Catholic priests and bishops say, "we have to accept the parts of protestantism which are true"? You reject the whole false religion and cling to the truths taught by the Traditional Catholic Faith. I don't need Vatican II to teach me about the Trinity or anything else.
-
Mythrandylan,
Let's face it. The best thing for Catholic Tradition isn't for the Resistance to become some mecca-center of traditionalism. That would take years and years-- that's not to say that it isn't a goal worth achieving-- it is, considering what we know. But the best thing, as unlikely as it may *seem* at the moment, would be for the SSPX under Bishop Fellay to recant of it's error in attempting to fornicate with heretics and at least apologize to +W, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko et al. and resume doing the work of ABL.
That is a nice sentiment, but that is all that it is. Neither Bishop Fellay's recantation nor his apologizing to the Fathers would have any practical value.
The Society has been changed to the point that it can never return to doing ABL's work as it had once done. It would require sending all of the new formation priests of recent years back to a Traditional seminary for proper re-formation. As well it is not possible to uninfect the older priests who have adopted accomodationist liberal thought.
It is impossible. It took many years to restructure the underpinnings of the Society and the clock cannot be rewound.
The resistance will display its authenticity as a group which can indeed continue the Archbishop's work when and if they emerge from the shadow and become something other than an anti Fellay/SSPX congregation.
The SSPX has gone in another direction and has nothing to give them and has no useful value to them, save to distract and obstruct them.
It is time to cut the cord and stop allowing what they were to hold them from what they can become.
-
It is time to cut the cord and stop allowing what they were to hold them from what they can become.
I like the name of "SSPX - Marian Corps" because it is the continuation of the work of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX he founded, and at the same time it indicates that Fr. Chazal et al.'s group is only a part of the Church Militant holding the Faith whole and inviolate.
-
I now believe this movement was hijacked long ago by some who were not even SSPX supporters to begin with. Interestingly, they have been some of the most vocal about certain positions.
Have you seen evidence of this?
This very forum, Pablo and his followers, SpiritusSanctu's other website, the fact that many people who didn't attend the Society (not because of these doctrinal issues)became (at least online) the main proponents of the Resistance... need I go on?
-
Mythrandylan,
Let's face it. The best thing for Catholic Tradition isn't for the Resistance to become some mecca-center of traditionalism. That would take years and years-- that's not to say that it isn't a goal worth achieving-- it is, considering what we know. But the best thing, as unlikely as it may *seem* at the moment, would be for the SSPX under Bishop Fellay to recant of it's error in attempting to fornicate with heretics and at least apologize to +W, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko et al. and resume doing the work of ABL.
That is a nice sentiment, but that is all that it is. Neither Bishop Fellay's recantation nor his apologizing to the Fathers would have any practical value.
The Society has been changed to the point that it can never return to doing ABL's work as it had once done. It would require sending all of the new formation priests of recent years back to a Traditional seminary for proper re-formation. As well it is not possible to uninfect the older priests who have adopted accomodationist liberal thought.
It is impossible. It took many years to restructure the underpinnings of the Society and the clock cannot be rewound.
The resistance will display its authenticity as a group which can indeed continue the Archbishop's work when and if they emerge from the shadow and become something other than an anti Fellay/SSPX congregation.
The SSPX has gone in another direction and has nothing to give them and has no useful value to them, save to distract and obstruct them.
It is time to cut the cord and stop allowing what they were to hold them from what they can become.
This mindset is precisely why I say it would be pointless for Menzingen to bothering with the external resistance.
There is nothing it can say or do that "will be of any practical value."
If it made Bishop Williamson the new Superior General, it would only be viewed as a more subtle deception.
-
I now believe this movement was hijacked long ago by some who were not even SSPX supporters to begin with. Interestingly, they have been some of the most vocal about certain positions.
Have you seen evidence of this?
This very forum, Pablo and his followers, SpiritusSanctu's other website, the fact that many people who didn't attend the Society (not because of these doctrinal issues)became (at least online) the main proponents of the Resistance... need I go on?
Do you realize that the US branch of the Resistance is miniscule compared to the Latin American, European, and Asian Resistance which are in cooperation with the US group?
-
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....
Yes there is so much wrong with this post; yet, I also find interesting, is that as Azul is a strong supporter of the accordista group of the nsspx, he praises SeanJohnson for being "admirably correct on all points...".
For an accordista to be grateful for SeanJohnson's (new) position, should be a discernment and a warning light for SeanJohnson to see that this new road he is on, is in similarity to the philosophy of the Fellayism side.
-
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
Wow...that is a very humanistic and democratic view of the Catholic Resistance.
Not at all. I merely stated a fact, not how I wish the Resistance would be. There is very little to what makes up any structure of the resistance. Do you disagree?
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...
Hogwash. I know I am not immune to anything. But you have a perverse view of what I just said. If I misstated my position, or am confusing, then I accept the cause of our disagreement. But I stand by my word and I am anything but humanistic and democratic. Give me a break... this is laughable.
s2srea,
I would be glad to know that you do not have a humanistic and democratic understanding of the Catholic Resistance; your words as they are written do demonstrates that it does.
You disagreed with Matthew's post when he was explaining that the Catholic Resistance is the same "continuation" of Archbishop Lefebvre's work; of which upholds the True Doctrine and fights against the workings of modernism.
Can you then please clarify your words I have highlighted in red in my original post. I noticed that you had removed much of it; so I will re-post what you had said in full to keep the context.
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.
-
s2srea,
I would be glad to know that you do not have a humanistic and democratic understanding of the Catholic Resistance; your words as they are written do demonstrates that it does.
You disagreed with Matthew's post when he was explaining that the Catholic Resistance is the same "continuation" of Archbishop Lefebvre's work; of which upholds the True Doctrine and fights against the workings of modernism.
Can you then please clarify your words I have highlighted in red in my original post. I noticed that you had removed much of it; so I will re-post what you had said in full to keep the context.
The so-called Resistance is nothing more than a bunch of people who tend to agree with each other on certain issuesYou 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.
Machabees- If I were describing what I thought would be ideal for the Resistance, then you would accurately call my words humanistic and democratic.
However, what I did was nothing more than describe the nature of the Resistance- as it is. And I reiterate, it was nothing more than a loose confederation of priests, backed by laity. If you have an issue with this, take it up with Bishop Williamson. There may be unity among priests in various countries, but no one is really bound to anything. They have in common that they are against an agreement with Rome and modernism, but apart from that they can come up wtih their own theological conclusions, which I have seen differ. Take Frs. Pfieffer and Hewko on the, essentially, absolute 'do not attend SSPX Masses' and compare it with the more practical +Williamson approach. Perhaps I am did not express myself clearly? If so I apologize.
-
s2srea,
I would be glad to know that you do not have a humanistic and democratic understanding of the Catholic Resistance; your words as they are written do demonstrates that it does.
You disagreed with Matthew's post when he was explaining that the Catholic Resistance is the same "continuation" of Archbishop Lefebvre's work; of which upholds the True Doctrine and fights against the workings of modernism.
Can you then please clarify your words I have highlighted in red in my original post. I noticed that you had removed much of it; so I will re-post what you had said in full to keep the context.
The so-called Resistance is nothing more than a bunch of people who tend to agree with each other on certain issuesYou 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.
Machabees- If I were describing what I thought would be ideal for the Resistance, then you would accurately call my words humanistic and democratic.
However, what I did was nothing more than describe the nature of the Resistance- as it is. And [I reiterate] [???], it was nothing more than a loose confederation of priests, backed by laity. If you have an issue with this, take it up with Bishop Williamson. There may be unity among priests in various countries, but no one is really bound to anything. They have in common that they are against an agreement with Rome and modernism, but apart from that they can come up wtih their own theological conclusions, which I have seen differ. Take Frs. Pfieffer and Hewko on the, essentially, absolute 'do not attend SSPX Masses' and compare it with the more practical +Williamson approach. Perhaps I am did not express myself clearly? If so I apologize.
Thanks for describing your thoughts more fully than the way you had first written it.
Though, I will bring out more in another post.
-
Seems some definitione may be in order here:
1) Accordista: One who is, was, or will be willing to follow the SSPX into a merely practical accord.
Rhetoric from this group may or may not be characterized by charity, objectivity, and proportionalism.
This group trusts no harm to the faith would result from a practical accord, but would actually be a boon for the Church.
2) Internal Resistance: One who still attends SSPX chapels, and opposes a merely practical accord with unconverted Rome because of the danger it would present to the preservation of their faith.
Rhetoric from this group is usually characterized by charity, objectivity, and proportionalism.
The motive of this group is to preserve the SSPX as it has always existed, and try to unwind the measures installed the last 13 years to facilitate a practical accord.
3) External Resistance: One who either no longer (or never has) regularly attended an SSPX chapel, and opposes the SSPX.
Rhetoric from this group may or may not be characterized by charity, objectivity, and proportionalism.
The motive of this group, believing the SSPX cannot be restored, is to draw away as many SSPX supporters as they can, and start anew.
-
It is so important, rather imperative as Catholics, to realize that our life and existence is based on the Faith; all else is a means and a support to that end.
In other words, the institution of the Catholic Church Herself, the Hierarchy, the Holy Mass, the Sacraments, Religious orders, Bible, Canon Law, lives of the Saints, etc... are all there to help us get to God. Therefore, it is the Truth of the Faith that is paramount to hold, live, and to protect; even if God asks for our fidelity to die for this. "Without Faith it is impossible to please God." (Hebrews 11:6).
This whole Catholic "Resistance" is based on protecting that Faith; nothing less; nothing more. Regardless of what entities are making moves to subvert Her Doctrines and ultimately the Faith itself.
So to say that: "...the truth 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." is really down-playing the protecting of that Faith and Her Doctrine that is being attacked by the sspx in all of its Form and Substance. It is the Doctrine that is being attacked from their desire for modernist influence.
As the saying goes, if you remove one link in a chain, all the rest of the chain falls. So too, if you try to "weaken", or to be purposely "ambiguous" about one of those Doctrinal links, is to effectively deny that link of its substance and integrity; so the rest falls. That is what is substantially happening with the nsspx.
So I do thank SeanJohnson for being honest to let us know of his new position; though I do hope he will reconsider. And, that this new thread is bringing out the Faith and Her definitions that She needs to be protected from all the subtitles that try to undermine Her identity and Her freedoms to Sanctify all those, without being adulterated, in whom She wishes to descend on.
Also, SeanJohnson had brought out in attention that there really is three different groups involved, and two of which are of a Resistance.
- One of the Resistance groups is from the (internal) many years of the sspx priests fighting from within to protect the True Doctrines and exposing the modernist errors, which have organically evolved to the external Resistance from its manifest circuмstances (the Faith is bigger that the sspx). = Unattached and faithful to the Faith of their Baptism.
- The other group of a Resistance, as they describe themselves, is an internal resistance to “resist” a practical agreement; just rewind and everything is fine. This subverts the Doctrinal errors that have been exposed in those sspx docuмents; in which it clearly shows that it is the compromising on these Doctrines that have set the way for this new kind of “practical agreement”. Because, the practical agreement of today is based on compromising the Faith to the modernist; than from Archbishop Lefebvre’s time where he did NOT compromise the Faith for a practical agreement; then he publicly retracted it recognizing more fully of the dangers of putting oneself under the conciliar influences is death. That is something that the nsspx leaders do NOT have a problem to do. Big difference. = Attached to an entity above the integrity of the Faith = Humanistic.
- The last group is the Fellayisms. To follow in blind authority; and want the conveniences of having the Mass and the convenient of a lifestyle above the protecting of the Faith = Humanistic.
It is only when one is not attached to oneself and is ready to die for the Faith, that one begins to see things more clearly.
This whole “confusion” comes from the crisis in the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church over these many years. When the Shepherd is hit, the sheep are scattered.
As far as the Catholic ‘Resistance” being “disorganized”, it is still a reflection of no Hierarchical leadership from the Catholic Church; however, it does NOT excuse the cause of Catholic Resistance when the Faith is under attack. That permission and obligation comes from our Baptism. For the Priests and Bishops it is a Mission.
That is why Bishop Williamson, providentially appointed from God, needs to lead; like it or not. It is his role and Mission to do as a Bishop. Until then, you will have all of these confusions, distractions, and “un-unified” focuses happening.
Our Baptism and Catechism is our guide on what we must do; like those who were guided in the Catacombs for many years.
In our time, God is calling for Martyrs…to defend the Faith.
Viva Christo Rey…
-
So to say that: "...the truth 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." is really down-playing the protecting of that Faith and Her Doctrine that is being attacked by the sspx in all of its Form and Substance. It is the Doctrine that is being attacked from their desire for modernist influence.
I agree with your statement, and would alter my own to more closely match it. As I recognize inherent in any practical agreement with rome would be the danger it posed to doctrine and faith.
-
2) Internal Resistance: One who still attends SSPX chapels, and opposes a merely practical accord with unconverted Rome because of the danger it would present to the preservation of their faith.
Rhetoric from this group is usually characterized by charity, objectivity, and proportionalism.
The motive of this group is to preserve the SSPX as it has always existed, and try to unwind the measures installed the last 13 years to facilitate a practical accord.
Bold mine.
So Sean you don't see any issues officially with the neo-SSPX's doctrine?
-
This whole Catholic "Resistance" is based on protecting that Faith; nothing less; nothing more.
:applause:
-
This whole Catholic "Resistance" is based on protecting that Faith; nothing less; nothing more.
:applause:
An excellent analysis. The resistance continues the work and mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. I'm not aware of it being anything else. It's not a clique.
-
It is so important, rather imperative as Catholics, to realize that our life and existence is based on the Faith; all else is a means and a support to that end.
In other words, the institution of the Catholic Church Herself, the Hierarchy, the Holy Mass, the Sacraments, Religious orders, Bible, Canon Law, lives of the Saints, etc... are all there to help us get to God. Therefore, it is the Truth of the Faith that is paramount to hold, live, and to protect; even if God asks for our fidelity to die for this. "Without Faith it is impossible to please God." (Hebrews 11:6).
This whole Catholic "Resistance" is based on protecting that Faith; nothing less; nothing more. Regardless of what entities are making moves to subvert Her Doctrines and ultimately the Faith itself.
So to say that: "...the truth 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." is really down-playing the protecting of that Faith and Her Doctrine that is being attacked by the sspx in all of its Form and Substance. It is the Doctrine that is being attacked from their desire for modernist influence.
As the saying goes, if you remove one link in a chain, all the rest of the chain falls. So too, if you try to "weaken", or to be purposely "ambiguous" about one of those Doctrinal links, is to effectively deny that link of its substance and integrity; so the rest falls. That is what is substantially happening with the nsspx.
So I do thank SeanJohnson for being honest to let us know of his new position; though I do hope he will reconsider. And, that this new thread is bringing out the Faith and Her definitions that She needs to be protected from all the subtitles that try to undermine Her identity and Her freedoms to Sanctify all those, without being adulterated, in whom She wishes to descend on.
Also, SeanJohnson had brought out in attention that there really is three different groups involved, and two of which are of a Resistance.
- One of the Resistance groups is from the (internal) many years of the sspx priests fighting from within to protect the True Doctrines and exposing the modernist errors, which have organically evolved to the external Resistance from its manifest circuмstances (the Faith is bigger that the sspx). = Unattached and faithful to the Faith of their Baptism.
- The other group of a Resistance, as they describe themselves, is an internal resistance to “resist” a practical agreement; just rewind and everything is fine. This subverts the Doctrinal errors that have been exposed in those sspx docuмents; in which it clearly shows that it is the compromising on these Doctrines that have set the way for this new kind of “practical agreement”. Because, the practical agreement of today is based on compromising the Faith to the modernist; than from Archbishop Lefebvre’s time where he did NOT compromise the Faith for a practical agreement; then he publicly retracted it recognizing more fully of the dangers of putting oneself under the conciliar influences is death. That is something that the nsspx leaders do NOT have a problem to do. Big difference. = Attached to an entity above the integrity of the Faith = Humanistic.
- The last group is the Fellayisms. To follow in blind authority; and want the conveniences of having the Mass and the convenient of a lifestyle above the protecting of the Faith = Humanistic.
It is only when one is not attached to oneself and is ready to die for the Faith, that one begins to see things more clearly.
This whole “confusion” comes from the crisis in the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church over these many years. When the Shepherd is hit, the sheep are scattered.
As far as the Catholic ‘Resistance” being “disorganized”, it is still a reflection of no Hierarchical leadership from the Catholic Church; however, it does NOT excuse the cause of Catholic Resistance when the Faith is under attack. That permission and obligation comes from our Baptism. For the Priests and Bishops it is a Mission.
That is why Bishop Williamson, providentially appointed from God, needs to lead; like it or not. It is his role and Mission to do as a Bishop. Until then, you will have all of these confusions, distractions, and “un-unified” focuses happening.
Our Baptism and Catechism is our guide on what we must do; like those who were guided in the Catacombs for many years.
In our time, God is calling for Martyrs…to defend the Faith.
Viva Christo Rey…
Machabees-
Not much new in my position.
I have opposed the external resistance since their theology started coming unhinged from truth.
I opposed the lie that says the AFD is official policy.
I opposed the lie built on top of that lie, which said that since the AFD is official policy, and therefore the SSPX is the same as the FSSP, we can no longer attend SSPX Masses.
And most recently, I opposed the unbelievable contention that Bishop Fellay desires to start a schism, and back BXVI.
The only substantial change in my position is based on a change in circuмstances within the SSPX:
Bishop Fellay is starting to do things which can be construed as attempts to rewind, and revert to traditional SSPX positions.
Any prudent Catholic man would give him the benefit of the doubt and see where this goes.
It doesn't mean he has to close his eyes/ears to future developments.
-
Mythrandylan,
Let's face it. The best thing for Catholic Tradition isn't for the Resistance to become some mecca-center of traditionalism. That would take years and years-- that's not to say that it isn't a goal worth achieving-- it is, considering what we know. But the best thing, as unlikely as it may *seem* at the moment, would be for the SSPX under Bishop Fellay to recant of it's error in attempting to fornicate with heretics and at least apologize to +W, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko et al. and resume doing the work of ABL.
That is a nice sentiment, but that is all that it is. Neither Bishop Fellay's recantation nor his apologizing to the Fathers would have any practical value.
The Society has been changed to the point that it can never return to doing ABL's work as it had once done. It would require sending all of the new formation priests of recent years back to a Traditional seminary for proper re-formation. As well it is not possible to uninfect the older priests who have adopted accomodationist liberal thought.
It is impossible. It took many years to restructure the underpinnings of the Society and the clock cannot be rewound.
The resistance will display its authenticity as a group which can indeed continue the Archbishop's work when and if they emerge from the shadow and become something other than an anti Fellay/SSPX congregation.
The SSPX has gone in another direction and has nothing to give them and has no useful value to them, save to distract and obstruct them.
It is time to cut the cord and stop allowing what they were to hold them from what they can become.
This mindset is precisely why I say it would be pointless for Menzingen to bothering with the external resistance.
There is nothing it can say or do that "will be of any practical value."
If it made Bishop Williamson the new Superior General, it would only be viewed as a more subtle deception.
You are stating the opposite intent of the post which is that it is of little benefit for this resistance to bother with Bishop Fellay and the Society.
They are lost to their former mission and can never rewind to a place where they will once again find what was bequeathed to them and that which they abandoned long ago.
-
Machabees-
Not much new in my position.
I have opposed the external resistance since their theology started coming unhinged from truth.
I opposed the lie that says the AFD is official policy.
I opposed the lie built on top of that lie, which said that since the AFD is official policy, and therefore the SSPX is the same as the FSSP, we can no longer attend SSPX Masses.
And most recently, I opposed the unbelievable contention that Bishop Fellay desires to start a schism, and back BXVI.
The only substantial change in my position is based on a change in circuмstances within the SSPX:
Bishop Fellay is starting to do things which can be construed as attempts to rewind, and revert to traditional SSPX positions.
Any prudent Catholic man would give him the benefit of the doubt and see where this goes.
It doesn't mean he has to close his eyes/ears to future developments.
SeanJohnson,
Do you not find the position of Azul and his recent post revealing? As an accordista praising you for being "admirably correct on all points..." for your position?
It begs that you have changed positions...and that is coming from them.
-
Sean,
Bishop Fellay is starting to do things which can be construed as attempts to rewind, and revert to traditional SSPX positions.
Any prudent Catholic man would give him the benefit of the doubt and see where this goes.
It doesn't mean he has to close his eyes/ears to future developments.
This is entirely your perception of Bishop Fellay. A man who has eschewed the intent and mission of ABL is unlikely to have a proper intention in his current public relation statements. He has done nothing substantial which would give a reasonable man hope of the Bishop having had a metanoia.
This man has been given the benefit of the doubt for years and has used it to advance the new orientation to the point that it cannot now be reversed. It is folly to believe otherwise according to the events of the past years.
-
I opposed the lie that says the AFD is official policy.
It is official policy de facto. It is the way Bishop Fellay and the SSPX superiors think and therefore their poison seeps through to the grassroots level.
Did you ever hear Bishop Fellay say that Vatican II must be rejected wholesale? His AFD is an attempt to reconcile Tradition and VII.
Non possumus.
-
Bishop Fellay is starting to do things which can be construed as attempts to rewind, and revert to traditional SSPX positions.
:facepalm:
You're dreaming. His Oct. 13/13 sermon downplays the betrayal of his AFD. He simply withdrew it because it was causing confusion, but he did not say there was anything fundamentally wrong with it.
-
It is time to cut the cord and stop allowing what they were to hold them from what they can become.
I like the name of "SSPX - Marian Corps" because it is the continuation of the work of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX he founded, and at the same time it indicates that Fr. Chazal et al.'s group is only a part of the Church Militant holding the Faith whole and inviolate.
Contending that they are the true SSPX will continue to cloud and obscure their mission and ability to build a true resistance to the true enemy of the Holy Religion.
Keeping the name with and added inconsequential tag is no more than sentimentalism.
Being a group which is perpetually perceived as existing to torment Bishop Fellay and co. will drain any credibility and hope of becoming a true force of restoration.
Menzingen is but another symptomatic casualty and they must move to confront the disease which has sickened the whole of the Church and become something much larger in importance to the Church.
-
Keeping the name with and added inconsequential tag is no more than sentimentalism.
I don't agree. Fr. Chazal et al. are the true sons of Archbishop Lefebvre and therefore they have a right to keep the essential name.
-
Sean,
I very much appreciate your sense of fairness and good judgment. You have put into writing critical analyses I could not quite put together myself or get to gel in my mind.
I support the resistance insofar as it strictly stands for calling out the deviations of Menzingen from its original mission. On the other hand, I'm clearly not for any excesses or "stretching of the truth" to simply sustain the raison d'etre of a movement . . . or an "elite" subgroup.
In the heat of confusion mixed in with despair during the time of this internal crisis, I must confess that I've been all over the map. My bad. Thank God for people like you, then, and my Church buddy, s2srea, who have played a vital anchoring effect.
I'm clearly not interested in being a part of an "elite" club or clique whose existence is singularly predicated on mercilessly bashing the SSPX no matter what--inflamed by bitter zeal and perpetual, globalized anger. I want to be a part of the solution; not the problem.
I'm with you, man, and all those who are on the same page here: I'm willing to give Bishop Fellay the benefit of the doubt and move on with life--all the while paying attention to the signs and keeping my eyes and ears open.
Thank you for being the voice of clarity and reason, my friend!
-
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.
I think this post of mine has been misunderstood.
I wasn't saying the Resistance is the "creme de la creme" of Tradition, or elite in that sense.
I was trying to convey that there's always a "best" organization, in something like the Crisis in the Church. You know, the "first choice" you'd recommend to a convert on where he should attend Mass. Where you'd want your children to attend Mass, if you could make the stars line up right.
Up till recently, that group was the SSPX (according to me, and countless other SSPX-attending Catholics). But today, that choice has basically been taken away. Or at the very least, it has fallen down a few notches and lost much of its luster. What is its equivalent?
The Resistance, of course.
The difference is: the SSPX was huge, had plenty of priests and Mass centers, etc. but the Resistance is small and poor. But just as the SSPX had "the fullest package of truth" before, now that honor belongs to the Resistance.
But the Resistance is the "heir" to the great -- and blessed by God -- work of the Archbishop.
I suppose sedevacantists would disagree with me. But even with all of Pope Francis' recent hair-pull-inducing utterances, I'm as far from sedevacantism as I've ever been in my life. I see it as a dead-end, a cry of despair, and a simplistic solution to a very real problem. And a dried up tree with very little fruit.
-
I suppose sedevacantists would disagree with me. But even with all of Pope Francis' recent hair-pull-inducing utterances, I'm as far from sedevacantism as I've ever been in my life. I see it as a dead-end, a cry of despair, and a simplistic solution to a very real problem. And a dried up tree with very little fruit.
The CMRI is looking better to me as time goes on, even though I disagree with their position on "brain death," though I do not have access to a CMRI chapel. Sedevacantism makes sense to me if we are near the end of the world.
-
Seems some definitione may be in order here:
1) Accordista: One who is, was, or will be willing to follow the SSPX into a merely practical accord.
Rhetoric from this group may or may not be characterized by charity, objectivity, and proportionalism.
This group trusts no harm to the faith would result from a practical accord, but would actually be a boon for the Church.
2) Internal Resistance: One who still attends SSPX chapels, and opposes a merely practical accord with unconverted Rome because of the danger it would present to the preservation of their faith.
Rhetoric from this group is usually characterized by charity, objectivity, and proportionalism.
The motive of this group is to preserve the SSPX as it has always existed, and try to unwind the measures installed the last 13 years to facilitate a practical accord.
3) External Resistance: One who either no longer (or never has) regularly attended an SSPX chapel, and opposes the SSPX.
Rhetoric from this group may or may not be characterized by charity, objectivity, and proportionalism.
The motive of this group, believing the SSPX cannot be restored, is to draw away as many SSPX supporters as they can, and start anew.
Apparently I don't fit into any of these groups.
I don't have (human) hope for the SSPX turning around. I believe the organization is a lost cause. I don't wait with bated breath for every crumb of "rewind" that Bishop Fellay deigns to throw our way. In order for the SSPX to "turn around", it would require a purge of +Fellay and all the other accordistas. What are the chances of that happening, realistically?
However, I'm a yellow-lighter, not a red-lighter (to use 2012 Sean Johnson terminology). I don't believe that we should stay home from chapels that haven't been affected by the "changes at the top" yet.
This isn't a game, and Mass and the Sacraments are a necessity, not a convenience or an amenity.
So I still attend an SSPX chapel myself.
Even if I believed that the SSPX is going downhill (which I do), I would still be wise to take advantage of the Mass I have nearby right now. Which is worse: no Sunday Mass from 2013 onwards, or no Sunday Mass from 2016 onwards? Obviously the longer I can delay "no Mass" the better. If I can help the Resistance get established in my area in the meantime, so much the better.
-
Apparently I don't fit into any of these groups.
I don't have (human) hope for the SSPX turning around. I believe the organization is a lost cause. I don't wait with bated breath for every crumb of "rewind" that Bishop Fellay deigns to throw our way. In order for the SSPX to "turn around", it would require a purge of +Fellay and all the other accordistas. What are the chances of that happening, realistically?
However, I'm a yellow-lighter, not a red-lighter (to use 2012 Sean Johnson terminology). I don't believe that we should stay home from chapels that haven't been affected by the "changes at the top" yet.
This isn't a game, and Mass and the Sacraments are a necessity, not a convenience or an amenity.
So I still attend an SSPX chapel myself.
Even if I believed that the SSPX is going downhill (which I do), I would still be wise to take advantage of the Mass I have nearby right now. Which is worse: no Sunday Mass from 2013 onwards, or no Sunday Mass from 2016 onwards? Obviously the longer I can delay "no Mass" the better. If I can help the Resistance get established in my area in the meantime, so much the better.
I am in the same boat as you, Matthew, except I haven't been to any resistance Masses yet.
-
My only problem with group #2 is that my idea of an SSPX "rewind" does not match Sean's. If we are to believe that the AFD is not SSPX policy, it would be perfectly reasonable to remove those who wrote it from their leadership positions. There are plenty of SSPX priests who have never waivered in their adherence to ABL's instruction that a practical accord should not be attempted without doctrinal agreement. And so, there are plenty of worthy candidates for leadership positions within the SSPX.
-
Keeping the name with and added inconsequential tag is no more than sentimentalism.
I don't agree. Fr. Chazal et al. are the true sons of Archbishop Lefebvre and therefore they have a right to keep the essential name.
It has nothing to do either with their being ABL progeny nor any right which they feel that they have.
The Archbishop created the Society of Saint Pius X. For whatever reason the resistance priests are no longer a physical part of that group to which Bishop Fellay and company have all legal title and claim. That is entirely unjust and immoral but that is the legal and perceived reality.
The resistance may have the moral right to a name but to use it will be a disadvantage and a liability. They will forever be seen as a dissident SSPX group and will overshadow their potential to be a new and vital congregation which has risen from the needs of the Church alone and not from some sour grapes motivation.
-
Keeping the name with and added inconsequential tag is no more than sentimentalism.
I don't agree. Fr. Chazal et al. are the true sons of Archbishop Lefebvre and therefore they have a right to keep the essential name.
It has nothing to do either with their being ABL progeny nor any right which they feel that they have.
You are wrong. It has to do with both.
-
MaterDominici
There are plenty of SSPX priests who have never waivered in their adherence to ABL's instruction that a practical accord should not be attempted without doctrinal agreement. And so, there are plenty of worthy candidates for leadership positions within the SSPX.
It was discussed at the 'Crisis in the SSPX' conference in London on how momentum was lost in an attempt to remove Bishop Fellay.
The SSPX having good priests has never been a matter of debate. It would be interesting to start listing these priests, who might replace Bishop Fellay.
There was a time when I would have supported Fr Morgan in England for the position but he wouldn't be a worthy choice now. Even Bishop Tissier would of been a favourite of mine but he is not a fighter.
Silence from priests was noted time and time again. The SSPX ship has sank.
-
MD,
If we are to believe that the AFD is not SSPX policy, it would be perfectly reasonable to remove those who wrote it from their leadership positions
The laity are not members of the SSPX and who are these priests, who would seek to remove those you mention?
The opinion of laity doesn't matter in a 'pious union' that has always advocated 'pray,pay,obey'.
There is no inclination among SSPX priests or laity to have them removed. Who would replace them?
Fr Morgan in England took offence for laity telling the truth. Bishop Tissier put Fr Chazal in his place very quickly.
-
The best and most charitable thing those that support the resistance can do is pray for those with an opposing view.
A few days ago I met some SSPX, who are 110% behind Bishop Fellay. I spoke with them, we shook hands but we didn't mention the current happenings. It would be a dialogue of the deaf. At this stage it is rather boring. People need to move on. The resistance deserves support.Chapels need to be established, events need organising. Plenty to keep people going.
-
SeanJohnson,
When you say that the “practical agreement” is the main issue for you, and the group you are defining, and not the modernist Doctrinal problem that has taken hold of the sspx, is why you are not on a solid footing. As to say that by stopping the practical agreement, the sspx will be saved by not going in that environment of the conciliarist to be infected, and by it, would lose the Faith.
The reality is to the contrary.
You can stop all of the “practical” deals you want. It is not going to do anything; because the sspx is ALREADY infected with the conciliarist’s modernist doctrine WITHOUT making a practical agreement.
That is the stark difference between the sspx and the 9-other “traditional” groups. The other “traditional” groups FIRST made an agreement with conciliar Rome, then changed their Doctrine. The sspx had changed their Doctrine BEFORE they made an agreement with conciliar Rome.
That is what the True Catholic Resistance is standing-up for and fighting about. It is fighting an entity who is compromising Catholic DOCTRINE; regardless who it is. Plain and simple. As the SAME Catholic Resistance stood up against the compromises of Catholic Doctrine of the other 9-“traditional” groups, and to protestants, infidels, and atheists…
The Catholic Resistance is very objective (in spite of its human frailty). It is about the promises of one’s Baptism; it is all about protecting the Faith; not with “first” protecting an entity who has, about to, or already willfully compromised the Catholic Doctrines like the other 9-“traditional” groups have done.
Can you get those other groups back to see the error of their ways, and “rewind”? No; because it is willful. It is the matter of the will.
The Catholic Resistance is about DOCTRINE and preserving its integrity; that is what Archbishop Lefebvre was all about.
Further, Archbishop Lefebvre has always stated that the crisis is about the Faith; not the attachment to the Mass, or anything else. Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief).
So Sean, why not see it for what it really is; an attack against the Integral Faith. Instead of trying to build niches to make a straw-man position? No man, nor angels, can play a game with the Faith; as Bishop Fellay and the nsspx is doing.
Is that a “ridged” position? Ask the Saints and Martyrs.
The sspx, Bishop Fellay, the rest of Menzingen have NO right to play with the Faith; of which they manifested in their Docuмents. No retraction from its Doctrinal errors is no return to the True Faith; all else is smoke and mirrors. History is repeating itself.
Lastly, this is why Menzingen walks all over your group’s superficial “cause” of a “practical agreement” and attacks it with Fr. Rostand, Fr. Themann’s (etc), interviews and conferences. Yet, when it comes to addressing the Doctrinal issues that the true Catholic Resistance holds them accountable and responsible for, they distract, deny, lie, go silent…NO answer; only to mete out anger, detraction, and heavy handedness…
So this new crisis in the SSPX is about DOCTRINE. If Bishop Fellay and all do not concede to their errors, they will become victims of the apostasy.
Religious groups come and go…it is the Faith that remains and carries on. Attach yourself to the Faith first; trust in God, and all else will come.
-
A divide has always been there. It's more out in the open now. I have always encountered SSPX laity, who would be happy enough to attend the Indult or vote for a Christian Democrat. They would find common ground with Herr Krah. He too is a 'Christian Democrat'.
My point is if you are a Christian Democrat, you would hardly have an issue with 'krahgate'.
Recently 'Christian Democracy' introduced abortion in Ireland.
I see Machabees has made an excellent point.
"Religious groups come and go…it is the Faith that remains and carries on. Attach yourself to the Faith first; trust in God, and all else will come."
-
Recently I was reading some SSPX laity were saying about people shouldn't be involved in politics. They have a very poor understanding of what Archbishop Lefebvre was about and strange grasp of the faith.
-
Machabees
The sspx had changed their Doctrine BEFORE they made an agreement with conciliar Rome.
A statement of fact.
-
The Catholic Resistance is very objective (in spite of its human frailty). It is about the promises of one’s Baptism; it is all about protecting the Faith; not with “first” protecting an entity who has, about to, or already willfully compromised the Catholic Doctrines like the other 9-“traditional” groups have done.
Can you get those other groups back to see the error of their ways, and “rewind”? No; because it is willful. It is the matter of the will.
The Catholic Resistance is about DOCTRINE and preserving its integrity; that is what Archbishop Lefebvre was all about.
Further, Archbishop Lefebvre has always stated that the crisis is about the Faith; not the attachment to the Mass, or anything else. Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief).
I favour the decentralised loose network as opposed to a centralised structure. This comment is excellent.
It was interesting that when in Ireland, Fr N Pfluger placed a great emphasis on not cutting off oneself from the Mass and becoming like Lutherans. Be grateful for the Mass was his message.
Obviously Catholics are grateful for the Mass as martyrs died for it but they died for the faith.
For the Indult it is about the Mass.
During the 'Voice in the Wilderness' conference given by Bishop Williamson the emphasis was on doctrine. This is key and the comment above is pertinent in understanding the resistance.
The resistance has got nothing to do with cliques. The term 'elite' is based on a Catholic understanding of the word.
-
or already willfully compromised the Catholic Doctrines like the other 9-“traditional” groups have done.
There was a letter published in a newspaper a few years ago where a Trad was told at an Indult Mass in Dublin. The priest, who offered it said "Here you get Vatican II" "Go to the SSPX if you want doctrine".
A few years ago when the SSPX was solid and hadn't lost its way.
In Dublin every Sunday at the Indult, the priest offers the Traditional Mass and then the Novus Ordo. His congregation is larger when a certain schola are there.
On the point of cliques there you get cliques. A very superficial world.There was a letter published once about which Judges, which barristers, which politicians attended the chapel.
-
I have a question.
A number of posters have maintained quite explictly that the efforts of the SSPX to obtain a no doctrinal strings regularization is the effect of a previous doctrinal shift to modernism.
Could somebody provide evidence for this contention?
I have read and listened to most of what +Fellay has said in English or English translation on the matter. From first to last, he has maintained that it was not a doctrinal but prudential decision. He has presented this position for hours on end, from Australia to Canada. All the defenses of him by other members of the Society have been based on the same contention. Fr. Themann made this this the starting point of his well-known conference at St. Mary's.
So far, I have not been able to find any evidence or argumentation to the contrary: only statements that the Society is sunk in modernism treated as about as well-settled as the proposition that the sun rises in the East.
The Candlemas conference said the decision was prudential. So did the response to the letter of the three bishops. So did the June 8 DICI interview.
So where is the incriminating evidence to the contrary?
Can someone help me out?
-
He has presented this position for hours on end, from Australia to Canada
For hours on end is typical of Bishop Fellay. :sleep: :sleep: The tape ran out in Dublin.
-
I have a question.
A number of posters have maintained quite explictly that the efforts of the SSPX to obtain a no doctrinal strings regularization is the effect of a previous doctrinal shift to modernism.
Could somebody provide evidence for this contention?
I have read and listened to most of what +Fellay has said in English or English translation on the matter. From first to last, he has maintained that it was not a doctrinal but prudential decision. He has presented this position for hours on end, from Australia to Canada. All the defenses of him by other members of the Society have been based on the same contention. Fr. Themann made this this the starting point of his well-known conference at St. Mary's.
So far, I have not been able to find any evidence or argumentation to the contrary: only statements that the Society is sunk in modernism treated as about as well-settled as the proposition that the sun rises in the East.
The Candlemas conference said the decision was prudential. So did the response to the letter of the three bishops. So did the June 8 DICI interview.
So where is the incriminating evidence to the contrary?
Can someone help me out?
John Anthony,
I realize that you have been maintaining a position throughout IA of "picking and choosing" from segments of "what was said and what was written down"; that is a very fragmented position.
Start with this: http://www.therecusant.com/fr-ortiz-speaks-out
And the rest of the Archived articles in TheRecusant.com that expose all of this...it is an organized Library of the main facts.
Here too on Cathinfo.com: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Collection-of-Resistance-Writings
It would really be on you, in giving yourself some time, to inform yourself with the events that took place over the last 1 1/2 years and the accompanying docuмents that expose it all.
The dots are connected from a paper trail; and your questions answered.
God bless.
-
SeanJohnson,
For clarification:
Throughout the 2000's, the (internal) fight of many SSPX priests, as we have learned, has been over the new modernist ideas and changes in Catholic Doctrine coming from Menzingen that they were discovering little by little.
http://www.therecusant.com/fr-ortiz-speaks-out
Then, prior to the release of those April 2012 secret letters and compromising Docuмent of Bishop Fellay's thinking that the rest of the world then discovered, I will give to you that, for many of the lay folk, the fight for three-months (February to April) was about NOT having a practical deal to be under the conciliarist environment; however, when those Doctrinal errors were released, and the compromising contents of the 6-conditions from all of the sspx superiors, the guns of the Catholic Resistance has then been about protecting and preserving the Faith from the manifest Doctrinal errors.
Therefore Sean, you cannot hide your head still in that "three-month" period back in early 2012 when Providence has revealed the underpinning betrayals of the larger problem of the nsspx Doctrinal errors; which is a direct attack against the Faith.
To stay on your "practical agreement position" pales in seriousness compared to the Doctrinal errors that have NOT been retracted; perpetuated, and now in disguise under "traditional-speak" re-branding because Pope Francis is a "Modernist". And Benedict XVI was not? Double-speak.
In other words, if Pope Francis wasn't "so modernist", but less "modernist like Benedict XVI, there would still be a movement for a practical deal with the compromises of the Doctrinal errors; as Bishop Fellay had hoped for in February 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI was leaving. Is that Catholic to deceive your neighbor if Bishop Fellay did not believe in the compromises he had comprised for a Doctrinal Declaration proposal? Is it even Catholic to deceive your neighbor, and a Catholic Pope in need of conversion, with error rather than the Truth? Is it even Catholic to still leave out there those Doctrinal Declaration errors, and all of the rest of the compromises, (without retracting them)for the new and old sheep to still consume; and fall from God’s grace?
While Bishop Fellay continues to have a heavy hand and cause damage using the Mass and the Sacraments as a weapon, his words are for public consumption. Do you not see the dynamics of this new “swing” to “politically re-brand” itself until they have a Pope that is “less” of a modernist; yet, is still a modernist?
Would you like to eat a “less” poisoned cake, or a “more” poisoned cake?
The argument of Bishop Fellay is at best ridiculous and insincere.
Why not act Catholic, like St. Peter, and say I am sorry…?
-
Dear Machabees,
Let me offer a few preliminary thoughts on Fr. Ortiz's piece.
The SSPX is not recognized by Rome. Its bishops have no conventional canonical jurisdiction, and so those they ordained have no canonical status in the Church. If this were not the case, there would be no reason for the Society to lay out the argument that it has supplied jurisdiction. The Society has always maintained this. All the Society publications on supplied jurisdiction were first published 20 or 30 years ago. Either Fr. Ortiz doesn't know what he's talking about, or he has an ecclesiology that can't be squared with what the Church has always taught.
ABL's remark about the four marks cannot literally be true. The four marks are the marks of the one true church established by Christ, which is the Catholic Church, whose head is the successor of Peter. The idea that ABL thought that the SSPX was in the Church, and the Pope and the bishops in communion with him were not, is to say that he was a schismatic, which he certainly wasn't. This was clearly just a piece of sarcasm.
In this connection, I would note that one of the sedevacantist journals is The Four Marks. This particular brand of SVism apparently believes that they are the Church, or at any rate in the Church, and that Argentine fellow in the white soutane, and the bishops in communion with them, aren't.
If Fr. Ortiz is right, why did ABL go to all the trouble of negotiating with Rome in 1987-88, and even sign a protocol literally dictated by Rome, and on which the Archbishop would have followed through if Rome hadn't stalled on approving a bishop.
The question for all those trying to generate a theological justification of the Resistance is this: do you or do you not believe that you owe obedience to the Pope as long as what he commands does not breach the highest law, the salvation of souls? If you do, is not your problem with +Fellay a matter of prudential judgment? If you don't, aren't you a practical SVist, and maybe a schismatic for good measure?
If there is anyone in the Resistance who has made any serious effort to come to grips with these questions, I am not aware of it -- which is to say that if there is any serious effort of the Resistance to justify their charges of doctrinal error on the part of the SSPX leadership, I am unaware of it.
I'll look further into the Recusant and the other stuff you've linked. But I confidently prophesy that it's going to be more of the same, and I'll be coming back and asking you if you have anything else.
-
SeanJohnson,
When you say that the “practical agreement” is the main issue for you, and the group you are defining, and not the modernist Doctrinal problem that has taken hold of the sspx, is why you are not on a solid footing. As to say that by stopping the practical agreement, the sspx will be saved by not going in that environment of the conciliarist to be infected, and by it, would lose the Faith.
The reality is to the contrary.
You can stop all of the “practical” deals you want. It is not going to do anything; because the sspx is ALREADY infected with the conciliarist’s modernist doctrine WITHOUT making a practical agreement.
That is the stark difference between the sspx and the 9-other “traditional” groups. The other “traditional” groups FIRST made an agreement with conciliar Rome, then changed their Doctrine. The sspx had changed their Doctrine BEFORE they made an agreement with conciliar Rome.
That is what the True Catholic Resistance is standing-up for and fighting about. It is fighting an entity who is compromising Catholic DOCTRINE; regardless who it is. Plain and simple. As the SAME Catholic Resistance stood up against the compromises of Catholic Doctrine of the other 9-“traditional” groups, and to protestants, infidels, and atheists…
The Catholic Resistance is very objective (in spite of its human frailty). It is about the promises of one’s Baptism; it is all about protecting the Faith; not with “first” protecting an entity who has, about to, or already willfully compromised the Catholic Doctrines like the other 9-“traditional” groups have done.
Can you get those other groups back to see the error of their ways, and “rewind”? No; because it is willful. It is the matter of the will.
The Catholic Resistance is about DOCTRINE and preserving its integrity; that is what Archbishop Lefebvre was all about.
Further, Archbishop Lefebvre has always stated that the crisis is about the Faith; not the attachment to the Mass, or anything else. Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief).
So Sean, why not see it for what it really is; an attack against the Integral Faith. Instead of trying to build niches to make a straw-man position? No man, nor angels, can play a game with the Faith; as Bishop Fellay and the nsspx is doing.
Is that a “ridged” position? Ask the Saints and Martyrs.
The sspx, Bishop Fellay, the rest of Menzingen have NO right to play with the Faith; of which they manifested in their Docuмents. No retraction from its Doctrinal errors is no return to the True Faith; all else is smoke and mirrors. History is repeating itself.
Lastly, this is why Menzingen walks all over your group’s superficial “cause” of a “practical agreement” and attacks it with Fr. Rostand, Fr. Themann’s (etc), interviews and conferences. Yet, when it comes to addressing the Doctrinal issues that the true Catholic Resistance holds them accountable and responsible for, they distract, deny, lie, go silent…NO answer; only to mete out anger, detraction, and heavy handedness…
So this new crisis in the SSPX is about DOCTRINE. If Bishop Fellay and all do not concede to their errors, they will become victims of the apostasy.
Religious groups come and go…it is the Faith that remains and carries on. Attach yourself to the Faith first; trust in God, and all else will come.
Machabees-
I do not say that the practical agreement is the main issue for me, but that it is the issue for which all the rest of the objectionable things have been erected to facilitate, such that, were the practical accord made unlikely in the future by what Bishop Fellay is doing today, it all dissipates and evaporates.
-
Dear John Grace,
You say:
"For hours on end is typical of Bishop Fellay. The tape ran out in Dublin."
If you want to know the whole story, you have to listen to the whole story.
There are those that are worth my time, and those that are not. I myself am prepared to listen to +Fellay pretty much as long as he's willing to speak.
For those of a different view, the question is whether that's a reflection on +Fellay, or on them.
-
deleted
-
deleted
Deleted
-
SeanJohnson,
When you say that the “practical agreement” is the main issue for you, and the group you are defining, and not the modernist Doctrinal problem that has taken hold of the sspx, is why you are not on a solid footing. As to say that by stopping the practical agreement, the sspx will be saved by not going in that environment of the conciliarist to be infected, and by it, would lose the Faith.
The reality is to the contrary.
You can stop all of the “practical” deals you want. It is not going to do anything; because the sspx is ALREADY infected with the conciliarist’s modernist doctrine WITHOUT making a practical agreement.
That is the stark difference between the sspx and the 9-other “traditional” groups. The other “traditional” groups FIRST made an agreement with conciliar Rome, then changed their Doctrine. The sspx had changed their Doctrine BEFORE they made an agreement with conciliar Rome.
That is what the True Catholic Resistance is standing-up for and fighting about. It is fighting an entity who is compromising Catholic DOCTRINE; regardless who it is. Plain and simple. As the SAME Catholic Resistance stood up against the compromises of Catholic Doctrine of the other 9-“traditional” groups, and to protestants, infidels, and atheists…
The Catholic Resistance is very objective (in spite of its human frailty). It is about the promises of one’s Baptism; it is all about protecting the Faith; not with “first” protecting an entity who has, about to, or already willfully compromised the Catholic Doctrines like the other 9-“traditional” groups have done.
Can you get those other groups back to see the error of their ways, and “rewind”? No; because it is willful. It is the matter of the will.
The Catholic Resistance is about DOCTRINE and preserving its integrity; that is what Archbishop Lefebvre was all about.
Further, Archbishop Lefebvre has always stated that the crisis is about the Faith; not the attachment to the Mass, or anything else. Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief).
So Sean, why not see it for what it really is; an attack against the Integral Faith. Instead of trying to build niches to make a straw-man position? No man, nor angels, can play a game with the Faith; as Bishop Fellay and the nsspx is doing.
Is that a “ridged” position? Ask the Saints and Martyrs.
The sspx, Bishop Fellay, the rest of Menzingen have NO right to play with the Faith; of which they manifested in their Docuмents. No retraction from its Doctrinal errors is no return to the True Faith; all else is smoke and mirrors. History is repeating itself.
Lastly, this is why Menzingen walks all over your group’s superficial “cause” of a “practical agreement” and attacks it with Fr. Rostand, Fr. Themann’s (etc), interviews and conferences. Yet, when it comes to addressing the Doctrinal issues that the true Catholic Resistance holds them accountable and responsible for, they distract, deny, lie, go silent…NO answer; only to mete out anger, detraction, and heavy handedness…
So this new crisis in the SSPX is about DOCTRINE. If Bishop Fellay and all do not concede to their errors, they will become victims of the apostasy.
Religious groups come and go…it is the Faith that remains and carries on. Attach yourself to the Faith first; trust in God, and all else will come.
Machabees-
I do not say that the practical agreement is the main issue for me, but that it is the issue for which all the rest of the objectionable things have been erected to facilitate, such that, were the practical accord made unlikely in the future by what Bishop Fellay is doing today, it all dissipates and evaporates.
???
- You said that the practical agreement is NOT the main issue; then you said it IS the issue for which all else rests...that would make it the "main" issue.
- Are not the "objectionable things" you mentioned the Modernism and Doctrinal compromises of the nsspx? If so, is that not MORE important because the nsspx has digested them and supplanted those modernist thoughts in the Seminaries, Priories, and faithful?
- To imply that, to put the "objectionable things" of compromising the Doctrinal Truth as a bargaining tool to be played with to facilitate an agreement is really crass...the Faith is NOT to be bargained, belittled, nor compromised!
- You said if the practical accord is made unlikely...it dissipates and evaporates the objectionable things of the modernism and Doctrinal issues. How is that so when the "objectionable things" i.e. modernism and Doctrinal errors are desired, fostered, and promoted in the life of the nsspx; when the true faithful of the sspx are trying to uphold the "old" position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the sspx, and are being beaten down?
- Sean, why do you down-play the seriousness of the Doctrinal issues that is paramount to the Faith; while the liberalism and Doctrinal errors are still breeding in the nsspx and to think that they are going to go away?
- Do you not believe in the principle: the exterior is the manifestation of the interior thoughts? Whereby, what is interiorly desired, will be played out... What will make the desire go away if not by a conversion? A conversion we are taught in the catechism is contrition, amendment, and confession. None of those three-sincere attributes have been shown together for a trust to happen; rather, he "traditionally-speaks" in a half heartness for public consumption, while more of the same errors continue to come from the rest of the nsspx apparatus. As a leader, he must fix it. Period. No excuses.
-
SeanJohnson,
When you say that the “practical agreement” is the main issue for you, and the group you are defining, and not the modernist Doctrinal problem that has taken hold of the sspx, is why you are not on a solid footing. As to say that by stopping the practical agreement, the sspx will be saved by not going in that environment of the conciliarist to be infected, and by it, would lose the Faith.
The reality is to the contrary.
You can stop all of the “practical” deals you want. It is not going to do anything; because the sspx is ALREADY infected with the conciliarist’s modernist doctrine WITHOUT making a practical agreement.
That is the stark difference between the sspx and the 9-other “traditional” groups. The other “traditional” groups FIRST made an agreement with conciliar Rome, then changed their Doctrine. The sspx had changed their Doctrine BEFORE they made an agreement with conciliar Rome.
That is what the True Catholic Resistance is standing-up for and fighting about. It is fighting an entity who is compromising Catholic DOCTRINE; regardless who it is. Plain and simple. As the SAME Catholic Resistance stood up against the compromises of Catholic Doctrine of the other 9-“traditional” groups, and to protestants, infidels, and atheists…
The Catholic Resistance is very objective (in spite of its human frailty). It is about the promises of one’s Baptism; it is all about protecting the Faith; not with “first” protecting an entity who has, about to, or already willfully compromised the Catholic Doctrines like the other 9-“traditional” groups have done.
Can you get those other groups back to see the error of their ways, and “rewind”? No; because it is willful. It is the matter of the will.
The Catholic Resistance is about DOCTRINE and preserving its integrity; that is what Archbishop Lefebvre was all about.
Further, Archbishop Lefebvre has always stated that the crisis is about the Faith; not the attachment to the Mass, or anything else. Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief).
So Sean, why not see it for what it really is; an attack against the Integral Faith. Instead of trying to build niches to make a straw-man position? No man, nor angels, can play a game with the Faith; as Bishop Fellay and the nsspx is doing.
Is that a “ridged” position? Ask the Saints and Martyrs.
The sspx, Bishop Fellay, the rest of Menzingen have NO right to play with the Faith; of which they manifested in their Docuмents. No retraction from its Doctrinal errors is no return to the True Faith; all else is smoke and mirrors. History is repeating itself.
Lastly, this is why Menzingen walks all over your group’s superficial “cause” of a “practical agreement” and attacks it with Fr. Rostand, Fr. Themann’s (etc), interviews and conferences. Yet, when it comes to addressing the Doctrinal issues that the true Catholic Resistance holds them accountable and responsible for, they distract, deny, lie, go silent…NO answer; only to mete out anger, detraction, and heavy handedness…
So this new crisis in the SSPX is about DOCTRINE. If Bishop Fellay and all do not concede to their errors, they will become victims of the apostasy.
Religious groups come and go…it is the Faith that remains and carries on. Attach yourself to the Faith first; trust in God, and all else will come.
Machabees-
I do not say that the practical agreement is the main issue for me, but that it is the issue for which all the rest of the objectionable things have been erected to facilitate, such that, were the practical accord made unlikely in the future by what Bishop Fellay is doing today, it all dissipates and evaporates.
???
- You said that the practical agreement is NOT the main issue; then you said it IS the issue for which all else rests...that would make it the "main" issue.
- Are not the "objectionable things" you mentioned the Modernism and Doctrinal compromises of the nsspx? If so, is that not MORE important because the nsspx has digested them and supplanted those modernist thoughts in the Seminaries, Priories, and faithful?
- To imply that, to put the "objectionable things" of compromising the Doctrinal Truth as a bargaining tool to be played with to facilitate an agreement is really crass...the Faith is NOT to be bargained, belittled, nor compromised!
- You said if the practical accord is made unlikely...it dissipates and evaporates the objectionable things of the modernism and Doctrinal issues. How is that so when the "objectionable things" i.e. modernism and Doctrinal errors are desired, fostered, and promoted in the life of the nsspx; when the true faithful of the sspx are trying to uphold the "old" position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the sspx, and are being beaten down?
- Sean, why do you down-play the seriousness of the Doctrinal issues that is paramount to the Faith; while the liberalism and Doctrinal errors are still breeding in the nsspx and to think that they are going to go away?
- Do you not believe in the principle: the exterior is the manifestation of the interior thoughts? Whereby, what is interiorly desired, will be played out... What will make the desire go away if not by a conversion? A conversion we are taught in the catechism is contrition, amendment, and confession. None of those three-sincere attributes have been shown together for a trust to happen; rather, he "traditionally-speaks" in a half heartness for public consumption, while more of the same errors continue to come from the rest of the nsspx apparatus. As a leader, he must fix it. Period. No excuses.
Why do you keep pestering me with the same re-packaged question?
I think my position is sufficiently posted for you to take it or leave it, no?
-
I have a question.
A number of posters have maintained quite explictly that the efforts of the SSPX to obtain a no doctrinal strings regularization is the effect of a previous doctrinal shift to modernism.
Could somebody provide evidence for this contention?
I have read and listened to most of what +Fellay has said in English or English translation on the matter. From first to last, he has maintained that it was not a doctrinal but prudential decision. He has presented this position for hours on end, from Australia to Canada. All the defenses of him by other members of the Society have been based on the same contention. Fr. Themann made this this the starting point of his well-known conference at St. Mary's.
So far, I have not been able to find any evidence or argumentation to the contrary: only statements that the Society is sunk in modernism treated as about as well-settled as the proposition that the sun rises in the East.
The Candlemas conference said the decision was prudential. So did the response to the letter of the three bishops. So did the June 8 DICI interview.
So where is the incriminating evidence to the contrary?
Can someone help me out?
The evidence is found in the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012. Neither Bishop Fellay's presentation or that of Father Themann hold up to scrutiny and critical analysis, that is why their apologetics gain no traction.
One does not set aside doctrine and clarity of expression in matters of the faith and propose that prudence justifies such action to satisfy the quotidian currents. That is a worldly and impious way of thinking.
In more recent times Bishop Fellay himself speaks in terms which directly contradict his speech of earlier times. Simply because he and his loyalists maintain that nothing has changed does not make it so.
SiSiNoNo, not yes or no but maybe if this or that is different tomorrow.
The Society will never return from whence it came and to what it was during the Archbishop's life. I believe that it is time to let them go where they will and return to the battle against the Conciliar sect and the scourge which it has laid upon the Church.
-
Dear Machabees,
Let me offer a few preliminary thoughts on Fr. Ortiz's piece.
The SSPX is not recognized by Rome. Its bishops have no conventional canonical jurisdiction, and so those they ordained have no canonical status in the Church. If this were not the case, there would be no reason for the Society to lay out the argument that it has supplied jurisdiction. The Society has always maintained this. All the Society publications on supplied jurisdiction were first published 20 or 30 years ago. Either Fr. Ortiz doesn't know what he's talking about, or he has an ecclesiology that can't be squared with what the Church has always taught.
ABL's remark about the four marks cannot literally be true. The four marks are the marks of the one true church established by Christ, which is the Catholic Church, whose head is the successor of Peter. The idea that ABL thought that the SSPX was in the Church, and the Pope and the bishops in communion with him were not, is to say that he was a schismatic, which he certainly wasn't. This was clearly just a piece of sarcasm.
In this connection, I would note that one of the sedevacantist journals is The Four Marks. This particular brand of SVism apparently believes that they are the Church, or at any rate in the Church, and that Argentine fellow in the white soutane, and the bishops in communion with them, aren't.
If Fr. Ortiz is right, why did ABL go to all the trouble of negotiating with Rome in 1987-88, and even sign a protocol literally dictated by Rome, and on which the Archbishop would have followed through if Rome hadn't stalled on approving a bishop.
The question for all those trying to generate a theological justification of the Resistance is this: do you or do you not believe that you owe obedience to the Pope as long as what he commands does not breach the highest law, the salvation of souls? If you do, is not your problem with +Fellay a matter of prudential judgment? If you don't, aren't you a practical SVist, and maybe a schismatic for good measure?
If there is anyone in the Resistance who has made any serious effort to come to grips with these questions, I am not aware of it -- which is to say that if there is any serious effort of the Resistance to justify their charges of doctrinal error on the part of the SSPX leadership, I am unaware of it.
I'll look further into the Recusant and the other stuff you've linked. But I confidently prophesy that it's going to be more of the same, and I'll be coming back and asking you if you have anything else.
John Anthony,
I know that you have a son who is an SSPX Priest; all of the blessing to you and him, that is a beautiful gift.
This is an opportunity for you as a Father, and in your Paternity to understand, and even help him, that the whole crisis has evolved and is based on Doctrinal Compromise from Bishop Fellay, the rest of his administration, and many of his priests.
The seriousness has progressed from their agenda of wanting a "practical deal" into the discovered evolution of their Doctrinal errors. All Docuмents, interviews, conferences, articles, executions of the sspx administration, sermons, etc, all collected, point in that direction.
The objections have been laid out over and over; as in some I just have done in responding to SeanJohnson. Albeit, SeanJohnson is very advanced in the crisis than you are at this time. So I have responded to him the way he would understand it.
Also, I have read many of your posts on IA; I have not been edified in your sincerity to put things together. I will be glad to respond to questions, only if you have a desire to put your "fragmented thesis" together. As time passes, as like anything, there is a progression of thoughts and events that happen which play-out the desires of an "accused". I have noticed many times, rather, all of the time, that you do "pick and choose" from segments of "what was said and what was written down" to bring out a "story-line"; than, what is the real "story-line" manifested from ALL of the evidence.
I also realize that on IA you have disdained Fr. Pfeiffer's sermons that audibly explain the errors of Menzingen. Those sermons, as with the other sspx priests who have been thrown-out over the years about this very issue, is a good and valuable source of information. Please do not say, we are followers of a "priest" or "his ideas". The same could be said for those who follow your son; God forbid.
Scripture echoes who is the source for Truth, and with grace, to help one hear those Catholic Truths from a [True] Shepherd. God does provide.
As with anyone, if one has a predetermined mindset, it will not bear much fruit; however, with a disposition in looking at the question: What is God's will, like reading Holy Scripture, one will bear much fruit.
I realize there is a lot of reading material; however, please read on...all honest questions are answered therein.
-
Keeping the name with and added inconsequential tag is no more than sentimentalism.
I don't agree. Fr. Chazal et al. are the true sons of Archbishop Lefebvre and therefore they have a right to keep the essential name.
It has nothing to do either with their being ABL progeny nor any right which they feel that they have.
You are wrong. It has to do with both.
Yes it may if one is either sentimental or more concerned with sectarian interests than with the issues of the whole Church.
The SSPX cannot save the Church and the resistance cannot save the SSPX.
-
SeanJohnson,
When you say that the “practical agreement” is the main issue for you, and the group you are defining, and not the modernist Doctrinal problem that has taken hold of the sspx, is why you are not on a solid footing. As to say that by stopping the practical agreement, the sspx will be saved by not going in that environment of the conciliarist to be infected, and by it, would lose the Faith.
The reality is to the contrary.
You can stop all of the “practical” deals you want. It is not going to do anything; because the sspx is ALREADY infected with the conciliarist’s modernist doctrine WITHOUT making a practical agreement.
That is the stark difference between the sspx and the 9-other “traditional” groups. The other “traditional” groups FIRST made an agreement with conciliar Rome, then changed their Doctrine. The sspx had changed their Doctrine BEFORE they made an agreement with conciliar Rome.
That is what the True Catholic Resistance is standing-up for and fighting about. It is fighting an entity who is compromising Catholic DOCTRINE; regardless who it is. Plain and simple. As the SAME Catholic Resistance stood up against the compromises of Catholic Doctrine of the other 9-“traditional” groups, and to protestants, infidels, and atheists…
The Catholic Resistance is very objective (in spite of its human frailty). It is about the promises of one’s Baptism; it is all about protecting the Faith; not with “first” protecting an entity who has, about to, or already willfully compromised the Catholic Doctrines like the other 9-“traditional” groups have done.
Can you get those other groups back to see the error of their ways, and “rewind”? No; because it is willful. It is the matter of the will.
The Catholic Resistance is about DOCTRINE and preserving its integrity; that is what Archbishop Lefebvre was all about.
Further, Archbishop Lefebvre has always stated that the crisis is about the Faith; not the attachment to the Mass, or anything else. Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief).
So Sean, why not see it for what it really is; an attack against the Integral Faith. Instead of trying to build niches to make a straw-man position? No man, nor angels, can play a game with the Faith; as Bishop Fellay and the nsspx is doing.
Is that a “ridged” position? Ask the Saints and Martyrs.
The sspx, Bishop Fellay, the rest of Menzingen have NO right to play with the Faith; of which they manifested in their Docuмents. No retraction from its Doctrinal errors is no return to the True Faith; all else is smoke and mirrors. History is repeating itself.
Lastly, this is why Menzingen walks all over your group’s superficial “cause” of a “practical agreement” and attacks it with Fr. Rostand, Fr. Themann’s (etc), interviews and conferences. Yet, when it comes to addressing the Doctrinal issues that the true Catholic Resistance holds them accountable and responsible for, they distract, deny, lie, go silent…NO answer; only to mete out anger, detraction, and heavy handedness…
So this new crisis in the SSPX is about DOCTRINE. If Bishop Fellay and all do not concede to their errors, they will become victims of the apostasy.
Religious groups come and go…it is the Faith that remains and carries on. Attach yourself to the Faith first; trust in God, and all else will come.
Machabees-
I do not say that the practical agreement is the main issue for me, but that it is the issue for which all the rest of the objectionable things have been erected to facilitate, such that, were the practical accord made unlikely in the future by what Bishop Fellay is doing today, it all dissipates and evaporates.
???
- You said that the practical agreement is NOT the main issue; then you said it IS the issue for which all else rests...that would make it the "main" issue.
- Are not the "objectionable things" you mentioned the Modernism and Doctrinal compromises of the nsspx? If so, is that not MORE important because the nsspx has digested them and supplanted those modernist thoughts in the Seminaries, Priories, and faithful?
- To imply that, to put the "objectionable things" of compromising the Doctrinal Truth as a bargaining tool to be played with to facilitate an agreement is really crass...the Faith is NOT to be bargained, belittled, nor compromised!
- You said if the practical accord is made unlikely...it dissipates and evaporates the objectionable things of the modernism and Doctrinal issues. How is that so when the "objectionable things" i.e. modernism and Doctrinal errors are desired, fostered, and promoted in the life of the nsspx; when the true faithful of the sspx are trying to uphold the "old" position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the sspx, and are being beaten down?
- Sean, why do you down-play the seriousness of the Doctrinal issues that is paramount to the Faith; while the liberalism and Doctrinal errors are still breeding in the nsspx and to think that they are going to go away?
- Do you not believe in the principle: the exterior is the manifestation of the interior thoughts? Whereby, what is interiorly desired, will be played out... What will make the desire go away if not by a conversion? A conversion we are taught in the catechism is contrition, amendment, and confession. None of those three-sincere attributes have been shown together for a trust to happen; rather, he "traditionally-speaks" in a half heartness for public consumption, while more of the same errors continue to come from the rest of the nsspx apparatus. As a leader, he must fix it. Period. No excuses.
Why do you keep pestering me with the same re-packaged question?
I think my position is sufficiently posted for you to take it or leave it, no?
Like Menzingen, you have not answered the Doctrinal questions. If Truth has value, I do not "pester". If your conscience is "settled", I respect your decision; it is your responsibility.
With prayers.
-
SeanJohnson,
When you say that the “practical agreement” is the main issue for you, and the group you are defining, and not the modernist Doctrinal problem that has taken hold of the sspx, is why you are not on a solid footing. As to say that by stopping the practical agreement, the sspx will be saved by not going in that environment of the conciliarist to be infected, and by it, would lose the Faith.
The reality is to the contrary.
You can stop all of the “practical” deals you want. It is not going to do anything; because the sspx is ALREADY infected with the conciliarist’s modernist doctrine WITHOUT making a practical agreement.
That is the stark difference between the sspx and the 9-other “traditional” groups. The other “traditional” groups FIRST made an agreement with conciliar Rome, then changed their Doctrine. The sspx had changed their Doctrine BEFORE they made an agreement with conciliar Rome.
That is what the True Catholic Resistance is standing-up for and fighting about. It is fighting an entity who is compromising Catholic DOCTRINE; regardless who it is. Plain and simple. As the SAME Catholic Resistance stood up against the compromises of Catholic Doctrine of the other 9-“traditional” groups, and to protestants, infidels, and atheists…
The Catholic Resistance is very objective (in spite of its human frailty). It is about the promises of one’s Baptism; it is all about protecting the Faith; not with “first” protecting an entity who has, about to, or already willfully compromised the Catholic Doctrines like the other 9-“traditional” groups have done.
Can you get those other groups back to see the error of their ways, and “rewind”? No; because it is willful. It is the matter of the will.
The Catholic Resistance is about DOCTRINE and preserving its integrity; that is what Archbishop Lefebvre was all about.
Further, Archbishop Lefebvre has always stated that the crisis is about the Faith; not the attachment to the Mass, or anything else. Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief).
So Sean, why not see it for what it really is; an attack against the Integral Faith. Instead of trying to build niches to make a straw-man position? No man, nor angels, can play a game with the Faith; as Bishop Fellay and the nsspx is doing.
Is that a “ridged” position? Ask the Saints and Martyrs.
The sspx, Bishop Fellay, the rest of Menzingen have NO right to play with the Faith; of which they manifested in their Docuмents. No retraction from its Doctrinal errors is no return to the True Faith; all else is smoke and mirrors. History is repeating itself.
Lastly, this is why Menzingen walks all over your group’s superficial “cause” of a “practical agreement” and attacks it with Fr. Rostand, Fr. Themann’s (etc), interviews and conferences. Yet, when it comes to addressing the Doctrinal issues that the true Catholic Resistance holds them accountable and responsible for, they distract, deny, lie, go silent…NO answer; only to mete out anger, detraction, and heavy handedness…
So this new crisis in the SSPX is about DOCTRINE. If Bishop Fellay and all do not concede to their errors, they will become victims of the apostasy.
Religious groups come and go…it is the Faith that remains and carries on. Attach yourself to the Faith first; trust in God, and all else will come.
Machabees-
I do not say that the practical agreement is the main issue for me, but that it is the issue for which all the rest of the objectionable things have been erected to facilitate, such that, were the practical accord made unlikely in the future by what Bishop Fellay is doing today, it all dissipates and evaporates.
???
- You said that the practical agreement is NOT the main issue; then you said it IS the issue for which all else rests...that would make it the "main" issue.
- Are not the "objectionable things" you mentioned the Modernism and Doctrinal compromises of the nsspx? If so, is that not MORE important because the nsspx has digested them and supplanted those modernist thoughts in the Seminaries, Priories, and faithful?
- To imply that, to put the "objectionable things" of compromising the Doctrinal Truth as a bargaining tool to be played with to facilitate an agreement is really crass...the Faith is NOT to be bargained, belittled, nor compromised!
- You said if the practical accord is made unlikely...it dissipates and evaporates the objectionable things of the modernism and Doctrinal issues. How is that so when the "objectionable things" i.e. modernism and Doctrinal errors are desired, fostered, and promoted in the life of the nsspx; when the true faithful of the sspx are trying to uphold the "old" position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the sspx, and are being beaten down?
- Sean, why do you down-play the seriousness of the Doctrinal issues that is paramount to the Faith; while the liberalism and Doctrinal errors are still breeding in the nsspx and to think that they are going to go away?
- Do you not believe in the principle: the exterior is the manifestation of the interior thoughts? Whereby, what is interiorly desired, will be played out... What will make the desire go away if not by a conversion? A conversion we are taught in the catechism is contrition, amendment, and confession. None of those three-sincere attributes have been shown together for a trust to happen; rather, he "traditionally-speaks" in a half heartness for public consumption, while more of the same errors continue to come from the rest of the nsspx apparatus. As a leader, he must fix it. Period. No excuses.
Why do you keep pestering me with the same re-packaged question?
I think my position is sufficiently posted for you to take it or leave it, no?
Like Menzingen, you have not answered the Doctrinal questions. If Truth has value, I do not "pester". If your conscience is "settled", I respect your decision; it is your responsibility.
With prayers.
Machabees-
You are a good egg.
The primary difference between us seems to be the old "chicken or the egg" dilemma.
Because you perceive the SSPX as having embraced modernism many years ago, with the practical accord being but the inevitable conclusion of having done so, you are not convinced that backing away from the practical accord has any meaningful consequence (i.e., because all the modernism would still remain).
For my part, because I see all the deviations of recent years as being but constructs implemented to facilitate the accord, I believe that backing away from that accord eliminates their sustaining force, and almost automates a rewind, whether it is conscious or not.
Your civility amidst your opposition was much appreciated.
Sean Johnson
-
SeanJohnson,
When you say that the “practical agreement” is the main issue for you, and the group you are defining, and not the modernist Doctrinal problem that has taken hold of the sspx, is why you are not on a solid footing. As to say that by stopping the practical agreement, the sspx will be saved by not going in that environment of the conciliarist to be infected, and by it, would lose the Faith.
The reality is to the contrary.
You can stop all of the “practical” deals you want. It is not going to do anything; because the sspx is ALREADY infected with the conciliarist’s modernist doctrine WITHOUT making a practical agreement.
That is the stark difference between the sspx and the 9-other “traditional” groups. The other “traditional” groups FIRST made an agreement with conciliar Rome, then changed their Doctrine. The sspx had changed their Doctrine BEFORE they made an agreement with conciliar Rome.
That is what the True Catholic Resistance is standing-up for and fighting about. It is fighting an entity who is compromising Catholic DOCTRINE; regardless who it is. Plain and simple. As the SAME Catholic Resistance stood up against the compromises of Catholic Doctrine of the other 9-“traditional” groups, and to protestants, infidels, and atheists…
The Catholic Resistance is very objective (in spite of its human frailty). It is about the promises of one’s Baptism; it is all about protecting the Faith; not with “first” protecting an entity who has, about to, or already willfully compromised the Catholic Doctrines like the other 9-“traditional” groups have done.
Can you get those other groups back to see the error of their ways, and “rewind”? No; because it is willful. It is the matter of the will.
The Catholic Resistance is about DOCTRINE and preserving its integrity; that is what Archbishop Lefebvre was all about.
Further, Archbishop Lefebvre has always stated that the crisis is about the Faith; not the attachment to the Mass, or anything else. Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief).
So Sean, why not see it for what it really is; an attack against the Integral Faith. Instead of trying to build niches to make a straw-man position? No man, nor angels, can play a game with the Faith; as Bishop Fellay and the nsspx is doing.
Is that a “ridged” position? Ask the Saints and Martyrs.
The sspx, Bishop Fellay, the rest of Menzingen have NO right to play with the Faith; of which they manifested in their Docuмents. No retraction from its Doctrinal errors is no return to the True Faith; all else is smoke and mirrors. History is repeating itself.
Lastly, this is why Menzingen walks all over your group’s superficial “cause” of a “practical agreement” and attacks it with Fr. Rostand, Fr. Themann’s (etc), interviews and conferences. Yet, when it comes to addressing the Doctrinal issues that the true Catholic Resistance holds them accountable and responsible for, they distract, deny, lie, go silent…NO answer; only to mete out anger, detraction, and heavy handedness…
So this new crisis in the SSPX is about DOCTRINE. If Bishop Fellay and all do not concede to their errors, they will become victims of the apostasy.
Religious groups come and go…it is the Faith that remains and carries on. Attach yourself to the Faith first; trust in God, and all else will come.
Machabees-
I do not say that the practical agreement is the main issue for me, but that it is the issue for which all the rest of the objectionable things have been erected to facilitate, such that, were the practical accord made unlikely in the future by what Bishop Fellay is doing today, it all dissipates and evaporates.
???
- You said that the practical agreement is NOT the main issue; then you said it IS the issue for which all else rests...that would make it the "main" issue.
- Are not the "objectionable things" you mentioned the Modernism and Doctrinal compromises of the nsspx? If so, is that not MORE important because the nsspx has digested them and supplanted those modernist thoughts in the Seminaries, Priories, and faithful?
- To imply that, to put the "objectionable things" of compromising the Doctrinal Truth as a bargaining tool to be played with to facilitate an agreement is really crass...the Faith is NOT to be bargained, belittled, nor compromised!
- You said if the practical accord is made unlikely...it dissipates and evaporates the objectionable things of the modernism and Doctrinal issues. How is that so when the "objectionable things" i.e. modernism and Doctrinal errors are desired, fostered, and promoted in the life of the nsspx; when the true faithful of the sspx are trying to uphold the "old" position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the sspx, and are being beaten down?
- Sean, why do you down-play the seriousness of the Doctrinal issues that is paramount to the Faith; while the liberalism and Doctrinal errors are still breeding in the nsspx and to think that they are going to go away?
- Do you not believe in the principle: the exterior is the manifestation of the interior thoughts? Whereby, what is interiorly desired, will be played out... What will make the desire go away if not by a conversion? A conversion we are taught in the catechism is contrition, amendment, and confession. None of those three-sincere attributes have been shown together for a trust to happen; rather, he "traditionally-speaks" in a half heartness for public consumption, while more of the same errors continue to come from the rest of the nsspx apparatus. As a leader, he must fix it. Period. No excuses.
Why do you keep pestering me with the same re-packaged question?
I think my position is sufficiently posted for you to take it or leave it, no?
Like Menzingen, you have not answered the Doctrinal questions. If Truth has value, I do not "pester". If your conscience is "settled", I respect your decision; it is your responsibility.
With prayers.
Machabees-
You are a good egg.
The primary difference between us seems to be the old "chicken or the egg" dilemma.
Because you perceive the SSPX as having embraced modernism many years ago, with the practical accord being but the inevitable conclusion of having done so, you are not convinced that backing away from the practical accord has any meaningful consequence (i.e., because all the modernism would still remain).
For my part, because I see all the deviations of recent years as being but constructs implemented to facilitate the accord, I believe that backing away from that accord eliminates their sustaining force, and almost automates a rewind, whether it is conscious or not.
Your civility amidst your opposition was much appreciated.
Sean Johnson
Thank you Sean,
Yes, from reading your many posts over the year that I have been here on Cathinfo in trying to get informed on the issues that have befallen us, I have know that you have always understood the "other" Doctrinal position of the Catholic Resistance. You have many posts that are very informative and edifying in that regard; which is another reason I still "reach out" to you.
If you do not mind me asking, for what I have highlighted in red, could that not be the same disposition we desire of Vatican II, to "back away" from Vatican II...? As it is, in God's good reason, He has allowed those "evils" to perpetuate for 50-years under those modernist leaders; and the people have been infected; along with the whole world.
So my question is, given the battles we have learned from those SAME type of wars with the concilliarists, is it really "prudent" to continue, continue, and continue to give "benefit of doubts" and take it in day after day the SAME bad environment, when Bishop Fellay, and all of the superiors with him, are very much going down the SAME road of compromises as we have seen in the other "traditional" groups?
If so, isn't "prudent" to ask for a "sign" of Good Faith form Menzingen that we have been asking for, like Archbishop Lefebvre had asked of conciliar Rome? -First, a sincere, concrete, Conversion back to Catholic Tradition; to rectify the "mess" they have made to all of the souls who are disturbed, and the weak who have fallen away, as with the generations afterwards?
Where is the "belief" of Bishop Fellay's "words", when even to this day, Menzingen continues to foster their modernism from their pulpits, and seminaries, with heavy handedness, still AFTER his U.S. conference? Or, rather, is it disguised in the SAME battles we have learned with the conciliarists, and continue to have with them as a re-branding of a "political posture"? As you know, we all have been there and done that...
Words are not enough for the scandals he has committed; it needs to be in concrete. Prudence dictates this, and Truth deserves it...and its Honor.
With continued prayers,
Machabees
-
Keeping the name with and added inconsequential tag is no more than sentimentalism.
I don't agree. Fr. Chazal et al. are the true sons of Archbishop Lefebvre and therefore they have a right to keep the essential name.
It has nothing to do either with their being ABL progeny nor any right which they feel that they have.
You are wrong. It has to do with both.
Yes it may if one is either sentimental or more concerned with sectarian interests than with the issues of the whole Church.
The SSPX cannot save the Church and the resistance cannot save the SSPX.
It is not sentimental. It is simply a basis in fact. As I said many times, the neo-SSPX is toast. I have moved on. I support Bishop Williamson, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, etc. because they continue to defend the Faith as did the Archbishop. Every age has leaders and the Archbishop is a key one for these times. His mandate is what is that of the SSPX - Marian Corps, and that is for the defence of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
-
One only need to ponder upon the First Condition of the 2012 SSPX General Chapter to realize that the neo-SSPX has doctrinally compromised.
-
So I still attend an SSPX chapel myself.
Matthew, I appreciate your defence of the Resistance on your forum. However, I do object to you calling it the "de facto headquarters" of the Resistance. For whatever reasons (and they may be legitimate as I don't know all your particular circuмstances), you refuse to sacrifice your continued attendance at neo-SSPX Masses. You continue to place yourself in the enemy's camp and unite with its priest in the greatest act of worship. Therefore, the claim of "de facto headquarters" is not justified.
-
Keeping the name with and added inconsequential tag is no more than sentimentalism.
I don't agree. Fr. Chazal et al. are the true sons of Archbishop Lefebvre and therefore they have a right to keep the essential name.
It has nothing to do either with their being ABL progeny nor any right which they feel that they have.
You are wrong. It has to do with both.
Yes it may if one is either sentimental or more concerned with sectarian interests than with the issues of the whole Church.
The SSPX cannot save the Church and the resistance cannot save the SSPX.
It is not sentimental. It is simply a basis in fact. As I said many times, the neo-SSPX is toast. I have moved on. I support Bishop Williamson, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, etc. because they continue to defend the Faith as did the Archbishop. Every age has leaders and the Archbishop is a key one for these times. His mandate is what is that of the SSPX - Marian Corps, and that is for the defence of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
This is all good. What I am saying is the Bishop and the Fathers need to move on as well and stop centering their resistance around the Society and Bishop Fellay. They are irrelevant now and are a thing which has past.
-
Of the 100 or so Irish SSPX folk, who went to Knock shrine with Fr Morgan. Could they not of contacted a resistance priest and arranged a pilgrimage? A pilgrimage to grave of Fr Fahey? To a Mass Rock, a Holy Well. There are plenty of things to do.
Assisting Fr Morgan and the SSPX is a very public statement.
On a point of principle alone, I wouldn't support the SSPX pilgrimage. I appreciate he was under duress when he attacked The Recusant but we can't forget Fr Morgan attacked the Resistance. He was "offended" by the publication telling the truth about the Society of which he is a member.
-
In England the Resistance had a pilgrimage. The resistance really needs to use initiative and organise its own events. From catechism classes, youth outings, seminars,retreats, establish a Mass centre, pilgrimages.
You can't do these things if you can't make up your mind and leave the SSPX.
A positive though is a number of seminaries have opened, over 75 Mass centres, new people are learning about the resistance.
Whilst human nature wouldn't allow it, Fr Morgan, Fr Mac D and Fr Gallagher in Ireland should of been left standing there wondering where are the laity?
It didn't happen.
What a message it would have sent?
-
[What I am saying is the Bishop and the Fathers need to move on as well and stop centering their resistance around the Society and Bishop Fellay. They are irrelevant now and are a thing which has past.
I agree.
-
[What I am saying is the Bishop and the Fathers need to move on as well and stop centering their resistance around the Society and Bishop Fellay. They are irrelevant now and are a thing which has past.
I agree.
J.Paul makes an excellent point and I agree with it. It is the key point. Moving on is a key point. Far too much time is spent discussing Bishop Fellay.
-
There is a resistance priest in Ireland but lamentably too far away from me.It's easier for me to travel to England which I shall do later this month.
-
An alternative in Ireland is also the few priests of the Sedeprivationist world, who visit. It's fair to say they have a presence. They provide the sacraments for a few souls.
I would prefer to support the resistance though.
-
[What I am saying is the Bishop and the Fathers need to move on as well and stop centering their resistance around the Society and Bishop Fellay. They are irrelevant now and are a thing which has past.
I agree.
As a layman, I agree also.
However, I hope this will explain why the circuмstances is other wise.
In observation, and human phycology, that for Bishop Williamson, Frs. Pfeiffer, Hewko, and many other priests who were unjustly expelled, therefore not legitimate, they ARE still SSPX priests in their promises and innate identity; they have mentioned this so many times. The SSPX is their family, like you and I have one, and they are fighting the enemy that has entered into their family.
Because of their innate identity in being SSPX priests with fighting and attacking the cancer that is in their family, within the body of the SSPX, they are still trying to disclose the old and new continued errors for the other family members who are not exposed to the many resources of information that they have. So, they are innately trying to bring health to their family, to the body, as you and I would do for our family.
As such, they have regularly demonstrated that they are having success with other SSPX [family] members throughout the world. That success is a greater motivator to them to keep going on in the attack against the cancer.
That being said, we faithful do not have that strong, innate tie to the SSPX as they do which keeps them going for the love of their family. All that we have as faithful, is an "identity" to the SSPX from our association and familiarity with them over the years. For some, it is easy to "detach", and move on. For others, in their circuмstances, it is more difficult.
In result, Bishop Williamson and the other thrown-off SSPX priests caused from the disillusioned Bishop Fellay, will always fight for their SSPX family. And because they have had the humility to see the problems, God has blessed them to be the instruments to uphold the True Faith in this new crisis for them. Remember, this new Resistance is an SSPX crisis. So, the new Resistance is centered on the errors of the SSPX.
Because we associate ourselves to receive the Sacraments, Mass, and the Doctrine from the "unjustly expelled" SSPX priests, we also need to remember that they ARE and always will be SSPX priests who will innately be centered in Resistance around the SSPX and the disillusioned Bishop Fellay.
I think as far as the name SSPX-MC, as Fr. Chazal has always mentioned that they ARE always SSPX Priests, and because they did not want to get unjustly sued from the disillusioned Bishop Fellay, they needed to have some organization to have an offensive to fight these errors with the many other non-sspx priests involved in the overall fight for the Faith; while still maintaining they ARE still SSPX priests. So Fr. Chazal has said that they added the MC to it.
I hope this helps.
-
Machabees:
That being said, we faithful do not have that strong, innate tie to the SSPX as they do which keeps them going for the love of their family. All that we have as faithful, is an "identity" to the SSPX from our association and familiarity with them over the years. For some, it is easy to "detach", and move on. For others, in their circuмstances, it is more difficult.
In result, Bishop Williamson and the other thrown-off SSPX priests caused from the disillusioned Bishop Fellay, will always fight for their SSPX family. And because they have had the humility to see the problems, God has blessed them to be the instruments to uphold the True Faith in this new crisis for them. Remember, this new Resistance is an SSPX crisis. So, the new Resistance is centered on the errors of the SSPX.
Because we associate ourselves to receive the Sacraments, Mass, and the Doctrine from the "unjustly expelled" SSPX priests, we also need to remember that they ARE and always will be SSPX priests who will innately be centered in Resistance around the SSPX and the disillusioned Bishop Fellay.
The SSPX is over. It will never be the same. Its founder is dead. Its true Lefebvrian legacy has been all but obliterated. If the SSPX is always going to be the “family” of these expelled priests, then, I say, God pity them and God pity us! I disagree violently with this idea of an “innate tie to SSPX.” No, these priests must forge ahead on other paths, and hopefully take us with them. They must help us to preserve the Church’s traditional heritage in whatever ways come to hand in the present. I don’t care to be reminded over and over again about what the Society was in the past. What it is now is all that matters. And what it is now is of no further use to us, or to the priests who, you say, pine away for the “family.” Hopefully, the “new Resistance” will not be forever focused on the “the errors of the SSPX. It will refocus instead upon the errors of the Council and all that has followed from it, just as the Archbishop did, but never again in exactly the way which the Archbishop pioneered. It will struggle against the errors of secular society, as well, and warn us and our children away from its many evils. It must move ahead on another footing altogether, an expanded and more all-inclusive one. Restoring the Kingship of Christ on earth will require a whole lot more than just a resistance directed narrowly at Fellay’s usurped and fallen organization.
I think these priests can look to Bp. Williamson to provide something of a model for future ministerial alternatives in the interests of achieving a total victory for Christ on earth. He is going to be a feature speaker at a conference sponsored by the evangelical pastor Texe Marrs on Veterans Day, Nov. 9. This is hardly a venue in which many of us would expect to find the good bishop. But I think that he understands well that there are a broad range of issues out there needing to be addressed, and he can well speak to them.
See http://www.powerofprophecy.com/ and scroll down a bit.
BTW, I think you may not mean “the disillusioned Bishop Fellay.” It’s +Fellay who does all the disillusioning.
-
Dear Machabees,
Your comments are in quotes, my responses are not.
"The seriousness [of the alleged Doctrinal Compromise] has progressed from [the SSPX's] agenda of wanting a "practical deal" into the discovered evolution of their Doctrinal errors. All Docuмents, interviews, conferences, articles, executions of the sspx administration, sermons, etc, all collected, point in that direction."
My problem is that I don't understand what you, or anybody else who claims a doctrinal shift on the part of the SSPX either before or after the decision to pursue a no-doctrinal compromise regularization, is talking about. I have read reams of efforts by Resistants to explain and defend their position, and none of it squares with any facts that I am aware of.
“Also, I have read many of your posts on IA; I have not been edified in your sincerity to put things together. I will be glad to respond to questions, only if you have a desire to put your "fragmented thesis" together. As time passes, as like anything, there is a progression of thoughts and events that happen which play-out the desires of an "accused". I have noticed many times, rather, all of the time, that you do "pick and choose" from segments of "what was said and what was written down" to bring out a "story-line"; than, what is the real "story-line" manifested from ALL of the evidence.”
As regards the events of 2011-12, I do not pick and choose. The relevant docuмentation is not much in question: the Candlemass conference at Winona; the letter of the three bishops and the response of the General Council; the April 15 Doctrinal Declaration; the July 14 declaration of the Society; the Six Conditions; and Bishop Fellay's numerous explanatory conferences, up to and including his conference at the blessing of the cornerstone of the new seminary; and his recent remarks in Kansas City.
They all tell the same story. It is a story of the prudential decision to pursue a no doctrinal compromise regularization, how that played out, and how the Holy Father ultimately reneged on his proposal, and where the Society goes from there.
Most of the counterarguments focus on the April 15 doctrinal declaration. As far as I know, none of these even tries to come to grips with the fact that the declaration is based on the May 5, 1998 protocol, which was written by Rome and signed by ABL. The difference is that the 2012 declaration is more clearly traditional than the 2015 protocol. In order to denounce +Fellay, one must denounce ABL. There is no way around this, as far as I can see -- even for the critics of the declaration within the SSPX. The other arguments, to the extent that I can make anything of them, generally argue that if some important matter of the faith is not dealt with in the declaration, that must mean that the General Council denies it. This makes no sense at all. Does the fact that the Apostles’ Creed does not state the divinity of the Holy Ghost means that it denies the Paraclete’s godhead?
The other chief target of the Resistance is the six conditions. But they represent nothing significantly different from what was implicit in the whole original decision to change the policy of 2006 and seek a no doctrinal compromise. The six conditions in effect say to Rome: if you some day you again call for a no doctrinal compromise regularization, here’s what it would look like. The contrary statements of the Resistance are just more denunciations of the concept of such a regularization – which is the say, the denunciation of a prudential decision of those in authority in the SSPX.
You can denounce that prudential decision -- although I think that +Fellay has the better of the argument, and in any event is the one with the authority to decide. You can cease being one of the SSPX faithful if you feel strongly enough about the matter, although I think that would be a very imprudent decision. But you can’t claim that the issue is doctrinal, because it is not.
I think it all boils down to this. In the years between 1988 and 2001, many in the Society grew rather comfortable with the “intermediate status quo”. When Rome again became willing to talk to the Society, the comfortable ones began to get uncomfortable. By contrast, Bishop Fellay saw this as an occasion to take up again ABL’s project of reaching an understanding with Rome that would leave the Society from a doctrinal perspective “as we are.” At first he, like everyone else (myself included), never dreamed that Rome would agree to a no doctrinal compromise regularization, and made that a matter of explicit policy in 2006.
But when Pope Benedict changed, Bishop Fellay likewise changed; and then the comfortable grew very uncomfortable, and settled opposition began to show itself. The easiest way to rationalize that position was to appeal to the example of ABL, and to treat the issue as doctrinal. But that was all rationalization, not truth.
I will try to look at more of the Resistance writings, but it is with no great enthusiasm. I have already seen a lot of it, and it just doesn’t make a doctrinal case. The only thing that really makes the doctrinal case is an argument that at least to some degree denies the authority of the Pope and the hierarchy – which is to say, one that is at least implicitly SVist, and so also implicitly schismatic, since it tries to found membership in the Church on something besides the Chair of Peter.
The Church of Christ is undergoing a terrible and unprecedented crisis. But ceasing to be a Catholic is not the solution to that crisis. As I have often said before, that is destroying the village in order to save it.
-
Machabees: That being said, we faithful do not have that strong, innate tie to the SSPX as they do which keeps them going for the love of their family. All that we have as faithful, is an "identity" to the SSPX from our association and familiarity with them over the years. For some, it is easy to "detach", and move on. For others, in their circuмstances, it is more difficult.
In result, Bishop Williamson and the other thrown-off SSPX priests caused from the disillusioned Bishop Fellay, will always fight for their SSPX family. And because they have had the humility to see the problems, God has blessed them to be the instruments to uphold the True Faith in this new crisis for them. Remember, this new Resistance is an SSPX crisis. So, the new Resistance is centered on the errors of the SSPX.
Because we associate ourselves to receive the Sacraments, Mass, and the Doctrine from the "unjustly expelled" SSPX priests, we also need to remember that they ARE and always will be SSPX priests who will innately be centered in Resistance around the SSPX and the disillusioned Bishop Fellay.
The SSPX is over. It will never be the same. Its founder is dead. Its true Lefebvrian legacy has been all but obliterated. If the SSPX is always going to be the “family” of these expelled priests, then, I say, God pity them and God pity us! I disagree violently with this idea of an “innate tie to SSPX.” No, these priests must forge ahead on other paths, and hopefully take us with them. They must help us to preserve the Church’s traditional heritage in whatever ways come to hand in the present. I don’t care to be reminded over and over again about what the Society was in the past. What it is now is all that matters. And what it is now is of no further use to us, or to the priests who, you say, pine away for the “family.” Hopefully, the “new Resistance” will not be forever focused on the “the errors of the SSPX. It will refocus instead upon the errors of the Council and all that has followed from it, just as the Archbishop did, but never again in exactly the way which the Archbishop pioneered. It will struggle against the errors of secular society, as well, and warn us and our children away from its many evils. It must move ahead on another footing altogether, an expanded and more all-inclusive one. Restoring the Kingship of Christ on earth will require a whole lot more than just a resistance directed narrowly at Fellay’s usurped and fallen organization.
I think these priests can look to Bp. Williamson to provide something of a model for future ministerial alternatives in the interests of achieving a total victory for Christ on earth. He is going to be a feature speaker at a conference sponsored by the evangelical pastor Texe Marrs on Veterans Day, Nov. 9. This is hardly a venue in which many of us would expect to find the good bishop. But I think that he understands well that there are a broad range of issues out there needing to be addressed, and he can well speak to them.
See http://www.powerofprophecy.com/ and scroll down a bit.
BTW, I think you may not mean “the disillusioned Bishop Fellay.” It’s +Fellay who does all the disillusioning.
I realize hollingsworth that you have a strong will, and I understand your desires as a layman; yet, you have not understood my context. It is very innate for them; as it is innate to be tied to your own mother.
Over a year in the crisis, is still "fresh"; one does not abandon their family when they are having successes in helping other Priestly [family] members.
To be clear. I am not advocating a "yellow brick road"; my posts show the contrary. I am trying to understand the situation the way it is presently.
The only viable solution to not "hear it" anymore at this time, is to find an Independent Priest with no [innate] ties to the sspx.
As you say, that Bp. Williamson will provide something of a model for future ministerial alternatives. At this point, he stated over and over again, that he does NOT wish to lead.
Heaven help us...
-
Dear Hollingsworth,
You say:
"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."
I'm having trouble understanding this.
Judgments regarding the H are not a matter of faith.
Public expression of H revisionism is, however, a crime in Germany and Switzerland. As a result, there is even less H revisionism there than in countries where it is not a crime. Criminalized or not, there are virtually no country in the First World where H revisionists are not considered moral lepers.
+Fellay was clearly very angry, as was Fr. Pfluger, because +Williamson had imperilled the SSPX's status in Germany, by an imprudent expression of what they consider a crank theory.
+Williamson's position on the H has been common knowledge in the Society and among its faithful for, I believe, better than twenty years. I would be interested in knowing what if anything Fr. Schmidberger or +Fellay had to say to him about it. My guess is little if anything, or it would have come out in the aftermath of the events of early 2009. As best I can recall, there was no mention in Fr. Pfluger's personal letter to +W of any previous admonishment by the Society.
+Williamson is clearly not very knowledgeable about H revisionism. When he spoke at St. Athanasius during Thanksgiving week in 2008, it was clear to me that what he knew dated from the late 1980s. So he is clearly not an H revisionist devotee, and seems to have limited his remarks on the matter to audiences of his fans. He certainly has been quite quiet on the matter since the events of early 2009.
Now even those who agree with +Williamson on the H can fairly conclude that he was amazingly imprudent, and imperilled the SSPX's status in Germany.
So: can you explain to me how +Fellay's "dissociating" himself from +W's H revisionism is something so horrific that it turned you against the SSPX leadership?
-
Dear Machabees,
Your comments are in quotes, my responses are not.
"The seriousness [of the alleged Doctrinal Compromise] has progressed from [the SSPX's] agenda of wanting a "practical deal" into the discovered evolution of their Doctrinal errors. All Docuмents, interviews, conferences, articles, executions of the sspx administration, sermons, etc, all collected, point in that direction."
My problem is that I don't understand what you, or anybody else who claims a doctrinal shift on the part of the SSPX either before or after the decision to pursue a no-doctrinal compromise regularization, is talking about. I have read reams of efforts by Resistants to explain and defend their position, and none of it squares with any facts that I am aware of.
“Also, I have read many of your posts on IA; I have not been edified in your sincerity to put things together. I will be glad to respond to questions, only if you have a desire to put your "fragmented thesis" together. As time passes, as like anything, there is a progression of thoughts and events that happen which play-out the desires of an "accused". I have noticed many times, rather, all of the time, that you do "pick and choose" from segments of "what was said and what was written down" to bring out a "story-line"; than, what is the real "story-line" manifested from ALL of the evidence.”
As regards the events of 2011-12, I do not pick and choose. The relevant docuмentation is not much in question: the Candlemass conference at Winona; the letter of the three bishops and the response of the General Council; the April 15 Doctrinal Declaration; the July 14 declaration of the Society; the Six Conditions; and Bishop Fellay's numerous explanatory conferences, up to and including his conference at the blessing of the cornerstone of the new seminary; and his recent remarks in Kansas City.
They all tell the same story. It is a story of the prudential decision to pursue a no doctrinal compromise regularization, how that played out, and how the Holy Father ultimately reneged on his proposal, and where the Society goes from there.
Most of the counterarguments focus on the April 15 doctrinal declaration. As far as I know, none of these even tries to come to grips with the fact that the declaration is based on the May 5, 1998 protocol, which was written by Rome and signed by ABL. The difference is that the 2012 declaration is more clearly traditional than the 2015 protocol. In order to denounce +Fellay, one must denounce ABL. There is no way around this, as far as I can see -- even for the critics of the declaration within the SSPX. The other arguments, to the extent that I can make anything of them, generally argue that if some important matter of the faith is not dealt with in the declaration, that must mean that the General Council denies it. This makes no sense at all. Does the fact that the Apostles’ Creed does not state the divinity of the Holy Ghost means that it denies the Paraclete’s godhead?
The other chief target of the Resistance is the six conditions. But they represent nothing significantly different from what was implicit in the whole original decision to change the policy of 2006 and seek a no doctrinal compromise. The six conditions in effect say to Rome: if you some day you again call for a no doctrinal compromise regularization, here’s what it would look like. The contrary statements of the Resistance are just more denunciations of the concept of such a regularization – which is the say, the denunciation of a prudential decision of those in authority in the SSPX.
You can denounce that prudential decision -- although I think that +Fellay has the better of the argument, and in any event is the one with the authority to decide. You can cease being one of the SSPX faithful if you feel strongly enough about the matter, although I think that would be a very imprudent decision. But you can’t claim that the issue is doctrinal, because it is not.
I think it all boils down to this. In the years between 1988 and 2001, many in the Society grew rather comfortable with the “intermediate status quo”. When Rome again became willing to talk to the Society, the comfortable ones began to get uncomfortable. By contrast, Bishop Fellay saw this as an occasion to take up again ABL’s project of reaching an understanding with Rome that would leave the Society from a doctrinal perspective “as we are.” At first he, like everyone else (myself included), never dreamed that Rome would agree to a no doctrinal compromise regularization, and made that a matter of explicit policy in 2006.
But when Pope Benedict changed, Bishop Fellay likewise changed; and then the comfortable grew very uncomfortable, and settled opposition began to show itself. The easiest way to rationalize that position was to appeal to the example of ABL, and to treat the issue as doctrinal. But that was all rationalization, not truth.
I will try to look at more of the Resistance writings, but it is with no great enthusiasm. I have already seen a lot of it, and it just doesn’t make a doctrinal case. The only thing that really makes the doctrinal case is an argument that at least to some degree denies the authority of the Pope and the hierarchy – which is to say, one that is at least implicitly SVist, and so also implicitly schismatic, since it tries to found membership in the Church on something besides the Chair of Peter.
The Church of Christ is undergoing a terrible and unprecedented crisis. But ceasing to be a Catholic is not the solution to that crisis. As I have often said before, that is destroying the village in order to save it.
Yes I understand that Menzingen keeps calling it a “prudential” decision; so wasn’t it said of the last Popes going to the Assisi meetings.
I am sorry that you "do not see" the whole picture…and look at the many compromises they have made to facilitate a “practical” deal. Any compromises what so ever to the Faith, small or big, is a betrayal of that Faith. Menzingen is not above that Divine Law -“Either you are with Me [totality], or you are against Me”, says our Lord.
You said that you have read “those Docuмents”. Yet, the evidence is plain to see. You chose to take the political side of Menzingen and parse the contents to make those compromises full of “foot notes” at the bottom of a page. That is what the conciliarists do to “try please everyone”.
The facts remain; there are real compromises within the evidence officiated from Menzingen herself; ambiguities and all; regardless if one wants to call them “prudential”.
With prayers.
-
John Anthony,
Here is a thought to ponder.
If you cannot understand "why" there is a staunch world-wide "Catholic Resistance" coming from all of the Traditional Catholic corners, and from all of the other Traditional Religious orders against Bishop Fellay, and his administration, from the compromises the SSPX has been making, you do not think that there is something seriously wrong with the contents of all of that evidence?
Or, is it just a [political] misunderstanding?
-
I realize hollingsworth that you have a strong will, and I understand your desires as a layman; yet, you have not understood my context. It is very innate for them; as it is innate to be tied to your own mother.
Over a year in the crisis, is still "fresh"; one does not abandon their family when they are having successes in helping other Priestly [family] members.
To be clear. I am not advocating a "yellow brick road"; my posts show the contrary. I am trying to understand the situation the way it is presently.
The only viable solution to not "hear it" anymore at this time, is to find an Independent Priest with no [innate] ties to the sspx.
It has nothing to do with a strong will. It has to do with clear thinking and common sense.
It is true that these priests will always be a part of that which formed and nurtured them but the mother has gone insane and they must love her from afar from now on.
The Church needs movements, and I use the plural because the Tradition cannot fight effectively with one or two groups waging the battle and restoring the practice of the Catholic Religion.
The SSPX has been overcome and the same fate awaits the resistance if they indulge their familial sentiments to the point where they will not cut the cords and become something more than a dissenting child of the family.
They are Catholic priests and have no need of the SSPX which can offer them nothing but diversion and distraction.
The time for skirmishing with their familial confreres is over and it is time to engage the Conciliar sect head on. If one consistently speaks in terms of war and warriors and Christeros, then it is indeed time to go to war against the Pope and the Bishops, and the people of God conciliar army who are daily attacking billions of souls with their poison.
Hollingsworth is right on point.
-
Dear Hollingsworth,
You say:
"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."
I'm having trouble understanding this.
Judgments regarding the H are not a matter of faith.
Public expression of H revisionism is, however, a crime in Germany and Switzerland. As a result, there is even less H revisionism there than in countries where it is not a crime. Criminalized or not, there are virtually no country in the First World where H revisionists are not considered moral lepers.
+Fellay was clearly very angry, as was Fr. Pfluger, because +Williamson had imperilled the SSPX's status in Germany, by an imprudent expression of what they consider a crank theory.
+Williamson's position on the H has been common knowledge in the Society and among its faithful for, I believe, better than twenty years. I would be interested in knowing what if anything Fr. Schmidberger or +Fellay had to say to him about it. My guess is little if anything, or it would have come out in the aftermath of the events of early 2009. As best I can recall, there was no mention in Fr. Pfluger's personal letter to +W of any previous admonishment by the Society.
+Williamson is clearly not very knowledgeable about H revisionism. When he spoke at St. Athanasius during Thanksgiving week in 2008, it was clear to me that what he knew dated from the late 1980s. So he is clearly not an H revisionist devotee, and seems to have limited his remarks on the matter to audiences of his fans. He certainly has been quite quiet on the matter since the events of early 2009.
Now even those who agree with +Williamson on the H can fairly conclude that he was amazingly imprudent, and imperilled the SSPX's status in Germany.
So: can you explain to me how +Fellay's "dissociating" himself from +W's H revisionism is something so horrific that it turned you against the SSPX leadership?
Yet:
"Q. 9. Other commentators, who obviously were poorly informed, likened your decision to the positions of Bishop Richard Williamson or of Fr. Floriano Abrahamowicz. What can you tell us on this subject?
A. As the District Superior of the Society of St. Pius X in Italy, I have to make it clear that both Bishop Williamson and Fr. Floriano Abrahamowicz were expelled from our Society precisely because some of their positions are incompatible with the vocation of the Society."
-
It is true that these priests will always be a part of that which formed and nurtured them but the mother has gone insane and they must love her from afar from now on.
My original post is being "distorted".
I have only made an observation of the present circuмstances of why Bishop Williamson and the other SSPX priests are doing what they are doing; they have said it themselves.
As you know as layman, it is not our call to "start" something; it is Bishop Williamson's call to start that; which I am in full support of; not for him to state as he does, as a Catholic Bishop, that he does NOT want to lead.
Nothing will move " Jonas", even if it is in God's will, until he goes through the "belly of the whale" himself...
I think that Consecrating other Bishops is the Key, and the defining moment of "detachment".
-
+Williamson had imperilled the SSPX's status in Germany, by an imprudent expression of what they consider a crank theory.
What you write is a lie. There was material on Ignis Ardens and perhaps on Cath Info about the status in Germany. Bishop Williamson telling the truth about the 'h0Ɩ0cαųst' is not the reason for problems the SSPX have in that District.
There are a few threads outlining this.
-
JG:
What you write is a lie. There was material on Ignis Ardens and perhaps on Cath Info about the status in Germany. Bishop Williamson telling the truth about the 'h0Ɩ0cαųst' is not the reason for problems the SSPX have in that District.
There are a few threads outlining this.
Yes, this is a damned lie! Thank you for saying that. The Society, through their spokesmen +Fellay, Frs. Phluger and Schmidberger, et al. ran around frenetically after the infamous interview declaring solemnly and unequivocally that the Society's "position, visa-a-vis the h0Ɩ0cαųst, was not their own. This could mean that in German sspx schools and in sspx schools elsewhere, the children receive false history as it touches that event.
-
John A:
Public expression of H revisionism is, however, a crime in Germany and Switzerland. As a result, there is even less H revisionism there than in countries where it is not a crime. Criminalized or not, there are virtually no country in the First World where H revisionists are not considered moral lepers.
John, do you consider H revisionists "moral lepers?" Just curious.
-
Not that it probably matters to anyone, but I am not going to post on Cathinfo after this, if the I get another one of these server time outs. This has gone far enough. There are better ways to spend one's time.
-
John A: Public expression of H revisionism is, however, a crime in Germany and Switzerland. As a result, there is even less H revisionism there than in countries where it is not a crime. Criminalized or not, there are virtually no country in the First World where H revisionists are not considered moral lepers.
John, do you consider H revisionists "moral lepers?" Just curious.
No. The matter is a historical one, and should be dealt with like any other historical phenomenon, not by putting people in jail. Of course, to say this publicly is itself arguably a violation of the law of more than one natio.
-
JG:What you write is a lie. There was material on Ignis Ardens and perhaps on Cath Info about the status in Germany. Bishop Williamson telling the truth about the 'h0Ɩ0cαųst' is not the reason for problems the SSPX have in that District.
There are a few threads outlining this.
Yes, this is a damned lie! Thank you for saying that. The Society, through their spokesmen +Fellay, Frs. Phluger and Schmidberger, et al. ran around frenetically after the infamous interview declaring solemnly and unequivocally that the Society's "position, visa-a-vis the h0Ɩ0cαųst, was not their own. This could mean that in German sspx schools and in sspx schools elsewhere, the children receive false history as it touches that event.
I beg your pardons?
If I were to get up on a soapbox in the middle of Berlin and start reading from, say, Germar Rudolf's Lectures on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, and giving out copies, I would be arrested, and my inventory would be burned.
When +W's case was thrown out last year, at about the same time there was the reversal of a conviction of an 80-year-old gent who was overheard telling a bartender of his skepticism regarding the H. I don't know whether he, too, is being retried.
And you guys are telling me that if the German authorities were to conclude that the Society in general shared +W's believes on the H, this would not affect their ability to run schools, or even operate it Germany?
-
And you guys are telling me that if the German authorities were to conclude that the Society in general shared +W's believes on the H, this would not affect their ability to run schools, or even operate it Germany?
Germany should be put under interdict.
-
And you guys are telling me that if the German authorities were to conclude that the Society in general shared +W's believes on the H, this would not affect their ability to run schools, or even operate it Germany?
The problems with the schools have got nothing to do with what you raise here.
-
JG:What you write is a lie. There was material on Ignis Ardens and perhaps on Cath Info about the status in Germany. Bishop Williamson telling the truth about the 'h0Ɩ0cαųst' is not the reason for problems the SSPX have in that District.
There are a few threads outlining this.
Yes, this is a damned lie! Thank you for saying that. The Society, through their spokesmen +Fellay, Frs. Phluger and Schmidberger, et al. ran around frenetically after the infamous interview declaring solemnly and unequivocally that the Society's "position, visa-a-vis the h0Ɩ0cαųst, was not their own. This could mean that in German sspx schools and in sspx schools elsewhere, the children receive false history as it touches that event.
I beg your pardons?
If I were to get up on a soapbox in the middle of Berlin and start reading from, say, Germar Rudolf's Lectures on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, and giving out copies, I would be arrested, and my inventory would be burned.
When +W's case was thrown out last year, at about the same time there was the reversal of a conviction of an 80-year-old gent who was overheard telling a bartender of his skepticism regarding the H. I don't know whether he, too, is being retried.
And you guys are telling me that if the German authorities were to conclude that the Society in general shared +W's believes on the H, this would not affect their ability to run schools, or even operate it Germany?
Its ability to operate schools properly is already compromised as they teach and enforce the false history which was the cause of their problems with Bishop Williamson and the Jews who demand complete obedience to the fable and receive it from Menzingen.
-
Whilst on the SSPX schools in Germany this must be remembered. This is really old news though I am guessing 'stbrigidswell' and others will read this for the first time.
The Unimpeachable Krah
Disturbing new information has emerged in relation to Maximilian Krah and can be viewed by visiting the following link. The docuмent concludes with a question for Bishop Fellay.
“Why is this pornographic lusting creep allowed access to the St. Therese Girl's School in Germany?”
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6986
“Maximilian Krah publicly claimed that he was an "unimpeachable Catholic."
When his public Facebook presentation was noted by outraged Catholics some very interesting insights into the diabolical character that is Maximilian Krah mysteriously disappeared from his Facebook account.”
So, for the public record:
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/i...dpost&p=9654823
QUOTE
JMKViking
Has anyone viewed the facebook page of M. Krah? https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=125...iends&v=friends
I personally find a few interesting things on the page of a reported practicing Catholic and a 'traditionalist' at that. And among his 'friends' he is linked to the Israel Embassy of Berlin. I suppose that would make sense in his profession? And in Activities/Interests he lists Donald Rumsfeld. Very interesting indeed. He also is friends with the old chamber pot keeper J. Christopher Pryor.
QUOTE
AdoramusTe
Interesting also is that he lists Madonna among his favourite artists and the 'erotic drama' 9 1/2 Weeks as among his favourite movies, a description of which I will not post here as it is quite explicit! Those who are interested may read Wikipedia's article on it. If he is a Traditional Catholic then certainly he has given in to the world!
QUOTE
Elizabeth
Public admiration of [sic]Madonna is an endorsement of pure blasphemy, not to mention pornography.
QUOTE
JMKViking
Someone has apparently taken notice of the publicity generated due to M. Krah's FACEBOOK page...
9 1/2 weeks is absent from the page - REMOVED
Madonna is no longer a 'musical' entry - REMOVED
-
Also the business partner of Bishop Fellay 'liked' "DesignerHeels" It was then removed from his Facebook page.Why would a man on the board of an SSPX girls school like ""DesignerHeels"
Activities and Interests
Other Columbia University, Thomas de Maizière, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, Angela Merkel, London Business School, KDStV Chursachsen, 116. Mittelschule Dresden, Kreuzgymnasium, Columbia University, Columbia Business School Executive MBA Program, LinkedIn, Mittelstandsvereinigung der CDU Dresden, CDU Dresden, Hotel Sacher, Josef Ackermann, Agent Provocateur, Joachim Gauck, Exzellenz für Dresden, Junge Union Dresden, Junge Union Sachsen & Niederschlesien, Lufthansa, Lufthansa Senator Status, The Oratory of S Philip Neri in London (Brompton Oratory), Pushkin Cafe, Russian Ministry for Economic Development, Sankt Petersburg, Moscow, Patrick Schreiber, GUT JAIDHOF, DesignerHeels, vorne-sitzen.de, Ipad 2, Boris Johnson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, EINSTEIN KAFFEE Dresden, Bobby Jindal, Friedrich Merz, Columbia Business School, Russian Standard Deutschland, gerne-katholisch.de, EB&Flow, CDU Dresden - Ortsverband Zschachwitz, CallaJet.de (Privatjet Charter Broker), German Embassy Washington, CDU-Fraktion Sachsen, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Henryk M. Broder, The Economist, Support German Troops, Donald Rumsfeld, Dmitri Shostakovich, Wir wollen Guttenberg zurück, DER SPIEGEL, Nicolas Sarkozy, Royal Opera House, Semperoper, FÜR Stuttgart 21, Benedikt XVI, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, SPAM, CDU Hamburg, EMBA Global Asia 2012and 47 more
-
He also liked "Agent Provocateur" which is a lingerie retailer. Dr Krah also laments a world without the miniskirt, wine and Israel.
-
To bring the thread back on topic there is much published where the "undecided" can be guided to. The Recusant has the latest on Fr. Touak, SSPX stating the "Resistance are going to Hell!"
Those who wish to remain faithful to the heritage of Archbishop Lefebvre "going to Hell" is very disturbing.
All here:
http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/34889673-resistance-are-going-to-hell-
"They're going to end up in hell for their unjustified rebellion against their superiors."
Don't believe me? Follow the link, listen to the audio clip at the top of the page and see for yourself.
We await with interest to see how the District Superior of Australia, Fr. Fullerton, will respond to this scandalous public behaviour by one of his priests.
http://www.ourladysresistance.org/father-taouk.html
-
Also regarding wanting the demise of the SSPX, the recent Eleison Comments of Bishop Williamson is very good. The sermon given in 1984 is relevant today. Of course we know there is a book titled "Nineteen Eighty-Four".
The well known quote is true of the resistance. "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
-
I see even the man who is on "another dimension" from me is back. Mr JMQ. One of those who want nothing to do with me.
We all have a soul to save.
-
Just regarding the material about Herr Krah, I shared for benefit of new people. I don't know about other Districts but few in Ireland gave a hoot about it.
I am worse to have bothered with it. There were a few updates about it past few days but up to SSPX laity. It's their fight.
-
Did the naive woman, who was put under "Holy Obedience" and mentioned it on Cath Info ever wonder why she was placed under these "Holy Obedience".To an objective observer it was quite manipulative on the part of the cleric.
telesphorus, who is banned from Cath Info. I disagreed with him on a few points but he was correct about lack of critical thinking among SSPX laity. Critical thinking or thinking is the basis for Academia.
The "blind obedience" and the 'pray,pay, obey' mantra was very successful.
Even 'Oblationem' a YouTube user stated if only Bishop Fellay had been questioned more.
Even a 'stbrigidswell' states he/she only read a certain docuмent last month. It's amazing.
Even Clare on Ignis Ardens was very opposed to respectful questioning yet even they removed professionally translated factual information. What a slur on the translator, who gave their time.
We can speculate of course.
-
The SSPX are paying a high price for their blind obedience which Bishop Williamson touched upon when introducing the St. Marcel Initiative
http://www.marcel.dinoscopus.org/
freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s and is now sinking the Society of St. Pius X
-
What is most important about the Krah business is that he is an undeniable illustration of the darkness which was allowed to take up residence in and influence the Society.
Even a cursory examination would show that no good has or will come from this transplant of worldly naturalism into this religious body.
"And seven more came"
-
What is most important about the Krah business is that he is an undeniable illustration of the darkness which was allowed to take up residence in and influence the Society.
Even a cursory examination would show that no good has or will come from this transplant of worldly naturalism into this religious body.
"And seven more came"
I still maintain there was little or no interest in the Krah business. Put simply, the revelations never threatened Bishop Fellay or Menzingen.
SSPX laity in Ireland didn't care less about it. Concern yes about their chapels, an agreement but nothing to threaten Bishop Fellay.
I don't dispute Bishop Fellay "has problems" and is disliked but I don't expect a rebellion in Ireland.
Laity going on pilgrimage with Fr Morgan and other priests was a public show of support for the SSPX.
-
J Paul stated it well on another thread. We don't need Bishop Fellay and the Church of Bishop Fellay.
Bishop Fellay and the society have become irrelevant to the fight for tradition and their apologists and supporters with them.
-
What is most important about the Krah business is that he is an undeniable illustration of the darkness which was allowed to take up residence in and influence the Society.
Even a cursory examination would show that no good has or will come from this transplant of worldly naturalism into this religious body.
"And seven more came"
I still maintain there was little or no interest in the Krah business. Put simply, the revelations never threatened Bishop Fellay or Menzingen.
SSPX laity in Ireland didn't care less about it. Concern yes about their chapels, an agreement but nothing to threaten Bishop Fellay.
I don't dispute Bishop Fellay "has problems" and is disliked but I don't expect a rebellion in Ireland.
Laity going on pilgrimage with Fr Morgan and other priests was a public show of support for the SSPX.
I do not believe that the laity at large ever grasped the importance of these issues due to the fact that it was complex and a picture of its import and implications were not easily seen unless one were very interested and two one had sufficient time to digest the material.
People had neither the time to get interested nor the inclination to delve deeper into it due to the fact that a campaign of diversion and suppression was instituted almost immediately by Menzingen.
It was removed from several key websites and overwhelmed by unrelated and deceptive rhetoric from Society clerics and spokesmen.
It needed to gain traction, it never did due to the above factors.
How many times have you heard a resistance priest raise this issue in a sermon?? Bishop Fellay sure, Father Rostand sure, Krah and his Jєωιѕн associations.......?????
It is not just the laity.
-
What is most important about the Krah business is that he is an undeniable illustration of the darkness which was allowed to take up residence in and influence the Society.
Even a cursory examination would show that no good has or will come from this transplant of worldly naturalism into this religious body.
"And seven more came"
I still maintain there was little or no interest in the Krah business. Put simply, the revelations never threatened Bishop Fellay or Menzingen.
SSPX laity in Ireland didn't care less about it. Concern yes about their chapels, an agreement but nothing to threaten Bishop Fellay.
I don't dispute Bishop Fellay "has problems" and is disliked but I don't expect a rebellion in Ireland.
Laity going on pilgrimage with Fr Morgan and other priests was a public show of support for the SSPX.
I do not believe that the laity at large ever grasped the importance of these issues due to the fact that it was complex and a picture of its import and implications were not easily seen unless one were very interested and two one had sufficient time to digest the material.
People had neither the time to get interested nor the inclination to delve deeper into it due to the fact that a campaign of diversion and suppression was instituted almost immediately by Menzingen.
It was removed from several key websites and overwhelmed by unrelated and deceptive rhetoric from Society clerics and spokesmen.
It needed to gain traction, it never did due to the above factors.
How many times have you heard a resistance priest raise this issue in a sermon?? Bishop Fellay sure, Father Rostand sure, Krah and his Jєωιѕн associations.......?????
It is not just the laity.
It wouldn't be necessary for resistance priests to raise the matter in their sermons because resistance priests and laity share the worldview held by Archbishop Lefebvre. The "submersives" as they have been called continue the work of Archbishop Lefebvre
-
I do not believe that the laity at large ever grasped the importance of these issues due to the fact that it was complex and a picture of its import and implications were not easily seen unless one were very interested and two one had sufficient time to digest the material.
The SSPX laity, who branded me a 'rebel' at the funeral of Deirdre Manifold where at Mass offered by an Institute of Christ the King priest in the very week Bishop Williamson was 'expelled'. The one chosen by the Archbishop.
I asked them what was their main concern with all these complex matters. "Losing their chapel" was their reply. Given they were at a Mass offered by the Institute of Christ the King in the week Bishop Williamson was 'expelled', they didn't seem loyal to 'their' chapel. I found it strange. Dr Krah and Bishop Fellay will decide what happens to the chapels, property of the SSPX.
I had laugh at being branded a 'rebel'. A rebel for supporting the one chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
Even stgobnait on this forum stated clearly more and more SSPX laity also attend the Indult. I found it ironic as Fr Morgan stated not to attend the Indult. Alas, his pious union is now no better than the traitors, Archbishop Lefebvre spoke of. The FSSP and others.
I was always baffled to see 'Indult' newspapers being promoted outside SSPX chapels. Why did the clergy never take action against 'Catholic Voice' being promoted? The other pro-Jєωιѕн rag 'Alive' is also promoted.
-
Even stgobnait on this forum stated clearly more and more SSPX laity also attend the Indult. I found it ironic as Fr Morgan stated not to attend the Indult. Alas, his pious union is now no better than the traitors, Archbishop Lefebvre spoke of. The FSSP and others.
John, that then is really the point, The Society is now become a deluxe model of Ecclesia Dei faux Tradition.
The Krah matter though, stands outside of considerations of just the SSPX. It represents a visible and bold introduction of Jєωιѕн power and associations into Tradition itself. The scourge of Nostra Aetatism has consumed the Society and Rome and is seeking to pacify all pockets of resistance to itself.
True Catholics are the prey. It will eventually a response of fight or die for the truly faithful.
-
Even stgobnait on this forum stated clearly more and more SSPX laity also attend the Indult. I found it ironic as Fr Morgan stated not to attend the Indult. Alas, his pious union is now no better than the traitors, Archbishop Lefebvre spoke of. The FSSP and others.
John, that then is really the point, The Society is now become a deluxe model of Ecclesia Dei faux Tradition.
The Krah matter though, stands outside of considerations of just the SSPX. It represents a visible and bold introduction of Jєωιѕн power and associations into Tradition itself. The scourge of Nostra Aetatism has consumed the Society and Rome and is seeking to pacify all pockets of resistance to itself.
True Catholics are the prey. It will eventually a response of fight or die for the truly faithful.
The SSPX are a fraud. They are the deluxe model you write of. I agree.
Of course the Krah business matters and in the wider realm of Tradition many were receptive.
I actually met people, who are not long attending the SSPX and are more concerned and aware than those attending for many years. Outside of the SSPX genuine truth seekers have not ignored this grave matter.
We all know the Jєωιѕн power holds over the Vatican and in society in general. The SSPX, who fought against International Jewry formally surrendered and over time have become weak. The late Erich Priebke spoke in his last interview of how Benedict XVI was afraid of the Jews.
The Jews won at Vatican II but sadly over the years Catholics have got soft in fighting these enemies.
The Jєωιѕн power increased because Catholics lost their way and haven't realised the fight.
-
It never occurs to these people that Bishop Fellay should be held to a standard of doctrinal perfection, yet Fr. Pfeiffer need not bother:
Bishop Fellay can (and should) be taken to task for his statements, but Fr. Pfeiffer is given a free pass when he pretends the AFD is official SSPX policy; that we can no longer attend SSPX Masses because that makes the SSPX the same as the FSSP; that Bishop Fellay wants to start a schism and back BXVI; etc.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
These people are like uber-accordistas: Unwilling to recognize the errors of a movement they identify with, for fear of hurting the "cause."
How is that any more honest than the accordistas?
PS: Also posted this in the "upside of Bishop Fellay's comments" thread, since it is relevant to both threads.
-
It never occurs to these people that Bishop Fellay should be held to a standard of doctrinal perfection, yet Fr. Pfeiffer need not bother:
Bishop Fellay can (and should) be taken to task for his statements, but Fr. Pfeiffer is given a free pass when he pretends the AFD is official SSPX policy; that we can no longer attend SSPX Masses because that makes the SSPX the same as the FSSP; that Bishop Fellay wants to start a schism and back BXVI; etc.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
These people are like uber-accordistas: Unwilling to recognize the errors of a movement they identify with, for fear of hurting the "cause."
How is that any more honest than the accordistas?
PS: Also posted this in the "upside of Bishop Fellay's comments" thread, since it is relevant to both threads.
This is devolving into another "but he does it too" thread as is the other thread. Ruminating over the faults and shortcomings of the two leaders is an unprofitable exercise. It is time to move on to things that actually matter in the life and struggle of the Church.
-
Great old thread -- amazing what content is here on CathInfo if you dig around.