I can understand disagreeing with some of the Society’s prudential decisions but to say it’s gone Liberal is disingenuous

Fortunately, someone wrote this:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catalog-of-compromise-change-and-contradiction-in-the-sspx/

Divine Mercy devotions, selling  books by Ratzinger and von Balthasar, the Flying Squirrel, raising money for the FSSP, etc, etc.

Nope, no liberalism here!

Not to beleaguer the point, but we are meant to be the Church Militant.  Militant means militant.  When we see Our Lord being abused in his Sacred Species we are to RISE UP to defend him.  That’s what the Society USE to do...we would have a Rosary procession to our local NO Bishops house and then 200 of us would kneel on the sidewalk and offer the Rosary in reperation for the   sacrilege’s committed in his diocese.  We always let him know in advance that we were coming and always invited him in advance to join us, but he never did.

It had come to our attention that the local parish was committing grave abuses to the Blessed Sacrament.  After Sunday Mass our priest led a Eucharistic procession to the front steps of the church, as we knelt on the concrete sidewalk we offered Benediction to Our Lord in reperation for the sins and abuses committed against our Eucharistic Lord.

Let me tell ya something Banezian...THIS...is what made the SSPX what it was...Warrior Priests...trained by Warrior Bishops...to do battle against anyone, at any time, in any diocese, who dared to insult Our Lord or His Holy Catholic Church!

Such actions of “Taken the fight to the man” have all but disappeared.  Sad.

Now a letter written by a SG, from a cushy chair, in a European chalet, is considered “Militant”. Now THATS funny!

Divine Mercy devotions were a weekly thing at the SSPX chapel in Campbell, CA since before 1984. This was under Father Gregory Post. Now that this chapel has relocated to Los Gatos I don't know the routine.

That’s sad to know he would roll out a devotion twice condemned by the pre-conciliar Holy Office, but there have always been SSPX priests who had their own ideas when it came to pre-conciliar condemned private devotions (including +Williamson).

The difference is that most of the Resistance distances itself from +Williamson’s endorsement of Valtorta, whereas the SSPX bow includes the Divine Mercy in its published books (eg., Spiritual Combat), where it formerly and often condemned it:


#51: Contradiction ("Saint" Faustina and the Divine Mercy Devotion):

It used to be that the SSPX uniformly rejected the practice of inculcating and/or promoting novel and questionable conciliar devotions attributed to dubiously "canonized" saints, and the "Divine Mercy" devotion of Sr. Faustina Kawalski was no exception.

In an excellent 2010 article, Fr. Peter Scott (former US District Superior) took aim at the Divine Mercy devotion, noting that it was:

"Condemned by the Holy Office.  There were two decrees from Rome on this question, both of the time of Pope John XXIII. The Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, in a plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958, made the following decisions: The supernatural nature of the revelations made to Sister Faustina is not evident.  No feast of Divine Mercy is to be instituted.  It is forbidden to divulge images and writings that propagate this devotion under the form received by Sister Faustina.

The second decree of the Holy Office was on March 6, 1959, in which the following was established:  The diffusion of images and writings promoting the devotion to Divine Mercy under the form proposed by the same Sister Faustina was forbidden.  The prudence of the bishops is to judge as to the removal of the aforesaid images that are already displayed for public honor."
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?article_id=2895§ion=articles&subsection=show_article

It was not until the Polish Pope lifted the censure upon the works of Sr. Faustina in 1978 that this devotion was "rehabilitated" in and for the conciliar church.

That fact, along with the pride and presumption Fr. Scott notes in Sr. Faustina's Diary, sufficed for SSPXers (clergy and lay) to steer clear of this new devotion.

How surprising it was, then, to see this devotion creeping into the SSPX during the post-2012 years of SSPX ralliement (or, perhaps not).

On 6/26/15, the Spanish language resistance blog (Non Possumus) published an article titled "The Neo-FSSPX and its Double Face II," from which the material below is excerpted:
https://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2015/06/la-neo-fsspx-y-su-doble-cara-ii.html




















[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]


These few examples, taken from official SSPX websites, publishing houses, and newsletters suffice to illustrate a disturbing new openness to conciliar "saints" and devotions which stands in sharp contrast to the prudent spirit which animated Fr. Scott's article.

But if you are going to join the conciliar church, you must not reject its "saints" and devotions.[/font][/size]
The Angelus Online - what are we to think of the Divine Mercy devotion.pdf (99.11 kB - downloaded 1 times.)
Non Possumus_ LA NEO-FSSPX Y SU DOBLE CARA II.pdf (3805.33 kB - downloaded 1 times.)
(1) FSSPX we Wrocławiu - Posts.pdf (1519.74 kB - downloaded 1 times.)
Assumption Chapel - St Marys KS - Bulletin 12 07 2014.pdf (1812.36 kB - downloaded 1 times.)
Sarto_Katalog2010.pdf (5773.68 kB - downloaded 1 times.)

Bump.

Good bump reminder.
Pfeiffer lost his mind long ago.  
Pray God bring him, his handler, and all those associated with him, back to the Faith before it is too late. 

All he needs to do is to go sedevacantist.  Then he'd have his choice of about a half dozen Thuc-line bishops who would consecrate him and ordain his seminarians ... although not all lines are genuine, and, knowing Father Pfeiffer, he would end up picking one of the shady ones.

I was just reviewing this letter, and ... did I call it or not?

That Father Pfeiffer picked one of the shady Thuc lines.

Now, he didn't have to go sedevacantist, since he found a sedevacantist bishop who wasn't dogmatic.