Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on December 31, 2021, 03:35:33 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw9kh1ITI4A
Minute 0:00 - 11:00 = Relations with Rome:
1:30 - 2:00 - The SSPX has become more of a focal point because of Traditionis Custodes, but not because we are better than the indult communities.
5:00 - 5:45 - In 2016, Rome did not require the SSPX to accept Vatican 2 carte blanche, but in 2017 Card. Muller imposed the entire council and post-conciliar reform uponthe SSPX, and this set back negotiations 30 years.
6:00 - 6:30 - Canonical regularization has always been attached to a doctrinal declaration, which we could not sign, and can not sign
[Mental reservation: Bishop Fellay DID sign the April 15 Doctrinal Declaration, which was terrible. But seeing the opposition and resistance this caused within the SSPX, with 3 of the 4 bishops and countless priests and faithful opposing him, BXVI made a counter-offer he knew Bishop Fellay must refuse, thereby allowing the SSPX to come back together to be captured en masse, and avoid the rise of another SSPX2B, and preserving the weak leadership of Bishop Fellay, whom Rome wanted to survive the forthcoming 2012 General Chapter...in which Fr. Pagliarani played a large part, by stifling Fr. Benoit de Jorna's initial movement to condemn Fellay's actions.]
6:30 - 7:30 - In 2018, the SSPX tried to reopen negotiations, but Rome was not interested.
7:30 - 8:00 - Fr. Pagliarani explains that Rome wanted to give a canonical recognition, but attached to it a doctrinal declaration, which Fr. Pagliarani saysis not acceptable.
[Note here a significant departure from the approach of Bishop Fellay (who famously wrote to BXVI after things fell apart, seemingly not understanding why the latter did not accept his signed AFD, and telling him that he thought they had an understanding to come to a canonical agreement, and discuss the doctrinal issues later).
Had Bishop Fellay taken that position in 2012, none of what transpired since would have been necessary!!!]
8:00 - 8:35 - But it was Rome, not the SSPX, which since 2018, has decided not to discuss the doctrinal issues and end the negotiations.
8:35 - 9:05 - Why did Rome do this? Because, says Fr. Pagliarani, Rome realized that after all these years, they cannot convince the SSPX, and neither can the SSPX convince them.
[Partially true, and partially wrong: Some in the SSPX were in fact convinced, most importantly Bishop Fellay and those who brought about so many changes in furtherance of reaching an accord. But on the side of Rome, this statement is mostly true: None have given outward acknowledgement of the SSPX's positions in general.
But Fr. Pagliarani: Why do you not perceive that what you have just said above is the real reason the Romans stopped the discussions? You differed from your predecessor, and because of that, Rome says there's no point in talking!
Perhaps it will not be necessary for you to condemn Bishop Fellay openly, but can you at least start to repair the damage he caused? I believe you can, and the beginning would be to worry about sitting down to talk to Bishop Williamson, not Pope Francis. Then it would not be necessary for you to beg for bishops, house +Huonder, or kow-tow to a hostile Rome for your own survival.]
-
11:05 - 22:00 - Reasons for the Growth of the SSPX
11:05 - 14:30 - The SSPX was ready for th ePlannedemic, and the zeal of the priests kept them from closing down like other places did.
[This is certainly true of the United States. Not so much in the UK, Ireland, and elsewhere, where the faithful were told by these same priests that they had no choice but to close in light of governmen declarations.]
16:30 - 16:50 - If the SSPX stays faithful to the heritage of +Lefebvre, God will bless the SSPX and it will grow.
[I agree. But for the last 20 years, the SSPX has negotiated away the heritage of the SSPX, often using the exact opposite argument: "If we had a canonical agreement, we could grow the apostolate!" It was the same argument +Lefebvre rejected at La Baroux, and the same argument the SSPX rejected when advanced by Campos. But it was precisely the same argument advanced by the accordists, especially since 2012.
If Fr. Pagliarani intends to reverse the squandering of its heritage for the sake of an accord, then I would certainly be supportive of any tangible changes he institutes toward that end. Tangible, because actions speak louder than words, and are the measuring stick of both sincerity and resolve.]
17:00 - 17:10 - The SSPX is also growing because there is a reaction in the Church against Francis.
17:10 - 17:25 - BXVI represented the last attempt to instill the ILLUSION of continuity between the council and tradition.
[Bravo! The hermeneutic of continuity accepted by +Fellay in the 2012 AFD is in this sentence rejected]
18:20 - 19:10 - Pope Francis does not feel this need to reconcile tradition with the Council.
19:10 - 20:45 - Francis is now touching morals, and because morals affect the faithful more concretely and directly than the doctrinal corruptions of the council, the faithful have become more perceptive to the deviations from sound Catholic teaching, and the rupture with tradition. This has them looking at Tradition and the Society.
20:45 - 22:00 - Also Traditionis Custodes has caused some to take another look at the SSPX
-
11:05 - 22:00 - Reasons for the Growth of the SSPX
11:05 - 14:30 - The SSPX was ready for th ePlannedemic, and the zeal of the priests kept them from closing down like other places did.
[This is certainly true of the United States. Not so much in the UK, Ireland, and elsewhere, where the faithful were told by these same priests that they had no choice but to close in light of governmen declarations.]
16:30 - 16:50 - If the SSPX stays faithful to the heritage of +Lefebvre, God will bless the SSPX and it will grow.
[I agree. But for the last 20 years, the SSPX has negotiated away the heritage of the SSPX, often using the exact opposite argument: "If we had a canonical agreement, we could grow the apostolate!" It was the same argument +Lefebvre rejected at La Baroux, and the same argument the SSPX rejected when advanced by Campos. But it was precisely the same argument advanced by the accordists, especially since 2012.
If Fr. Pagliarani intends to reverse the squandering of its heritage for the sake of an accord, then I would certainly be supportive of any tangible changes he institutes toward that end. Tangible, because actions speak louder than words, and are the measuring stick of both sincerity and resolve.]
17:00 - 17:10 - The SSPX is also growing because there is a reaction in the Church against Francis.
17:10 - 17:25 - BXVI represented the last attempt to instill the ILLUSION of continuity between the council and tradition.
[Bravo! The hermeneutic of continuity accepted by +Fellay in the 2012 AFD is in this sentence rejected]
18:20 - 19:10 - Pope Francis does not feel this need to reconcile tradition with the Council.
19:10 - 20:45 - Francis is now touching morals, and because morals affect the faithful more concretely and directly than the doctrinal corruptions of the council, the faithful have become more perceptive to the deviations from sound Catholic teaching, and the rupture with tradition. This has them looking at Tradition and the Society.
20:45 - 22:00 - Also Traditionis Custodes has caused some to take another look at the SSPX
Could it be that the American sspx priests have that typical distrust of government mentality? One of the complaints that Europeans make about Americans is that we are "anti authority".
-
The SSPX has become more of a focal point because of Traditionis Custodes, but not because we are better than the indult communities.
What does he mean by this? Shouldn't he think they are better than the indult? Does he see the SSPX and ICKSP and the FSSP all on the same footing?
-
The SSPX has become more of a focal point because of Traditionis Custodes, but not because we are better than the indult communities.
What does he mean by this? Shouldn't he think they are better than the indult? Does he see the SSPX and ICKSP and the FSSP all on the same footing?
Bingo!
-
Bingo!
Didn't Bp. Fellay admit in 2021 that the SSPX was fully regularized with Rome?
They did it a few years back (through a sleight of hand), via their agreement with the Argentine government legal initiative?
It was extended to the SSPX's global operations.
While trads in the Indult, FSSP and ICK wait for Francis to ban the TLM, the SSPX priests are not too worried?
I think Fr. Pagliarani's talk is propaganda just to feign that the SSPX is part of the "trad TLM persecution" under Francis.
Pag knows the SSPX has nothing to worry about since they've done a back-door deal with the Jєω-pope.
-
22:00 - 45:20 - Traditionis Custodes and the PCED Communities
22:00 - 24:40 - It does affect the Ecclesia Dei communities. On a personal basis, Fr. Pagliarani has nothing against these people. But, he has to acknowledge that when there is an error with their position, sooner or later, that error will bear consequences. They are today -in TC- bearing the consequences of an error rooted in their inception. We do not judge their intentions, but objectively, they made a mistake.
24:40 - 25:02 - The paradox is that the pope himself who is supposed to protect them, seems as though he cannot stand them, and has determined not to bear with them anymore.
25:05 - 26:45 - PCED was supposed to be a commission to protect the Latin Mass communities who did not want to go the way of the SSPX. 3 years ago, it was suppressed. Why? Because the idea of the Commission was to reintegrate these communities into the mainstream of the Church, and 30 years later, they were reintegrated enough. Therefore a commission is no longer needed. This is the official explanation.
26:45 28:40 - The Motu Proprio shows that some of them were not reintegrated enough. The Pope was still not happy with them.. Why? Francis says he cannot stand any longer using the old missal as an expression of a spirituality and priesthood, or an idea of the Church, which contradicts the one of Vatican II. He then reiterates that here these communities have been bitten again by the doctrinal problems they chose to overlook for the sake of a canonical solution which didnot address them.
[What is this but an implicit readmission of the existence of a conciliar church? It is also a rejection of the 2012 SSPX position of +Fellay, like it or not.]
29:10 - 30:00 - Fr. Pagliarani reads the quotes from TC in which the pope says there are some who think the council contradicted tradition, and therefore they haven't been integrated enough. Fr. Pagliarani then says, "This is what WE think. Maybe, we hope, some of them were thinking the same way. Hopefully"
32:15 - 32:33 - "The Latin Mass as an expression of the lex orandi of the Church is no longer permitted," says Fr. Pagliarani (quoting Francis). He appears to take great exception to this edict.
32:35 - 34:00 - Why did Rome finally make this decission? Because they fely like something went wrong. They realized that the TLM generates another conception of the Church, Mass, priestly life, etc. And they do not want that conception competing with the conciliar one! Theerefore, they withdrew the permission they had given. They want to remove the possibility of using the old Mass as a banner of Tradition.
34:00 - 34:30 - But the TLM is intrincically traditional; if a priest enters into the meanings of this rite, sooner or later he will question himself, and the council, etc. This is why it had to be stamped out.
34:30 - 37:53 - So its clear that all the concessoins, indults, during these last 50 years, they've all been made to people who wanted to stick to Tradition, at least the liturgy, but they just give a little bit in order to "heal" their illness of Traditionalism. He quotes Archbishop Roach (CDW) saying that these concessions were only there to encourage unity with the Church (i.e., acceptance of the council and the reforms), not to promote pre-conciliar Tradition. Reintegration was the only reason, and it failed. So now the experiment is over, and we go back to the requirements of Vatican II.
38:35 - 39:10 - For Rome, all these indults were just a drug administeredin order to drag people into the mainstream Church, and for PCED people, it was an illusion to make them believe they could keep Tradition without being persecuted. But it was not true.
40:03 - 41:00 The old Mass IS the banner of Tradition, but the Roman's tactics and use of the Missal is not worthy of the Church; it is not worthy of the Church to play with liturgical books as they have been doing.
41:00 - 43:25 - We want this Mass for the entire Church. We have NOT lost the sense of the Church. Whatever we build, it is for the Church. This Mass that we keep is for the Church. Sooner or later, this Mass will again become the only Mass of the Church. Because there is only one redemption. So July 16 was the sad end of a long experiment.
43:25 - End: How could +Lefebvre make the right decision in 1988? He had a supernatural capacity to be moved by the Holy Ghost. Even alone, against everybody, and isolated, he had a sensitivity to the will of God, and it is an infallible sign of holiness which becomes more and more evident over time.
-
The SSPX has become more of a focal point because of Traditionis Custodes, but not because we are better than the indult communities.
What does he mean by this? Shouldn't he think they are better than the indult? Does he see the SSPX and ICKSP and the FSSP all on the same footing?
He would love to see the SSPX being preferred because of Lefebvre/SSPX, and not because of a lack of alternatives.
-
The SSPX has become more of a focal point because of Traditionis Custodes, but not because we are better than the indult communities.
What does he mean by this? Shouldn't he think they are better than the indult? Does he see the SSPX and ICKSP and the FSSP all on the same footing?
He implicitly addresses this in the next section (which I was noting while you had already posted), which is all about how they made a big mistake by leaving aside the doctrinal considerations in favor of a canonical accord; that Rome was playing them all along to reintegrate them into conciliarism. He clearly does not see them on the same footing, therefore.
If you note my minute markers in the 3rd/final section on TC and the PCED, he notes that Francis's condemnation describes the SSPX, not the indult communities. Then he expresses hope that maybe there are a few doctrinal trads in the PCED crowd after all..."We hope" he says (after a pregnant pause).
See at 29:10...
-
Didn't Bp. Fellay admit in 2021 that the SSPX was fully regularized with Rome?
I thought so. SG Pagliarani must, I think, address the grave problems within his own apostolate. He must repudiate the "monstrous little man," Pope Francis- just as lay folks like Michael Matt have done. He must go hat in hand to Bp Williamson and beg forgiveness for the mistreatment of the good bishop by the Society. He must confront the sɛҳuąƖ predations of some SSPX priests, a matter which has never been seriously adjudicated by the Society. He must sever all connections with Zionists. In short, he must do a lot of in-house cleansing.
-
I thought so. SG Pagliarani must, I think, address the grave problems within his own apostolate. He must repudiate the "monstrous little man," Pope Francis- just as lay folks like Michael Matt have done. He must go hat in hand to Bp Williamson and beg forgiveness for the mistreatment of the good bishop by the Society. He must confront the sɛҳuąƖ predations of some SSPX priests, a matter which has never been seriously adjudicated by the Society. He must sever all connections with Zionists. In short, he must do a lot of in-house cleansing.
What an exciting scenario you have painted Holly.
Fr. Pagliarani making amends and turning the ship around to lead trads back to the true resistance battle.
In reality, if the Superior General were to try this, his wings would be clipped.
I can see Fr. Schmidberger picking-up the phone and Max Krah answering the call. The next thing you know, the SG would be reported as suffering unexpected heart attack.
It would be in the Jєωs best interest of course.
Besides, Fr. Pagliarani is culturally handicapped to take over the SSPX.
You need a German with imagination and daring.
It would have to be done like a Valkyrie plot, as Col. Clause von Stauffenberg did when he tried to depose Hitler and take over the nαzι gov’t.
As passionate Catholics as the Italians are, I don’t think they’d have the courage or capability to do it.
I suppose only with St. Michael’s help could it be done anyway.
-
11:05 - 22:00 - Reasons for the Growth of the SSPX
11:05 - 14:30 - The SSPX was ready for th ePlannedemic, and the zeal of the priests kept them from closing down like other places did.
[This is certainly true of the United States. Not so much in the UK, Ireland, and elsewhere, where the faithful were told by these same priests that they had no choice but to close in light of governmen declarations.]
16:30 - 16:50 - If the SSPX stays faithful to the heritage of +Lefebvre, God will bless the SSPX and it will grow.
[I agree. But for the last 20 years, the SSPX has negotiated away the heritage of the SSPX, often using the exact opposite argument: "If we had a canonical agreement, we could grow the apostolate!" It was the same argument +Lefebvre rejected at La Baroux, and the same argument the SSPX rejected when advanced by Campos. But it was precisely the same argument advanced by the accordists, especially since 2012.
If Fr. Pagliarani intends to reverse the squandering of its heritage for the sake of an accord, then I would certainly be supportive of any tangible changes he institutes toward that end. Tangible, because actions speak louder than words, and are the measuring stick of both sincerity and resolve.]
17:00 - 17:10 - The SSPX is also growing because there is a reaction in the Church against Francis.
17:10 - 17:25 - BXVI represented the last attempt to instill the ILLUSION of continuity between the council and tradition.
[Bravo! The hermeneutic of continuity accepted by +Fellay in the 2012 AFD is in this sentence rejected]
18:20 - 19:10 - Pope Francis does not feel this need to reconcile tradition with the Council.
19:10 - 20:45 - Francis is now touching morals, and because morals affect the faithful more concretely and directly than the doctrinal corruptions of the council, the faithful have become more perceptive to the deviations from sound Catholic teaching, and the rupture with tradition. This has them looking at Tradition and the Society.
20:45 - 22:00 - Also Traditionis Custodes has caused some to take another look at the SSPX
That's not correct. I don't know about the Cork and northern Ireland chapels, but Athlone, as far as was possible offered Masses in some manner I won't detail. This was in spite of aggressive and definite police harassment from one of the worst stations in the country. For example one man who filmed and made comments on the police presence in the Athlone Corpus Christi chapel saw them take a close interest in a custody dispute. His children were passed to the estranged mother. Dun Laoghaire did also try with Masses, but avoided closing as much as possible, offering Exposition and Communion outside Mass (this old custom should be revived as it survived until the 60s), even with a Garda station close enough to them. The diocesan cowards wouldn't offer Exposition in at least Dublin. It should be said in fairness that at least three or more diocesan priests just refused to close or cease offering public (New Order) Mass, and they are far more exposed than any SSPX priest. One diocesan Cavan priest was fined, and he did not pay.
-
That's not correct. I don't know about the Cork and northern Ireland chapels, but Athlone, as far as was possible offered Masses in some manner I won't detail. This was in spite of aggressive and definite police harassment from one of the worst stations in the country. For example one man who filmed and made comments on the police presence in the Athlone Corpus Christi chapel saw them take a close interest in a custody dispute. His children were passed to the estranged mother. Dun Laoghaire did also try with Masses, but avoided closing as much as possible, offering Exposition and Communion outside Mass (this old custom should be revived as it survived until the 60s), even with a Garda station close enough to them. The diocesan cowards wouldn't offer Exposition in at least Dublin. It should be said in fairness that at least three or more diocesan priests just refused to close or cease offering public (New Order) Mass, and they are far more exposed than any SSPX priest. One diocesan Cavan priest was fined, and he did not pay.
https://fsspx.ie/en/news-events/news/apostolate-gb-ireland-under-lockdown-1420-56505
-
The SSPX has become more of a focal point because of Traditionis Custodes, but not because we are better than the indult communities.
What does he mean by this? Shouldn't he think they are better than the indult? Does he see the SSPX and ICKSP and the FSSP all on the same footing?
Ambivalent use of words allowing for either of two interpretations: 1) we are better than the indult communities, or 2) we are not better than the indult communities.
-
The SSPX has become more of a focal point because of Traditionis Custodes, but not because we are better than the indult communities.
What does he mean by this? Shouldn't he think they are better than the indult? Does he see the SSPX and ICKSP and the FSSP all on the same footing?
This statement says it all, and it's why the SSPX has become just another indult mass.
-
This statement says it all, and it's why the SSPX has become just another indult mass.
Should you ever graduate from reading the funny papers to books, I'd advise reading more than the back cover in forming your opinions.
-
Should you ever graduate from reading the funny papers to books, I'd advise reading more than the back cover in forming your opinions.
Have you been to a local SSPX mission chapel lately?
-
The SSPX needs to return to the position of +Abp. Lefebvre. They will also need bishops. Bishop Williamson has provided them with bishops they can turn to. Will the SSPX get back on track and return to the defense of the Catholic Faith, the Mass, and the priesthood in the line of Abp Lefebvre? Probably not. But it is something to pray for. At this stage what will they become if they do not?
-
The SSPX needs to return to the position of +Abp. Lefebvre. They will also need bishops. Bishop Williamson has provided them with bishops they can turn to. Will the SSPX get back on track and return to the defense of the Catholic Faith, the Mass, and the priesthood in the line of Abp Lefebvre? Probably not. But it is something to pray for. At this stage what will they become if they do not?
And those Bishops will need to be approved by Bergolio. If not, you know the consequences. The problem is they are not concerned with consecrating Bishops but building monuments.
-
+Faure, +Aquino, +Zendejas and of course +Williamson are bishops the SSPX could turn to due to the state of emergency similar to the Arian crisis when St Athanasius defended our Holy Church or when the saintly Abp Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops in 1988.
Remember what Bishop Williamson said about the resistance. Paraphrasing: “that the SSPX was like a mere pilot light keeping the Faith and the resistance was like a pilot light of the pilot light”.
It’s time for the pilot light to kick in. And for defenders of our Faith in the line of Abp Lefebvre to see the wisdom and foresight in the actions of Bishop Williamson. It’s time to put pride aside and to defend the Faith, the Mass, and the priesthood like Abp Lefebvre. If the SSPX cannot rise to this occasion now, then sadly they are lost.
And you might be surprised to see indult Catholics wake-up to the scale of the crisis and move to the resistance position right past the SSPX.
-
Well, one can always hope and pray. But from my experience, the Neo-SSPX is lost. They are much more interested in temporal comforts than the salvation of souls.
-
Well, one can always hope and pray. But from my experience, the Neo-SSPX is lost. They are much more interested in temporal comforts than the salvation of souls.
Agree.
-
+Faure, +Aquino, +Zendejas and of course +Williamson are bishops the SSPX could turn to due to the state of emergency similar to the Arian crisis when St Athanasius defended our Holy Church or when the saintly Abp Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops in 1988.
Remember what Bishop Williamson said about the resistance. Paraphrasing: “that the SSPX was like a mere pilot light keeping the Faith and the resistance was like a pilot light of the pilot light”.
It’s time for the pilot light to kick in. And for defenders of our Faith in the line of Abp Lefebvre to see the wisdom and foresight in the actions of Bishop Williamson. It’s time to put pride aside and to defend the Faith, the Mass, and the priesthood like Abp Lefebvre. If the SSPX cannot rise to this occasion now, then sadly they are lost.
And you might be surprised to see indult Catholics wake-up to the scale of the crisis and move to the resistance position right past the SSPX.
Well said. Except that I think there's still a chance (maybe just a small chance) that the SSPX (particularly the leadership) can right itself and get back into line with what +ABL stood for, given that Fr. Pagliarani is at least beginning to admit to some of the realities of the situation.
-
Well said. Except that I think there's still a chance (maybe just a small chance) that the SSPX (particularly the leadership) can right itself and get back into line with what +ABL stood for, given that Fr. Pagliarani is at least beginning to admit to some of the realities of the situation.
God willing
-
Was pondering our situation in terms of Catholic history.
Has there ever been a time when the Pope went south and the entire Church hierarchy (including trads) was neutralized, like it is today?
Even in Catholic literature I don’t see any precedents for it?
The Arian Heresy did not go as far as today.
The one book that came close to it was “Lord of the World”. But even in that scenario, we still had a pope that was on our side.
.:facepalm:
-
Was pondering our situation in terms of Catholic history.
Has there ever been a time when the Pope went south and the entire Church hierarchy (including trads) was neutralized, like it is today?
Even in Catholic literature I don’t see any precedents for it?
The Arian Heresy did not go as far as today.
The one book that came close to it was “Lord of the World”. But even in that scenario, we still had a pope that was on our side.
.:facepalm:
Look on the bright side, Incred, we are getting the rare chance to enter unexplored territory!
(https://i.imgur.com/1UeLIjN.png)
:facepalm:
-
That’s a good way to look at at it Emile.
We have to be innovative like Daniel Boone!
-
That’s a good way to look at at it Emile.
We have to be innovative like Daniel Boone!
The difference is that every Daniel Boone of this generation is autistic from the MMR series vaccines and has been eating ZOGchow instead of wild meat.
-
The difference is that every Daniel Boone of this generation is autistic from the MMR series vaccines and has been eating ZOGchow instead of wild meat.
As I recall, Daniel Boone of Kentucky, died of acute indigestion after eating a large plate of sweet potatoes 🍠
At that time period, he had nothing to properly wash it down his gullet.
For Maryland Catholics had yet to set-up the whisky/bourbon industry?
Boone’s pioneer spirit and innovation became American folklore, but Our Lady’s warning of prudence and moderation were apparently not part of him.