Author Topic: Fr. Pagliarani Talking Tough (And I like It)! (Read 468 times)

Mr G · « **on:** **Yesterday** at 06:56:17 AM »

Fr. Pagliarani Talking Tough (And I like It)! by Sean Johnson

Earlier today, the SSPX published a Letter containing Fr. Pagliarani’s response to Cardinal Fernandez’s call for dialogue in the wake of the Society’s Febriary 2 announcement of impending episcopal consecrations, slated for July 1. The Letter was preceded by a communique from headquarters in Menzingen, explaining why the Letter was being published in the public domain, and was also accompanied by several Appendices (two of which are historical in nature, and a third, interesting in its own right, which aimed to refute the Roman charge of schism, based on their contention that all episcopal consecrations impart both the power of order, and the power of jurisdiction). Regarding this latter docuмent, we think Fr. Pagliarani has refuted it so well as to leave scarcely anything else to say. Quite frankly, we were surprised and almost embarrassed to see modernist Rome making such an incompetent argument, and we encourage readers to give it a read.

The big news is, of course, the Letter itself, and as I’m being prodded to make some commentary, I’ll now discharge my mind concerning its contents, discussing first the spirit of the Letter, before moving on to some objections being made in its regard, and finally closing with some words of caution.

The Spirit of the Letter:

It seems like forever since the SSPX has publicly stated the futility of doctrinal discussions, much less rebuffed Roman advances or calls for interminable “dialogue.” Just last week, Fr. Pagliarani himself ran to Rome. But today, in this Letter, we have a rather abrupt change of character: A Fr. Pagliarani sounding very much like the post-1988 Archbishop Lefebvre again, and perhaps even harder (i.e., +Lefebvre said that from then on, he would place the discussions at the doctrinal level. But in the Letter, Fr. Pagliarani is saying even this is a waste of time).

Where has this welcome voice been? What does it mean for the infernal branding campaign, by which the SSPX has, for at least the last 15 years, muted its criticisms, looked the other way at Roman deviations of doctrine and discipline, and punished its own priests for violating this policy of non-condemnation?

It is, unfortunately, water under the bridge, to ask oneself how much damage could have been prevented, had this stout voice never left the Society. Had it maintained this spirit of combat for the faith 20 years ago, a Resistance movement might never have needed to organize. One is reminded of King Theoden, bewitched by the Wizard Saruman, and the manipulative tongue of Grima, suddenly awakening to his pathetic condition, and finding again his old strength, grasping his sword and preparing for battle.

But let us not be hyperbolic. This fighting spirit seems to have arisen from desperate circuмstances. Alright, “circuмstances are God’s marching orders,” and perhaps it was He who drove the SSPX into these circuмstances to save them from pursuit of a practical accord? But welcome as this fighting spirit is, who can say whether it sill sustain itself, spread through the ranks, spill over into other areas (e.g., the legitimacy of recent papal claimants; the Jєωιѕн question; the validity of the revised rites; etc.)? It is hopeful, to be sure, but let us not go further than that in our expectations, but rather watch as an analyst, seeing possibilities, opportunities, strengths and weaknesses, etc. Time is a good master, and we will know all things in due course.

An Objection: Schism

It is not just coming from modernist Rome, but also from those like myself who observe a papal vacancy. From some of these latter, the argument is that the practical and spiritual needs of the SSPX and/or its faithful are not sufficient reason to justify episcopal consecrations against the will of the man they recognize as “Pope.” Moreover, these perceive a logical inconsistency between said recognition and a sustained and systemic resistance to one they recognize as having immediate and universal jurisdiction to rule the Church. Finally, these note that similar historical claims (e.g., that of the 19th century Armenians) were rejected by traditional Rome, and/or that the Jesuits did not allege justification to resist Clement XIV when he suppressed the Jesuits.

What all of these objections have in common is that they overlook the universal state of grave public spiritual necessity afflicting the Church since Vatican II. Of course the SSPX position today would have been schismatic under Pius IX, or Clement XIV. Of course the Jesuits could not consider what the SSPX is preparing to do again in July. Of course Fr. Szal’s 1948 four criteria of schism perfectly fit the SSPX. Why? Because in none of those cases was a state of necessity present.

Moreover, one discovers that in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the consecration of bishops was not considered schismatic, but “merely” disobedient. That’s a substantial difference. And even in the bogus new Code, although the delict is now (allegedly) considered schismatic, Can. 1324(4) commutes that delict if one even subjectively thinks necessity is present (as the SSPX obviously does).

The tougher argument is the ecclesiological one: That a sustained and systematic policy of recognize and resist is not compatible with the juridical prerogatives of the pope and magisterium (e.g., per Vatican I). But even here, necessity must enter the discussion, because these canonical and moral norms do not exist in a theoretical vacuum, but in today’s abysmal circuмstances. If a modernist hierarchy and “pope” have spawned a new, independent, non-Catholic religion which they have consistently and relentlessly implemented since 1965, then it naturally follows that resistance will be widespread and sustained. In reaction to this, those who observe the papal vacancy will ask the tough question: How can a true pope (much less an entire string of them) place the universal Church into a state of grave spiritual necessity? The answer is: He can’t.

What does this mean for the SSPX? It means that at worst, they are guilty of logical inconsistency, but certainly not guilty of schism, since one cannot be schismatic for refusing obedience to a false claimant. It is for this reason (i.e., since I consider it very probable, and nearly certain that these recent claimants have not been legitimate successors of Peter) that I can hope the SSPX will continue its resistance to the false magisterium it naively recognizes as true, and push forward with these episcopal consecrations.

Caveat Emptor:

We like what we read in this letter, but we’ve been mislead for nearly 20 years. We hope this is the beginning of a definitive rupture with the conciliar religion. We hope that the SSPX, through desperation, has been cornered into destroying the long ralliement which would have it absorbed into the conciliar sect. Perhaps it will even begin to reconsider how it could be possible for a string of true popes to keep the Catholic Church plunged into grave spiritual necessity for generations. Archbishop Lefebvre was open to this possibility at various times.

But we are not fools. We are on the lookout for signs of infidelity. And this is the bottom line: If anything short of excommunications should be declared after the July 1 consecrations, then we will suspect this has all been what Fr. Chazal has referred to as “Kabuki theatre.” We have long suspected that modernist Rome has been reviewing dossiers of potential candidates for consecration, and perhaps it has found some it can live with. Perhaps it has even selected them for this purpose. Perhaps after the consecrations some pretext for Rome looking the other way (e.g., charity, or maintaining good relations, or not wanting to exacerbate relations, etc.) will be contrived. Whatever that pretext might be, if there are no excommunications declared, then the whole thing has been part of the ralliement process: The SSPX has submitted to modernist Rome behind closed doors, and by these consecrations, are even more entangled and subordinated to conciliar authority.

But if the excommunications transpire, the ralliement is sunk. Torpedoed for at least another generation. In that case, we will be able to accept the contents of this Letter at face value, and have reason for hope that the SSPX is awakening from the long spell of Saruman.

Incredulous · « **Reply #1 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:05:47 AM »

Bishop Fellay and his successor, Fr. Pagliarani successfully culled the SSPX faithful's herd of it's true Catholic Remnant.

The SSPX will never be the same.

But, we still love the circus Kayfabe, so please... bring on the next "jew-boy excommunication" act.

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #2 on:** **Yesterday** at 12:16:21 PM »

It is an interesting theory that consecration does not carry with it jurisdiction. Consider the hypothetical: The Conclave elects a deacon as pope. He says accepto to the Cardinal Deacon. At that point it seems that he becomes pope. But what if he refuses to be consecrated a bishop. Let us say that out of humility he wants to remain a deacon. Ok, so now he rules the Church as a deacon and he carries the title "Bishop of Rome" even though he is a deacon.

Who is going to tell him, "Excuse me, you must be consecrated a bishop if you want to be pope"?

Incredulous · « **Reply #3 on:** **Yesterday** at 02:26:56 PM »

Just modified your hypothetical scenario to reality:

The rigged Conclave elects a jew as pope. He says accepto to the usurped Papacy. At that point it seems that he becomes the visible pope. But what if he was never baptized? Let us say that out of humility he wants to remain a jew.
Ok, so now he rules the Church as a jew pope and he carries the title "Bishop of Rome" even though he is a jew.

Who is going to tell him, "Excuse me, you must be Catholic to be the pope"?

Michelle · « **Reply #4 on:** **Yesterday** at 03:15:11 PM »

^^^Exactly^^^

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Fr. Pagliarani Talking Tough (And I like It)! (Read 468 times)

Mr G

Fr. Pagliarani Talking Tough (And I like It)!

Incredulous

Re: Fr. Pagliarani Talking Tough (And I like It)!

OABrownson1876

Re: Fr. Pagliarani Talking Tough (And I like It)!

Incredulous

Re: Fr. Pagliarani Talking Tough (And I like It)!

Michelle

Re: Fr. Pagliarani Talking Tough (And I like It)!