Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Last Tradhican on March 22, 2018, 01:53:46 PM
-
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2018/03/20/sspx-canada-implicitly-admits-state-of-necessity-no-longer-exists/
St. Raphael’s Priory of the SSPX in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada has published its March 2018 Bulletin (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/SSPXCanadaMarch2018.pdf) in which there is a picture of a married couple standing beside a Novus Ordo priest and Fr. Richard Vachon, SSPX. It seems that the couple were married by the Novus Ordo priest in his parish (https://staug.ca/) and Fr. Vachon celebrated the Traditional Mass afterwards. By this act, the SSPX Canadian District has implicitly admitted that the state of necessity no longer exists. Therefore, it can no longer resort to using the argument of supplied jurisdiction for the validity of its marriages.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sspx-canada-state-of-necessity-no-longer-exists/?action=dlattach;attach=11609;image) (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=48376.0;attach=11610;image)
-
Hey SSPX is my Marriage Valid? Can I get an Annulment? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/hey-sspx-is-my-marriage-valid-can-i-get-an-annulment/msg600875/#msg600875)
Hey SSPX, are you saying that my marriage in an SSPX chapel 15+ years ago is not valid? Are you saying that I have been living in adultery all this time?
-
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2018/03/20/sspx-canada-implicitly-admits-state-of-necessity-no-longer-exists/
St. Raphael’s Priory of the SSPX in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada has published its March 2018 Bulletin (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/SSPXCanadaMarch2018.pdf) in which there is a picture of a married couple standing beside a Novus Ordo priest and Fr. Richard Vachon, SSPX. It seems that the couple were married by the Novus Ordo priest in his parish (https://staug.ca/) and Fr. Vachon celebrated the Traditional Mass afterwards. By this act, the SSPX Canadian District has implicitly admitted that the state of necessity no longer exists. Therefore, it can no longer resort to using the argument of supplied jurisdiction for the validity of its marriages.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sspx-canada-state-of-necessity-no-longer-exists/?action=dlattach;attach=11609;image) (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=48376.0;attach=11610;image)
I guess your title is catchier than mine...
-
I'd be interested to know when this wedding took place. I thought it was forbidden to solemnize marriage at forbidden times (ie: Lent/Advent)?
-
I thought it was forbidden to solemnize marriage at forbidden times (ie: Lent/Advent)?
It is forbidden to solemnize marriage during lent. That is, it is forbidden to receive the sacrament of matrimony during lent.
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sspx-canada-state-of-necessity-no-longer-exists/
-
It is forbidden to solemnize marriage during lent. That is, it is forbidden to receive the sacrament of matrimony during lent.
No. It is not forbidden to receive the sacrament of matrimony during Lent.
-
I don't know if it is strictly forbidden during Lent but it is certainly discouraged to the point that in traditional circles at least, it is not done.
Lent and Advent are penitential seasons, hardly conducive to celebrating a joyous occasion such as a marriage. If it would be allowed at all I'm sure the "celebration" would have to be very low key.
-
No. It is not forbidden to receive the sacrament of matrimony during Lent.
Did the precepts of the Church change?
My Baltimore catechism says:
Not to marry persons who are not Catholic, nor related to us within the third degree of kindred, nor privately without witnesses, nor to solemnize marriage during forbidden times (sundays, holy days of obligation, lent, or advent).
-
Did the precepts of the Church change?
My Baltimore catechism says:
Not to marry persons who are not Catholic, nor related to us within the third degree of kindred, nor privately without witnesses, nor to solemnize marriage during forbidden times (sundays, holy days of obligation, lent, or advent).
The counterfeit Vatican II church changed that in 1983, and in 1988 said marriage is prohibited only on Good Friday and Holy Saturday.
Apparently the SSPX likes that new law. They do not like calling John XXII and JPII saints and great, but they like this new law. They can pick and choose, like in a cafeteria.
-
Hey SSPX is my Marriage Valid? Can I get an Annulment? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/hey-sspx-is-my-marriage-valid-can-i-get-an-annulment/msg600875/#msg600875)
Hey SSPX, are you saying that my marriage in an SSPX chapel 15+ years ago is not valid? Are you saying that I have been living in adultery all this time?
Hey SSPX,
Are my children bastards?
-
Solemnize means no big celebration. Once again people popping off...
-
The first thing I notice is that the novus ordo priest is not wearing a cassock, and I presume not required to wear a cassock like sspx. I personally would require it. Sspx laity must follow a dress code, why should a novus ordo priest not be required to follow and unwritten sspx clerical dress code? That is a fail on the part of the sspx in my opinion.
-
It is forbidden to solemnize marriage during lent. That is, it is forbidden to receive the sacrament of matrimony during lent.
Go back and read what you wrote. You don't understand what "solemnize marriage" means. You are equating that with receiving the sacrament of matrimony. Your Baltimore Catechism is correct, you are incorrect.
-
The first thing I notice is that the novus ordo priest is not wearing a cassock, and I presume not required to wear a cassock like sspx. I personally would require it. Sspx laity must follow a dress code, why should a novus ordo priest not be required to follow and unwritten sspx clerical dress code? That is a fail on the part of the sspx in my opinion.
Seriously? You think the SSPX has the power to require a dress code of a NO priest in HIS church? I don't think so. Here, the SSPX was the guest.
Mark my words.... in short order sspx clerics will be wearing a clerical suit rather than a cassock.
-
Go back and read what you wrote. You don't understand what "solemnize marriage" means. You are equating that with receiving the sacrament of matrimony. Your Baltimore Catechism is correct, you are incorrect.
I know someone who was married during lent but only because one party was not catholic, ergo no sacrament.
I know someone else who was not allowed to get married during lent because they were both catholic, ergo sacrament.
Maybe I am explaining it wrong, but it is clear to me that the sacrament of matrimony cannot be given or received during forbidden times.
The sacrament of matrimony has nothing to do with a priest. He is only a witness.
-
I know someone who was married during lent but only because one party was not catholic, ergo no sacrament.
I know someone else who was not allowed to get married during lent because they were both catholic, ergo sacrament.
Maybe I am explaining it wrong, but it is clear to me that the sacrament of matrimony cannot be given or received during forbidden times.
The sacrament of matrimony has nothing to do with a priest. He is only a witness.
This is not true. The Baltimore Catechism is correct. "To solemnize" is the key word here and you are not getting it.
-
I'd be interested to know when this wedding took place. I thought it was forbidden to solemnize marriage at forbidden times (ie: Lent/Advent)?
It was Feb. 10, 2018 four-days before lent.
-
Go back and read what you wrote. You don't understand what "solemnize marriage" means. You are equating that with receiving the sacrament of matrimony. Your Baltimore Catechism is correct, you are incorrect.
I do not understand what you are saying here. Speaking in plain English, one was never allowed to be married during Lent in a church ceremony. That is what Fanny said.
-
Solemnize means no big celebration. Once again people popping off...
Prove it.
-
I know a woman who had been married for over 10 years (got married at the chapel of an independent Traditional priests who works with the SSPX). At one point she got sick of her husband, decided that her marriage was suddenly invalid, and obtained a declaration of nullity from the NO diocese.
-
Saint Augustine in Brandon, Manitoba is a Novus Ordo church. So this marriage was not even celebrated in an SSPX chapel.
-
This is not true. The Baltimore Catechism is correct. "To solemnize" is the key word here and you are not getting it.
From the Baltimore catechism:
Q. 1366. What is the meaning of the precept not to solemnize marriage at forbidden times?
A. The meaning of the precept not to solemnize marriage at forbidden times is that during Lent and Advent the marriage ceremony should not be performed with pomp or a nuptial Mass.
So it seems I was wrong. Thank you.
The sacrament can be given and received during forbidden times, but a nuptial mass cannot be done and there should be no pomp to the wedding.
I assume "during lent and advent" here also refers to other forbidden times. I will have to check my balt. Cat. 4.
-
Saint Augustine in Brandon, Manitoba is a Novus Ordo church. So this marriage was not even celebrated in an SSPX chapel.
Correct. That is what the article says.
-
From the Baltimore catechism:
Q. 1366. What is the meaning of the precept not to solemnize marriage at forbidden times?
A. The meaning of the precept not to solemnize marriage at forbidden times is that during Lent and Advent the marriage ceremony should not be performed with pomp or a nuptial Mass.
So it seems I was wrong. Thank you.
The sacrament can be given and received during forbidden times, but a nuptial mass cannot be done and there should be no pomp to the wedding.
I assume "during lent and advent" here also refers to other forbidden times. I will have to check my balt. Cat. 4.
How did that play out in real life? Sounds like a sailor at Pearl Harbor going off to sea on December 10th, 1941, wants to marry before he goes, and they marry in the sacristy. Other than something like that, or two poor orphans marrying, one would be hard pressed to find a women today that does not want pomp and nuptial mass.
BY the way, the method used by Fanny in her two postings is the way that everyone needs to post when they debate here, Fanny did not post her opinion, she posting an authority, the Baltimore Catechism.
-
one would be hard pressed to find a women today that does not want pomp and nuptial mass.
That is probably why I assumed it could not be done.
-
https://thebastion.faith/the-neo-sspx-is-turning-chinese/ (https://thebastion.faith/the-neo-sspx-is-turning-chinese/)
UPDATE from Fr. Girouard:
Dear faithful,
The Neo-SSPX has a Priory in Winnipeg (Manitoba) and missions in Dryden (Ontario), and Welwyn, Regina, and Saskatoon (all in Saskatchewan). I was in that Priory for seven years (2002-2009), so I know these people.
I just received a copy, from a friend, of the Winnipeg March 2018 parish bulletin, and you can have access to it by clicking on its icon on the right side of the screen.
In this docuмent, you will find a picture of a couple (copied below) on their marriage day. She, Monica Green, is a parishioner from our parish in Welwyn. In the old SSPX, we would have married her at our chapel over there, like we did with many others before.
(https://thebastion.faith/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/sspxNOMarriageApproval-1-169x300.png)
But, no! Not in the Neo-SSPX! Now we had her marriage taking place in a Novus Ordo church in Brandon (MB), located midway between Winnipeg and Welwyn, so two hours away from each place. (Not a very practical location for anybody!)
Moreover, while Fr. Vachon, Assistant priest of Winnipeg Prior Fr. Loren Gerspacher, celebrated the traditional Mass, it was a Novus Ordo priest, delegated by the Novus Ordo bishop, who was the official Church witness receiving the vows!
On the picture you can see Fr. Vachon on the right, and the Novus Ordo priest on the left. Everybody is smiling, of course!
The Neo-SSPX is now all comfy-comfy and lovey-dovey with the destroyers of the Church!
On the same bulletin, you also have a letter from Fr. Daniel Couture (Canadian District Superior) praising Archbishop Lefebvre’s fight against the inversion of the ends of marriage at Vatican II. It is actually a good letter!
So, what should we think of this parish bulletin?
Well, we have here a typical example of the Neo-SSPX tactic: Talk big, and strong, and traditional, but in your actions, walk liberal!
Your talk is there to make people accept your walk!
It also helps make you feel that you are not as liberal as you seem, so you can stiffle your guilty feelings (if you have any) and sleep better at night!
The Neo-SSPX is now consistently mixing up together the liberal and the traditional, the bitter and the sweet! There is nothing else to say but: The Neo-SSPX is turning Chinese!
God bless you dear friends, and hang on to the Truth, because the ride is bumpy!
Fr. Girouard
-
And here I was worrying because my potential daughter-in-law's family is NO, and might demand a NO wedding instead of SSPX. Silly me.
-
Back to the subject of the OP:
The SSPX will no longer marry couples unless they have the approval of the diocese Novus Ordo "bishop". If the bishop requires that a Novus Ordo priest perform the marriage and the couple refuse to have a Novus Ordo priest, the SSPX will not perform the wedding. Is not the SSPX now admitting that ALL the prior marriages performed by them are suspect? Moreover, the Novus Ordo grants annulments to those married in the SSPX just on the grounds that they were married by the SSPX.
This is the most important result of this change by the SSPX. The SSPX has been marrying couples for like 50 years till this change. This is not about a theological speculation that affects no one, because it has not been settled. This is about a sacrament. This is about SSPX couples possible living in adultery. Where is a definitive ruling on the matter from the SSPX or Rome about ALL of the marriages performed by the SSPX and their associated priests like Fr. Danel in Atlanta?
-
Seriously? You think the SSPX has the power to require a dress code of a NO priest in HIS church? I don't think so. Here, the SSPX was the guest.
Mark my words.... in short order sspx clerics will be wearing a clerical suit rather than a cassock.
I thought these marriages were supposed to be occurring in sspx chapels. And, I thought this was an sspx chapel. In which case, I would "request" if I were the sspx that visiting NO priests wear a cassock "in respect" of traditions of the church still in practice among the sspx blah blah. And, although they may not soon be wearing a clerical suit, the alternative may be worse. And, the alternative is that they weaponize the cassock. Either way, I hope they are turned off by these folks. Just looks how giddy and kiddish the NO priest looks in the picture.
-
Back to the subject of the OP:
The SSPX will no longer marry couples unless they have the approval of the diocese Novus Ordo "bishop". If the bishop requires that a Novus Ordo priest perform the marriage and the couple refuse to have a Novus Ordo priest, the SSPX will not perform the wedding. Is not the SSPX now admitting that ALL the prior marriages performed by them are suspect? Moreover, the Novus Ordo grants annulments to those married in the SSPX just on the grounds that they were married by the SSPX.
This is the most important result of this change by the SSPX. The SSPX has been marrying couples for like 50 years till this change. This is not about a theological speculation that affects no one, because it has not been settled. This is about a sacrament. This is about SSPX couples possible living in adultery. Where is a definitive ruling on the matter from the SSPX or Rome about ALL of the marriages performed by the SSPX and their associated priests like Fr. Danel in Atlanta?
This is what this thread is about. It is not about what church the wedding took place, or what the bride wore, or what the Novus Ordo priest wore.....
We are talking about the possibility that ALL the people married by the SSPX for the last 50 years may be living in adultery.
-
This is what this thread is about. It is not about what church the wedding took place, or what the bride wore, or what the Novus Ordo priest wore.....
We are talking about the possibility that ALL the people married by the SSPX for the last 50 years may be living in adultery.
LT, you are forgetting that the sacrament of matrimony is given from bride to groom and groom to bride. The priest is only a witness.
Your worry is unfounded. You, and all people who have previously been married in the SSPX have valid, legitimate marriages, no matter what the NO says.
-
I know a woman who had been married for over 10 years (got married at the chapel of an independent Traditional priests who works with the SSPX). At one point she got sick of her husband, decided that her marriage was suddenly invalid, and obtained a declaration of nullity from the NO diocese.
I wish this were the only case I had heard of this within Tradition. I've even heard about large families (7+ children) going through divorces like this.
I can't believe TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS can't hold the line on basic morality! I mean, just for starters, when you have all these divorces/no-fault annulments/etc. there is one consequence that can't be denied: just like those in the world (and all your worldly co-workers!) you can talk about your "ex", and have sɛҳuąƖ experience with more than one living person.
I can't imagine having sɛҳuąƖ experience with more than one person still living. That's the reality of just about every worldling, but come on! we're supposed to be Catholics, and Traditional Catholics at that.
I mean, you'd be tempted to compare them, and for women, there are issues with bonding. The more partners a woman has (referred to in some circles as her N-count), her ability to bond emotionally with her husband (or pseudo-husband) decreases. God made man and woman a certain way. The sɛҳuąƖ union was meant to create a strong bond to cement a family, since the parents are the foundation. But when a woman becomes accustomed to casual sex, or ripping herself away from different partners every couple years, she slowly but surely loses the ability to create the bond in the first place. She becomes damaged goods.
And yes, the man is affected too (sins of thought when thinking about past "conquests", etc.) but it's different for him. Men and women are different. As Traditional Catholics we all know that.
And I'm sure there's always the temptation to get back together with that ex-spouse. Especially after years, and all the emotions have cooled. Out of nostalgia if nothing else!
And that's just from one angle. What about the fact that the person you re-marry is almost ALWAYS "experienced" as well? So you have to wonder what she REALLY thinks of you compared to her ex-husband and past boyfriends...
And that's just the couple. What about the children involved in these Catholic divorces? They will have all the problems worldly children of divorce have to deal with. I'll give you a hint: children take it hard. And they should! If John divorces Mary, rejecting her, why wouldn't his children (who are 50% Mary) consider that a rejection of themselves as well? After all, the children are often very much like their parents, whether in looks, mannerisms, personality, temperament, talents, etc. And the children will have bonding issues with their new "parent" which is to be expected: "you're not my dad!" and all that.
Furthermore, stepdad-stepdaughter incest really shouldn't be referred to as such. It's debauched, it's evil, it's pedophilia -- but if the individuals are not related, it's not incest. Period. Nature has a way of discouraging incest, since the common genes and common upbringing (raising children from babies) helps incest to not even be a temptation (assuming a normal man, who hasn't perverted himself or indulged in sɛҳuąƖ vice for countless years). But when a man remarries a woman with a 16 year old daughter? Come on! She's a stranger, sɛҳuąƖly mature, in the flower of youth. And this causes problems *all the time*.
You can have all that! That's one of the many reasons I signed up to serve God instead of satan the deceiver and the World he has much control over.
I guess it goes back to "the fewness of the saved", and Our Lady's warning that "most souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh".
It would seem that if you can develop virtue to keep the 6th/9th commandments, you're about 90% of the way to heaven. That's how it would seem. All the other sins pale in comparison, when it comes to calculating how alluring they are, what kind of grip they get on you, etc.
-
The World is big on this point, that one should have wide and varied sɛҳuąƖ experiences. "If you're not happy, you need to leave him and find someone new."
The World also came up with the idea of the "bucket list", the "fulfilled life", etc.
Nowhere is there any talk of pleasing God, the will of God, the Ten Commandments, or anything else conducive to salvation.
This is just one more way that The World finds its way into Traditional Catholic circles. Remember, going to a Tridentine Mass for 1 hour per week does not take you out of the World with all its ideas, culture, and influences. We have to actively fight these, or we will get sucked in. It's that simple.
-
I'm convinced that 1st World Nations are doomed when it comes to holding the moral line that Matthew speaks about and Trad families are seriously affected by this. I came back to the U.S. last year after many years in Latin America. The small details opened my eyes to the larger problems. This prevalent culture is doomed and Trads in America have got to step back from worldliness (TVs, pop culture, public education and anything that represents American culture). I would go so far as to say that Traditional Catholics in America should correspond very little if at all with non-Catholics and keep even those at a distance (of course within reason and obligation). If they are serious in their Faith, they will see the necessity. It's gotten so serious that those who really want to practice their Faith should just move and start a Trad city somewhere.
It amazes me how few people can last 20 minutes without sparking a cigarette in America without getting impatient and angry. How the booms of modern degenerate rap music promoting violence and all sorts of licentiousness are heard in every corner at all hours. Everyone is only consumed with feeling good and fleeing from the smallest of sacrifices. Immediate gratification has replaced religion entirely. Here in the South, the law of God is written in the hearts of men so that no one will deny believing in God, though they live every moment of their lives as if He never existed.
In contrast, the non-religious of Latin America don't divorce while the so-called Traditionalist families are prone to this sort of evil in America.
"One who seeks only pleasure, ease, honor, or profit is a worldling, that is, he lives only for this life. Gradually he becomes a slave of his earthly desires, so that he cannot even think of God. He will believe in Heaven too late-when he finds its gates forever closed to him."
-
To solemnize a marriage means that during Lent the nuptial mass cannot be celebrated, this is most certain during Holy Week since it is a privileged week the same also applies during Easter octave. This means that there are during these 2 weeks no commemorations, those days take precedence, no exception. Tomorrow is the feast of the Annunciation which will be moved to the day after Low Sunday.
However I am pretty sure the exchange of vows can be performed without the Mass. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Maria dolorosa
Ark.
-
People are so far gone nowadays that they are even against the natural law.
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29594953_2078943198990251_4388998386883509540_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=4144bcecfd058228af7329681cb9d83b&oe=5B2E2F1D)
-
It would seem that if you can develop virtue to keep the 6th/9th commandments, you're about 90% of the way to heaven. That's how it would seem. All the other sins pale in comparison, when it comes to calculating how alluring they are, what kind of grip they get on you, etc.
I would say that the virtue of purity is one of the most distinguishable characteristics of the Children of God; as opposed to the children of the world and the devil. Purity does not come naturally in human beings. Impurity does. To receive the supernatural grace of purity; I think the devotion of the most Holy Rosary and the power of the three Hail Marys daily works wonders.
-
People are so far gone nowadays that they are even against the natural law.
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29594953_2078943198990251_4388998386883509540_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=4144bcecfd058228af7329681cb9d83b&oe=5B2E2F1D)
What does soy boy, cuck, sjw mean (I'm guessing BLM = Black Lives Matter)?
-
What does soy boy, cuck, sjw mean (I'm guessing BLM = Black Lives Matter)?
.
I thought BLM refers to the Bureau of Land Management. (But you're probably correct.)
And SJW is Sons of Jehovah's Witnesses. (But it's Social Justice Warrior.)
.
Soy Boy:
Soy boy is an insult towards an allegedly feminine or low-testosterone (and therefore unmasculine and unmanly) male. Its meaning comes from the pseudo-scientific (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience) claim that soy (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soy) contains estrogens (in fact, it contains phytoestrogens). These phytoestrogens, in turn, are claimed to cause feminization such as breast growth (definitely not) and reduce male fertility (the science isn't yet clear). In short, the reasoning appears to be: "We were saying that red meat is manlier than tofurkey (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vegetarianism) all along. This proves it!"
The "soy boy" fad is an example of both moral panics (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moral_panic) and fake news (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fake_news).
.
Cuck:
The following British site goes into depth on it but be forewarned, it's not decent. In fact, it's blatantly impure.
.
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/cuck-definition
.
But it ends with this somewhat neutral paragraph (when someone calls you a "cuck" they're attempting to insult you because...) :
But, like all bullies, what they really mean is that you’re chipping away at their own power and challenging their supremacy. They’re claiming you’re weak and easily led, that you’re a joke or a coward – but really they’re worried your liberal thinking shines a light on their own weaknesses.
.
The visual of these hecklers all immersed in (yellow water) sewage while the "normal guy" is the only one in clean water, says a lot.
-
Hey SSPX is my Marriage Valid? Can I get an Annulment? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/hey-sspx-is-my-marriage-valid-can-i-get-an-annulment/msg600875/#msg600875)
Hey SSPX, are you saying that my marriage in an SSPX chapel 15+ years ago is not valid? Are you saying that I have been living in adultery all this time?
I don't know what the SSPX says, but the Code of Canon Law says that it not valid.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
-
Every Traditional Catholic is against divorce/annulments . . . until they want one. Then all of a sudden there are plenty of reasons why exceptions apply to them. smh
-
I can't imagine having sɛҳuąƖ experience with more than one person still living.
Lots of wisdom in your last post, Matthew. I would take this line a step further. I can't imagine having sɛҳuąƖ experience with more than one person PERIOD. If, God forbid, something happened to my wife, I could never contemplate marrying anyone else ... for all the same reasons that you mentioned.
-
The World is big on this point, that one should have wide and varied sɛҳuąƖ experiences. "If you're not happy, you need to leave him and find someone new."
Ultimately, THE test in our life ... which will determine whether we end up in heaven or hell for all eternity ultimately boils down to this:
Are we primarily concerned about pleasing ourselves or about pleasing God (and others for His sake)? It's that simple ... in the final analysis.
Now, most of us have some of both in us ... which is where Purgatory comes in. Now, the great saints have gone through the different dark nights where this pursuit of self dies completely. Rest of us will have to get this accomplished in Purgatory (if God grants us the grace to be saved).
-
REMNANT COMMENT: This story broke on several websites that cited it as proof the SSPX no longer believes there is a state of emergency in the Church. While this attitude fails to take into account the complexities of the situation as well as a growing SSPX annulment problem, this development represents a rather dramatic change in attitude that may indeed signal a gradual moving away from the state of urgency/supplied jurisdiction argument. Our sources tell us the SSPX is now working with as many as ten bishops who either grant them delegations or supply them with diocesan priests to conduct their marriages. We leave it to our readers to decide for themselves if this newfound cooperation with the Novus Ordo is cause for concern or celebration.
-
http://sspx.org/en/content/29002 (http://sspx.org/en/content/29002)
The validity of SSPX Marriages
From now on, just as we no longer have to invoke an extraordinary jurisdiction to hear confessions validly, we no longer have to invoke the state of necessity to validly marry couples, unless the bishop opposes the new provisions and refuses the delegation requested by the pope.
This does not mean that the state of grave necessity has come to an end, but only that the authorities of the Church no longer refuse to grant Tradition some means of development. The pre-conciliar Mass was recognized in 2007 as never having been abrogated. The unjust excommunications of the bishops of the Society were lifted in 2009. The non-recognition of the valid ministry of SSPX priests in the sacrament of penance came to an end in 2015. The alleged irregularity of the Society priest, the authorized witness to the sacrament of marriage, has now been lifted, for the good of the spouses.
However, just as the sacrament of penance was not invalidly conferred by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X before 2015, neither were the marriages celebrated without the official delegation of the local bishop or parish pastor.
Indeed, Church law states that in order to be valid, a marriage must be celebrated before the parish priest or his delegate, and in the presence of at least two witnesses (1917 Code, canon 1094; 1983 Code, canon 1108). But the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are not parish priests. That is why some try to pretend that, without a delegation, a priest of this society cannot receive marriage vows. Such a marriage would be invalid because of its lack of canonical form.
But the same Church law also provides for the following extraordinary situation (1917 Code, canon 1098; 1983 Code, canon 1116): “If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience.” If this situation is likely to last at least one month, then the Church declares valid a marriage celebrated before only the witnesses. If a non-delegated priest can be present, he must be called upon to receive the vows. This legislation is a simple application of the fundamental principles of Canon law: The supreme law is the salvation of souls, and The sacraments are for men who are well-disposed.
And if by chance there still remains any doubt as to this extraordinary situation, we answer that in cases of doubt, the Church gives supplied jurisdiction (1917 Code, canon 209; 1983 Code, canon 144). So all doubt is removed, and the marriages celebrated in the Society of St. Pius X, even without a delegation, were most certainly valid, because of the state of necessity.
The State of Necessity Remains
This state of grave necessity in the Church has not disappeared. This is not to deny the terrible reality.
-
The new arrangements that make it possible to receive a delegation from the Ordinary do not mean that it is the modern priests who will prepare, organize, or celebrate the marriages of our faithful, obviously. The priests of Tradition cannot entrust the faithful who come to them to prepare holily for marriage to those who profess false principles or could endanger the faith of the future spouses by imparting to them an erroneous conception of Christian marriage. Pope Francis simply wishes the Ordinaries to give delegation to SSPX priests. His approach is essentially legal. As Fr. Cédric Burgun, vice-dean of the Faculty of Canon Law in Paris, declared: “The Pope is not settling the doctrinal debate. He is removing ambiguities on the legal issue, and making valid and licit the marriages that will be celebrated under the conditions decreed by Rome.” (RCF, April 5, 2017)
The implementation of these provisions will be delicate, especially if it is a diocesan priest who comes to receive the vows. But it seems that it will be easy to explain that the fiancés would be uncomfortable with making their marriage vows before a priest they do not know, and will probably never see again. Many want a priest they know and respect, sometimes even a relative, to celebrate their engagement and wedding. The Roman docuмent’s “insofar as possible” seems broad and vague enough to convince the local bishop of the practical and concrete difficulties its application presents.
-
And here I thought the SSPX was canonically established as a missionary order.
Missionaries do not need approval of anyone to administer any sacrament.
Furthermore, priests do not administer the sacrament of matrimony. He does not even need to witness for the couple to have a valid, legitimate, catholic marriage. He is there ONLY as a witness and to bless the marriage (which can be done afterwards).
-
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation)
The Remnant has picked up the story, so feel free to add to their comments.
REMNANT COMMENT: This story broke on several websites that cited it as proof the SSPX no longer believes there is a state of emergency in the Church. While this attitude fails to take into account the complexities of the situation as well as a growing SSPX annulment problem, this development represents a rather dramatic change in attitude that may indeed signal a gradual moving away from the state of urgency/supplied jurisdiction argument. Our sources tell us the SSPX is now working with as many as ten bishops who either grant them delegations or supply them with diocesan priests to conduct their marriages. We leave it to our readers to decide for themselves if this newfound cooperation with the Novus Ordo is cause for concern or celebration.
Remnant Moderator (https://disqus.com/by/remnant_newspaper/) . • 2 hours ago (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation#comment-3825452589)
"At the time of this posting we did not have confirmation as to where the mass was celebrated. It has since been confirmed by the groom, who informed us that the SSPX priest did in fact offer the traditional Latin Mass at the Novus Ordo church, and we have since added that detail. Far from trying to hide this fact, it offers further indication of a cooperation between the Society in the mainstream church which heretofore was unheard of. This is not to suggest that said cooperation is intrinsically evil in an of itself, of course -- but newsworthy? Indeed! If nothing else, here we have a case of a Novus priest allowing a SSPX priest to come into his church and offer the TLM--something which a few years ago would have been absolutely unthinkable from all sides."
-
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation)
Remnant Moderator (https://disqus.com/by/remnant_newspaper/) . • 2 hours ago (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation#comment-3825452589)
"At the time of this posting we did not have confirmation as to where the mass was celebrated. It has since been confirmed by the groom, who informed us that the SSPX priest did in fact offer the traditional Latin Mass at the Novus Ordo church, and we have since added that detail. Far from trying to hide this fact, it offers further indication of a cooperation between the Society in the mainstream church which heretofore was unheard of. This is not to suggest that said cooperation is intrinsically evil in an of itself, of course -- but newsworthy? Indeed! If nothing else, here we have a case of a Novus priest allowing a SSPX priest to come into his church and offer the TLM--something which a few years ago would have been absolutely unthinkable from all sides."
I have never trusted Mr. Matt.
-
I have never trusted Mr. Matt.
Seems to me that he sees that many of his readers have become supporters of the Resistance and he has printed several articles with Resistance leanings. He is a big time Bishop Fellay supporter even though he has attended his Indult Masses for years in nearly the same neighborhood as a decent sized SSPX chapel.
-
even though he has attended his Indult Masses for years in nearly the same neighborhood as a decent sized SSPX chapel.
Nevermind.
-
From groom of the Canadian wedding as shown on the SSPX http://sspx.ca/en/news-events/news/clarification-saskatchewan-wedding (http://sspx.ca/en/news-events/news/clarification-saskatchewan-wedding)
In response to some of the back and forth from here : https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation)
-
From groom of the Canadian wedding as shown on the SSPX http://sspx.ca/en/news-events/news/clarification-saskatchewan-wedding (http://sspx.ca/en/news-events/news/clarification-saskatchewan-wedding)
In response to some of the back and forth from here : https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation)
The groom says:
"We understand that the Society has followed this same procedure for many individual cases long
before these directives were published anyway; actual SSPX parishioners will know that."
I attended sspx masses for 25 years and I have NEVER hear such a thing. I would extend an invitation to this young man to provide examples of his claim.
The remnant? Don't trust it. Not for a LONG time.
-
From groom of the Canadian wedding as shown on the SSPX http://sspx.ca/sites/sspx/files/openletterlessardgreensspxwedding1.pdf (http://sspx.ca/sites/sspx/files/openletterlessardgreensspxwedding1.pdf)
From their letter:
“Monica and I consider ourselves not just faithful of the SSPX, but faithful Roman Catholics. In spite of the cancerous crisis going on in the Church, she stays the One True Church of God, and thus the errors of her representatives do not negate the obligation to follow legitimate requests. Neither of us were willing to weaken our marriage bonds by operating outside proper regulations.”
The Remnant magazine In response to some of the back and forth from here : https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation)
From the Remnant article:
While this attitude fails to take into account the complexities of the situation as well as a growing SSPX annulment problem,
Observations from Last Tradhican
1) ALL the couples married by the SSPX in the last 50 years did not think that "Neither of us were willing to weaken our marriage bonds by operating outside proper regulations", because the SSPX told them that their marriage bonds were solid as a rock and operating inside proper regulations. Everything changed in the SSPX.
2) The Remnant brings up the "growing SSPX annulment problem".
These two points work together.
-
Observations from Last Tradhican
1) ALL the couples married by the SSPX in the last 50 years did not think that "Neither of us were willing to weaken our marriage bonds by operating outside proper regulations", because the SSPX told them that their marriage bonds were solid as a rock and operating inside proper regulations. Everything changed in the SSPX.
The sspx used to operate as missionaries, which is how the SSPX was canonically formed.
They no longer want to be missionaries, with chapels and congregations.
Now they want to be pastors with parishes.
The growing sspx annulment problem is due to 2 things:
1. The NO chooses to not recognize sspx marriages and the SSPX is cooperating.
2. The devil is working on the selfishness of sspx married spouses. They see an "out".
-
The SSPX is playing both sides in this issue. How can they stand by as the Novus Ordo grants annulments for their marriages, thus assisting their parishioners (or former parishioners ) into adultery? It may just be that the SSPX even accepts these parishioners back with their new partners in sin!
The SSPX bishops threw Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer under the bus when they cowardly negotiated the lifting of their own excommunication without the lifting of the excommunications of Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer. It looks to me like they've just thrown all those married by them in the last 50 years under the same bus.
As one married by the SSPX, I say We are in good company!
-
What baseless speculation is he talking about?
The fact that SSPX priests are now leading young impressionable couples to get married in the NO?
I don't know how that is "baseless speculation" when we have the photo proof put up publicly for all to see, as well as the groom's own admission.
Again, what is he calling baseless speculation?
-
The SSPX is playing both sides in this issue. How can they stand by as the Novus Ordo grants annulments for their marriages, thus assisting their parishioners (or former parishioners ) into adultery? It may just be that the SSPX even accepts these parishioners back with their new partners in sin!
The SSPX bishops threw Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer under the bus when they cowardly negotiated the lifting of their own excommunication without the lifting of the excommunications of Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer. It looks to me like they've just thrown all those married by them in the last 50 years under the same bus.
As one married by the SSPX, I say We are in good company!
LT, the SSPX will indeed accept annulled and even remarried congregation members, and give them holy communion. They MUST. They signed on the dotted line. May God have mercy on the souls of those priests.
Your marriage is as sound as it ever was. You gave your wife the sacrament and she gave it to you. God knows the Truth and God will judge accordingly.
The confusing part to me is, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth it shall be also bound in heaven and what you shall loose on earth shall it be also done in heaven. (I paraphrase). How can this be, if Truth is Truth? Seems to me the sedevecantists are sounding more and more sane...
But then again I come around to one pope, two churches... the SSPX is jumping the fence to get to the other church.
Satan is working hard to confuse.
-
Mercy! Get a hold of yourselves! The Sacrament of matrimony consists in the mutual expression by both contracting parties of their free consent to take each other as husband and wife.
This is the "main act" in the marriage ceremony. Without it, no marriage takes place. After this mutual consent is expressed, even if something should interrupt the rest of the ceremonies, the couple are validity married. The ministers of the sacrament of matrimony are the contracting parties themselves, the groom and bride. The priest is the witness authorized by the Church to be present and bless the union. Page 338-339 of My Catholic Faith by Fr. Morrow
All of those married, are married and there is no annulments which is foolish.
As you can see, with the changes, SSPX is Titanic! at this point.
-
Some more back-and-forth with the Groom (Nicolas Lessard)
Nicolas Lessard (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_qZorKFM9u7/) • 13 hours ago (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation#comment-3827663816)
This next generation is free from the bitterness and resentment that it's predecessors are carrying. We grew with a love of the Catholic Church, a sadness to see it sick and divided, but above all a willingness stand up and fix it! In the meantime, feel free to call out heretics left and right like a self-proclaimed pope. I'll be right there in to NO churches doing my little part to "Restore all things in Christ" like our patron's motto says.
Petrus Romanus (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_ccWnfELupc/) to Nicolas Lessard (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation#comment-3827663816) • 11 hours ago (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation#comment-3827772952)
Surely it was not Traditionalists who caused the division. Do you not think I too wish the Church were healthy and mended? Alas, God is purifying her for a purpose beyond all our grasp.
Your answer makes little sense, and confirms what I have said. You accuse me of being bitter, pretending to be my own pope. And yet Abp. Lefebvre took precisely the approach I am taking: "[some say] we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects."
sdk14754977 (https://disqus.com/by/sdk14754977/) Remnant Moderator (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation#comment-3826947030) • 17 hours ago (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation#comment-3827368385)
I am a 38 year veteran SSPX faithful and I am my family, have always been advised not to attend either the N.O. or the FSSP and Indult Masses, any time we have questioned our priests on it. Archbishop Lefebvre held this position, it is well known, and his position only became stronger in the years before his death. He famously stated that Rome had lost the Faith.
I think it is tragic and rather specious when families opt for opulence for their weddings, using N.O. churches that host all of the questionable N.O. consecrations, Masses, sacraments and various assorted liberal activities that go on in such places. We were always taught with the words of St. Athanasius, 'They have the churches but we have the Faith'. It seems that many have fallen from the lofty positions that the Archbishop left us with. To my mind, nothing is more beautiful in a church or a chapel, than that it only witnesses true, unadulterated Catholic ceremonies and preaching.
Remnant Moderator (https://disqus.com/by/remnant_newspaper/) to sdk14754977 (https://disqus.com/by/sdk14754977/). • 17 hours ago (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation#comment-3827392567) (And then there is this from the Remnant, and observation from parishioners of the FSSP!)
So where are the SSPX folks who agree with you on this? Have they all left for the Resistance? I don't even want to get into whether this attitude is right or wrong---but what you've laid out here was standard operating procedure in the SSPX for 25 years. I know, I was there. I have family in the SSPX. And you're absolutely right! Now everything has changed, and yet the folks in the SSPX are behaving like they don't even notice. It's downright eerie! You can agree or disagree with the new direction of the SSPX all you want----but pretending like it's always been this way is like something right out of The Twilight Zone.
Mr. Matt is no friend of the Resistance, but even he can see that the SSPX has changed and that for SSPX parishioners to pretend that it has not changed is right out of The Twilight Zone.
-
Nope, don't think that gets you off the hook. Your marriage just needs to be "made whole" by the local ordinary is the diocese thinking.
-
This is about inversion of priorities by the SSPX. In the old days, the SSPX would have taught its parishioners what is WRONG with the Conciliar Church, the Novus Ordo, doubtful ministers and sacraments, etc.
Both the priests and laity were prepared to make sacrifices for take sake of the Faith, the truth, and upholding Catholic principles. Yes, a bigger nicer church is great, but not if it means getting married by a Novus priest.
But today, they are toothless because of the new SSPX orientation with Rome (an attitude of reconciliation with the Modernists). What can they say? Don't get married by the Novus Ordo priest? What reason could they give now?
Some couples are going to want to do this for various reasons, including reasons as base or superficial as "I want to be married in a bigger, more beautiful church".
-
From what I have gathered, the groom seems more worried that his new wife will possibly get tired of him and he wants to make it difficult for her to one day get an annulment based on invalidity because of SSPX. So was she even raised Traditionalist Catholic? Was he (new generation? what is this?? Meaning, we heard about Benedict's Motu Proprio and decided to check it out and it made us feel good so here we are? ?)?
Seems like they really just went with the diocese because they were insecure that one or the other would use this as grounds for an annulment in the future and thought this should make it harder. Not gonna matter if Bergoglio lets them divorce and "remarry" and receive Holy Communion. Seems like if they have these worries then worldliness is already there.
Then again, these are only speculations.
-
I wonder if Mr. Senior will still have job after this!
Remnant Moderator (https://disqus.com/by/remnant_newspaper/) reply to. David (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation#comment-3828396933) • a day ago (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation#comment-3829969485)
From a professor at St. Mary's College: I just read this article by Fr. Robinson http://fsspx.news/en/conten... (http://fsspx.news/en/conten...)
, and my head is still spinning. He is very clever, but his reasoning is faulty; it is tautological and circular. Once having assumed the conclusion he finds ways of arguing for it. He sets up several false dichotomies, making it seem that he is arguing for the only possible via media.
He says that Archbishop Lefebvre did not use the term "Conciliar Church." Perhaps he should read the Consecration Sermon: "This Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ is disappearing everywhere in the Conciliar Church. They are following roads which are not Catholic roads: they simply lead to apostasy."
He says that Archbishop Lefebvre did not resist the authority of Rome, when it was acting in accord with Tradition. Again, in the Consecration Sermon, the Archbishop states explicitly that the Roman authorities are doing the exact opposite. He clearly says that they have made a break with Tradition, that they can no longer be trusted, that there is an extraordinary State of Necessity:
"Indeed, since the Council, what we condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. . . . Thus, we find ourselves in a case of necessity. We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome. We have tried by these talks, by all these means, to succeed in making Rome understand that, since the Council and since aggiornamento, this change which has occurred in the Church is not Catholic, is not in conformity to the doctrine of all times. This ecuмenism and all these errors, this collegiality—all this is contrary to the Faith of the Church, and is in the process of destroying the Church. . . it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the Conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world!"
The Archbishop never advocated any halfway measures: the Roman authority should be obeyed in some instances and in others not obeyed. He never makes the case that as long as they let him be then everything else is just fine. He wouldn't even get in the car they sent the night before! Fr. Robinson is in the car, and more than halfway across the Alps on a dark night!
By a not so strange coincidence, I received in the mail today a fundraising letter from Fr. Wegner. It begins by saying: "It was tumultuous year, filled with great expectations and great confusion. . . Indeed it was a year in which so much confusion emanated from Rome that our own Bishop Bernard Fellay signed a public filial correction of the Pope for the grave errors presented in Amoris Laetitia." So far so good, but then he goes on to add to the confusion by saying: "In March, we received the surprise announcement that Pope Francis had taken the steps to remove all doubt concerning the validity of marriages celebrated by priests of the Society."
I contend that this announcement was not a surprise at all, it was a pre-arranged trap. And there never was any doubt about the validity of marriages, or confessions (or the bogus excommunication!) certainly not in the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre! It is indeed a very confusing situation, and intentionally so, when the faithful are being lead to believe that we should all be waiting breathlessly for the wonders of "canonical regularization." That is never what Archbishop Lefebvre sought. He said very clearly that Rome needs to explicitly reject its errors and return fully to Tradition.
Pope Francis is in no way returning to Tradition, except by way of appearances as part of the diabolical dialectic. He is leading the way to the Great Apostasy. It is more obvious now than ever. To wish to be "recognized and regularized" by him is to join the ranks of the Masonic traitors who have infiltrated the Church. Pope Leo wrote the famous prayer to St. Michael the Archangel more than a century ago: "These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where the See of Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth has been set up as the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety." And one of the first acts of the Conciliar Church was to eliminate this prayer!
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the battle and in the terrible warfare that we are waging against the principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, against the evil spirits.
God help us all!
In Christo Rege,
Andrew Senior
St. Mary’s, KS
-
I wonder if Mr. Senior will still have job after this!
Remnant Moderator (https://disqus.com/by/remnant_newspaper/) reply to. David (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation#comment-3828396933) • a day ago (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation#comment-3829969485)
From a professor at St. Mary's College: I just read this article by Fr. Robinson http://fsspx.news/en/conten... (http://fsspx.news/en/conten...)
The content of the link has been removed.
-
The content of the link has been removed.
Here it is: http://fsspx.news/en/content/34797 (http://fsspx.news/en/content/34797)
This is the article where Fr. Robinson says Archbishop always wanted to be recognized by Rome and how dare anyone says otherwise.
-
Here it is: http://fsspx.news/en/content/34797 (http://fsspx.news/en/content/34797)
This is the article where Fr. Robinson says Archbishop always wanted to be recognized by Rome and how dare anyone says otherwise.
Is this the same fr. Robinson who wrote that new book? I was suspect of him before. Now I know he's an infiltrator.