Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Nobody on March 14, 2014, 11:39:43 PM

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Nobody on March 14, 2014, 11:39:43 PM

Does anyone know how many priests and religious the SSPX has lost to the Resistance ? Is there any score or register being kept ? I know Traditio has put up a list, but I don't trust them. I'd rather double check elsewhere..

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: poche on March 14, 2014, 11:57:04 PM

Why not ask them for a current directory?

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: poche on March 15, 2014, 12:45:03 AM

Quote from: poche

Why not ask them for a current directory?

There is a thread on Cite.catholique which has the statistics from last year. See if you can find the statistics from this year and compare it to last year.

http://www.cite-catholique.org/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=28021

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Frances on March 15, 2014, 12:46:57 AM

 :dancing-banana:
I was told about 82 total directly from the sspx have left or been expelled since 2012.  The number includes cloistered religious.  About 15 more will almost definitely be "purged" in the spring or summer.  That will make 100 of how many?  Bp. Fellay will no doubt be able to carry on  without them, but to what end?  He will be remembered as the bishop who sold out?  

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: stgobnait on March 15, 2014, 06:11:04 AM

when i came to sspx first, and saw the little congregation, i balked. then they told me, its not about numbers. same applies to the resistance,we hope for growth, and believe it will come, so those who want to join rome should do so now, what are they waiting for?

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Wessex on March 15, 2014, 06:21:50 AM

The Society has always lost priests, that is why it took such a long time to pass the 500 mark. One would expect the new direction towards Rome would see changes in the type of candidate it is seeking. Also, I expect it has allowed for a continuing  trickle of existing priests leaving while the new programme bites, as well as making provision for those that need neutralising. This all has to be seen in the light of Menzingen reversing ABL's dramatic reaction to the new church  and wanting to blend in with those bodies on the fringes of the mainstream.    

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: hollingsworth on March 15, 2014, 10:50:21 AM

I saw Fr. Tim Pfeiffer's name on Traditio's list a couple of days ago.  Did he finally join his brother in the resistance?

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: stgobnait on March 15, 2014, 11:18:43 AM

nope.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 15, 2014, 11:55:25 AM

Nobody cares.

Quote from: Nobody

Does anyone know how many priests and religious the SSPX has lost to the Resistance ? Is there any score or register being kept ? I know Traditio has put up a list, but I don't trust them. I'd rather double check elsewhere..

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Nobody on March 15, 2014, 12:58:42 PM

Quote from: Centroamerica

Nobody cares.

Quote from: Nobody

Does anyone know how many priests and religious the SSPX has lost to the Resistance ? Is there any score or register being kept ? I know Traditio has put up a list, but I don't trust them. I'd rather double check elsewhere..

I care.

I believe a lot of lukewarm people think of the Resistance as a bunch of celebrity priests, who became proud and disobedient. If we can show them that the number of priests is significant, they may realize that maybe there's more to the story and start investigating. Yes I know, it's not about numbers, but if we can use numbers to get people started, then why not.

I wonder if some people in the Resistance are already starting to make the same mistake as those in the Novus Ordo and SSPX : "WE have found a comfy spot, WE are on the right track, don't worry about the rest, leave me alone."

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 15, 2014, 07:01:16 PM

Quote from: Nobody

Quote from: Centroamerica

Nobody cares.

Quote from: Nobody

Does anyone know how many priests and religious the SSPX has lost to the Resistance ? Is there any score or register being kept ? I know Traditio has put up a list, but I don't trust them. I'd rather double check elsewhere..

I care.

I believe a lot of lukewarm people think of the Resistance as a bunch of celebrity priests, who became proud and disobedient. If we can show them that the number of priests is significant, they may realize that maybe there's more to the story and start investigating. Yes I know, it's not about numbers, but if we can use numbers to get people started, then why not.

I wonder if some people in the Resistance are already starting to make the same mistake as those in the Novus Ordo and SSPX : "WE have found a comfy spot, WE are on the right track, don't worry about the rest, leave me alone."

Obviously that was meant to be a bit of much needed humor. Please take my posts with a grain of salt.

Of course I care about our priests.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: cathman7 on March 15, 2014, 07:10:08 PM

Quote from: hollingsworth

I saw Fr. Tim Pfeiffer's name on Traditio's list a couple of days ago.  Did he finally join his brother in the resistance?

I glanced over that list and saw many errors. First off, there are priests on that list who were not even members of the SSPX. It is a bit disingenuous to include priests of having "abandoned" Bishop Fellay who never belonged to the SSPX in the first place. Also there are many factual errors. So apparently Fr. Cyprian from Brazil has "abandoned" Bp. Fellay. Ummm...okay. Also Fr. Stehlin is on the list....okay.

My point is that NO ONE in the Trad world should take anything Traditio posts seriously. I am surprised people go to Traditio for news.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Mabel on March 15, 2014, 08:14:30 PM

Quote from: obscurus

Quote from: hollingsworth

I saw Fr. Tim Pfeiffer's name on Traditio's list a couple of days ago.  Did he finally join his brother in the resistance?

I glanced over that list and saw many errors. First off, there are priests on that list who were not even members of the SSPX. It is a bit disingenuous to include priests of having "abandoned" Bishop Fellay who never belonged to the SSPX in the first place. Also there are many factual errors. So apparently Fr. Cyprian from Brazil has "abandoned" Bp. Fellay. Ummm...okay. Also Fr. Stehlin is on the list....okay.

My point is that NO ONE in the Trad world should take anything Traditio posts seriously. I am surprised people go to Traditio for news.

I totally agreed. Having been duped by them regarding ordinations and safe places to go to mass, TWICE, coupled with their inaccurate "news," I don't see how anyone can patronize them in good conscience. Something I was involved in was reported by them once, while it was not in a bad light, the news story was completely inaccurate.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: hugeman on March 16, 2014, 08:34:39 AM

Quote from: hollingsworth

I saw Fr. Tim Pfeiffer's name on Traditio's list a couple of days ago.  Did he finally join his brother in the resistance?

No-- He has not. He is firmly within the clutches of the new thinking-- and , like all the priests of the Asian district under Fr. Couture, has been promoting the aggionamento with the conciliar religion for a long time. Many of them have never, basically, disagreed with the conciliar religion-- that's why they accept the pres-by-ters as  priests to work with them. Some are "insistent", to some degree, of some kind of a doctrinal resolution-- but they were firmly behind Ratzinger, and all his heresies; and are thus firmly behind Bergoglio, and all his antics-- even if they do  want to go slower, and retain the flavor of traditionalism.

  Thanks, Pooch, for that suggestion!

 Thanks, Cath Info, for the Shamrocks and the wearin' of the Green!. Maybe St. Patrick will smile tomorrow!

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: overmind on March 16, 2014, 09:59:56 AM

I find this "It's not about numbers" rhetoric a little hypocritical for the simple reason that if the resistance DID have the numbers they would be using the numbers as a justification.

I have certainly heard sermons in the past where when a church is packed the priest will use this argument as a demonstration of success.  Equally, I have seen cartoons lampooning modernist churches with hardly any congregation.

What's sauce for the goose ...

Personally, I agree, that it shouldn't be about numbers but numbers is often used as a justification.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 16, 2014, 01:24:37 PM

Quote from: hollingsworth

I saw Fr. Tim Pfeiffer's name on Traditio's list a couple of days ago.  Did he finally join his brother in the resistance?

As of his last visit to our chapel, Fr Tim Pfeiffer was very clear that his brother was wrong and the priests of the resistance are intellectually dishonest and are doing a disservice to the faithful. Just in case you were not clear about his opinion or whether he was contemplating moving to the resistance.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 16, 2014, 01:26:53 PM

Quote from: Nobody

Does anyone know how many priests and religious the SSPX has lost to the Resistance ? Is there any score or register being kept ? I know Traditio has put up a list, but I don't trust them. I'd rather double check elsewhere..

Since 2012 .. 2 - in the U.S. .. and counting.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 16, 2014, 01:28:48 PM

Quote from: Wessex

The Society has always lost priests, that is why it took such a long time to pass the 500 mark. One would expect the new direction towards Rome would see changes in the type of candidate it is seeking. Also, I expect it has allowed for a continuing  trickle of existing priests leaving while the new programme bites, as well as making provision for those that need neutralising. This all has to be seen in the light of Menzingen reversing ABL's dramatic reaction to the new church  and wanting to blend in with those bodies on the fringes of the mainstream.    

The Achbishop lamented at the time of the episcopal consecrations that half of the priests he ordained had left the Society. That included the 4 he dismissed for disobedience.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: hollingsworth on March 16, 2014, 02:39:03 PM

Vinny:

Quote

As of his last visit to our chapel, Fr Tim Pfeiffer was very clear that his brother was wrong and the priests of the resistance are intellectually dishonest and are doing a disservice to the faithful. Just in case you were not clear about his opinion or whether he was contemplating moving to the resistance.

This is not quite how I heard it from Fr. J. Pfieffer's mouth to my ear.  He seemed to be telling us some months back that his brother agrees with many of the issues raised by the resistance, but chooses for now to work from within the SSPX.  So, perhaps, Fr. Tim has adjusted his earlier position, (as we understood it anyway), and is accusing resistance priests of "intellectual dishonesty."  That would represent a sea change,  wouldn't it? :thinking:

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: MaterDominici on March 16, 2014, 03:04:25 PM

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: hollingsworth

I saw Fr. Tim Pfeiffer's name on Traditio's list a couple of days ago.  Did he finally join his brother in the resistance?

As of his last visit to our chapel, Fr Tim Pfeiffer was very clear that his brother was wrong and the priests of the resistance are intellectually dishonest and are doing a disservice to the faithful. Just in case you were not clear about his opinion or whether he was contemplating moving to the resistance.

You can't really draw much conclusions from such a broad statement. We visited here with Fr Hewko about 2-3 weeks after Fr T Pfeiffer was in the US last summer (August?). As Fr Timothy was the priest who married us, we were quite curious as to what he had to say about the Resistance. Fr Hewko's summary was that he agreed with the Resistance priests about almost everything except what the proper course of action for a Society priest should be.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 16, 2014, 03:20:09 PM

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: hollingsworth

I saw Fr. Tim Pfeiffer's name on Traditio's list a couple of days ago.  Did he finally join his brother in the resistance?

As of his last visit to our chapel, Fr Tim Pfeiffer was very clear that his brother was wrong and the priests of the resistance are intellectually dishonest and are doing a disservice to the faithful. Just in case you were not clear about his opinion or whether he was contemplating moving to the resistance.

You can't really draw much conclusions from such a broad statement. We visited here with Fr Hewko about 2-3 weeks after Fr T Pfeiffer was in the US last summer (August?). As Fr Timothy was the priest who married us, we were quite curious as to what he had to say about the Resistance. Fr Hewko's summary was that he agreed with the Resistance priests about almost everything except what the proper course of action for a Society priest should be.

His comment was that he felt their actions were divisive and were causing a rift among the faithful.  In charity, he only said from the pulpit that they were off-the-reservation and on a different track than he was.  But he elaborated on the three points he thought they were wrong on in discussions after Mass.  So Fr. Hewko's statement could be technically true if he agreed with everything but 3 points .. assuming there was, say, a dozen points to be considered.  But Fr. Hewko was being a bit over-broad if his intent was to demonstrate that Fr. Tim and the resistance were in lock step except for the execution of the movement.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: untitled on March 16, 2014, 04:05:22 PM

SSPX Bishop: 1
SSPX Priests: 28
SSPX Religious: 0


ESTADÍSTICAS DE LA RESISTENCIA


OBISPO:

S.E.R. Monseñor Richard N. Williamson FSSPX (Inglaterra)


COMUNIDADES RELIGIOSAS:

1. Monasterio de la Santa Cruz OSB, Nova Friburgo, Brasil.
2. Monasterio de Nuestra Señora de la Fe y del Rosario (FBMV), Candeias, Bahía, Brasil.
3. Dominicos de Avrillé, Francia.
4. Monasterio de San José OSB, Santa Sofía, Boyacá, Colombia.
5. Convento Esclavas de María Reina de la Paz, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil.
6. Carmelo de San José, Alemania.
                                 

SACERDOTES :

1.   Abraham, Steven FSSPX [1] (Inglaterra)
2.   Abrahamowicz, Florian FSSPX [2] (Italia)
3.   Altamira, Fernando FSSPX [3] prior (Argentina)
4.   Arízaga, Rafael OSB (México)
5.   Avril, Maurice fundador de la obra de Notre-Dame de Salérans, (Francia)
6.   Bitzer, Gavin (E.U.A)
7.   Brito, Jahir FBMV (Brasil)
8.   Bruno OSB (Francia)
9.   Bufe, Craig SSPX [4] (Irlanda)
10. Cardozo, Ernesto FSSPX [5] (Argentina)
11. Chazal, Francois FSSPX [6] (Francia)
12. Dardis, Brendan O.S.B. (E.U.A.)
13. de Mérode, Roland FSSPX [7], prior (Francia)
14. de Sainte-Marie d’Agneau, Hubert FSSPX [8] (Francia)
15. Dominic Mary of the Pillar OP (E.U.A.)
16. Elijah OFM (Asia)
17. Faure, Jean Michel FSSPX [9] (Francia)
18. Fuchs, Martin FSSPX [10] (Austria)
19. Girouard, Patrick FSSPX [11] (Canadá)
20. Gruner, Nicholas (Canadá)
21. Hewko, David FSSPX [12] (E.U.A.)
22. Iglesias, Juan Antonio (España)
23. Joaquim Daniel Maria de Sant’Ana FBVM (Brasil)
24. Kramer, Paul (Irlanda)
25. Makarios (Brasil)
26. Méramo, Basilio FSSPX [13] (Colombia)
27. N’dong, Pierre-Célestin FSSPX [14] (Gabón)
28. Nariai, John (Japón)
29. O'Connor, John  (E.U.A)
30. Ortiz, Juan Carlos FSSPX [15](Colombia)
31. Pfeiffer, Joseph FSSPX [16] (E.U.A.)
32. Picot, Rémi FSSPX [17] (Francia)
33. Pinaud, Nicolas FSSPX [18] (Francia)
34. Raffali (Francia)
35. Raja, Pancras (India)
36. Ribas, Ramiro (España)
37. Ringrose, Ronald (E.U.A.)
38. Rioult, Olivier FSSPX [19] (Francia)
39. Ruiz, Hugo FSSPX [20] (México)
40. Salenave, Mathieu FSSPX [21] (Francia)
41. Sauer, Frank FSSPX [22] (Alemania)
42. Tomás de Aquino OSB (Brasil)
43. Trauner, Arnold FSSPX [23] (Austria)
44. Trincado, René FSSPX [24] (Chile)
45. Vargas, Arturo FSSPX [25] (México)
46. Vignalou, Pierre FSSPX [26] (Francia)
47. Voigt, Richard SDB (E.U.A.)
48. Weinzierl, Hermann FSSPX [27] (Alemania)
49. Zaby, Bernhard FSSPX [28] (Alemania)
50. Pierre-Marie OP con
60. los otros 10 sacerdotes Dominicos de Avrillé (7 de Francia, 2 de E.U.A., 1 de Polonia)

MIEMBROS DE LA FSSPX: 29
NO MIEMBROS DE LA FSSPX: 32

NACIONALIDADES:

Francia: 21
E.U.A.: 10
Alemania: 3
Brasil: 4
Méjico: 3
Argentina: 2
Austria: 2
Canadá: 2
Colombia: 2
España: 2
Inglaterra: 2
Chile: 1
Gabón: 1
Japón: 1
India: 1
Italia: 1
Irlanda: 1
Polonia: 1
Indeterminado: 1

http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/p/estadisticas-de-la-resistencia-obispos-s.html

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: hollingsworth on March 16, 2014, 04:25:09 PM

mater dominici:

Quote

Fr Hewko's summary was that he (Fr. Tim) agreed with the Resistance priests about almost everything except what the proper course of action for a Society priest should be.

This is exactly what we have heard.  Yet Vinny seems to be telling us that Fr. T. Pfieffer stands four square with the Society.  That's not the way we understand it. His disagreement with the Resistance is basically tactical, not ideological.  He sees clearly what is wrong with the neo-sspx, but chooses for the time being to struggle from within.  Fr. Joe Pfeiffer has never said any differently, and he comes to our "resistance" community at least once a month, sometimes twice.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 16, 2014, 05:45:26 PM

Quote from: untitled

SSPX Bishop: 1
SSPX Priests: 28
SSPX Religious: 0


ESTADÍSTICAS DE LA RESISTENCIA


OBISPO:

S.E.R. Monseñor Richard N. Williamson FSSPX (Inglaterra)


COMUNIDADES RELIGIOSAS:

1. Monasterio de la Santa Cruz OSB, Nova Friburgo, Brasil.
2. Monasterio de Nuestra Señora de la Fe y del Rosario (FBMV), Candeias, Bahía, Brasil.
3. Dominicos de Avrillé, Francia.
4. Monasterio de San José OSB, Santa Sofía, Boyacá, Colombia.
5. Convento Esclavas de María Reina de la Paz, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil.
6. Carmelo de San José, Alemania.
                                 

SACERDOTES :

1.   Abraham, Steven FSSPX [1] (Inglaterra)
2.   Abrahamowicz, Florian FSSPX [2] (Italia)
3.   Altamira, Fernando FSSPX [3] prior (Argentina)
4.   Arízaga, Rafael OSB (México)
5.   Avril, Maurice fundador de la obra de Notre-Dame de Salérans, (Francia)
6.   Bitzer, Gavin (E.U.A)
7.   Brito, Jahir FBMV (Brasil)
8.   Bruno OSB (Francia)
9.   Bufe, Craig SSPX [4] (Irlanda)
10. Cardozo, Ernesto FSSPX [5] (Argentina)
11. Chazal, Francois FSSPX [6] (Francia)
12. Dardis, Brendan O.S.B. (E.U.A.)
13. de Mérode, Roland FSSPX [7], prior (Francia)
14. de Sainte-Marie d’Agneau, Hubert FSSPX [8] (Francia)
15. Dominic Mary of the Pillar OP (E.U.A.)
16. Elijah OFM (Asia)
17. Faure, Jean Michel FSSPX [9] (Francia)
18. Fuchs, Martin FSSPX [10] (Austria)
19. Girouard, Patrick FSSPX [11] (Canadá)
20. Gruner, Nicholas (Canadá)
21. Hewko, David FSSPX [12] (E.U.A.)
22. Iglesias, Juan Antonio (España)
23. Joaquim Daniel Maria de Sant’Ana FBVM (Brasil)
24. Kramer, Paul (Irlanda)
25. Makarios (Brasil)
26. Méramo, Basilio FSSPX [13] (Colombia)
27. N’dong, Pierre-Célestin FSSPX [14] (Gabón)
28. Nariai, John (Japón)
29. O'Connor, John  (E.U.A)
30. Ortiz, Juan Carlos FSSPX [15](Colombia)
31. Pfeiffer, Joseph FSSPX [16] (E.U.A.)
32. Picot, Rémi FSSPX [17] (Francia)
33. Pinaud, Nicolas FSSPX [18] (Francia)
34. Raffali (Francia)
35. Raja, Pancras (India)
36. Ribas, Ramiro (España)
37. Ringrose, Ronald (E.U.A.)
38. Rioult, Olivier FSSPX [19] (Francia)
39. Ruiz, Hugo FSSPX [20] (México)
40. Salenave, Mathieu FSSPX [21] (Francia)
41. Sauer, Frank FSSPX [22] (Alemania)
42. Tomás de Aquino OSB (Brasil)
43. Trauner, Arnold FSSPX [23] (Austria)
44. Trincado, René FSSPX [24] (Chile)
45. Vargas, Arturo FSSPX [25] (México)
46. Vignalou, Pierre FSSPX [26] (Francia)
47. Voigt, Richard SDB (E.U.A.)
48. Weinzierl, Hermann FSSPX [27] (Alemania)
49. Zaby, Bernhard FSSPX [28] (Alemania)
50. Pierre-Marie OP con
60. los otros 10 sacerdotes Dominicos de Avrillé (7 de Francia, 2 de E.U.A., 1 de Polonia)

MIEMBROS DE LA FSSPX: 29
NO MIEMBROS DE LA FSSPX: 32

NACIONALIDADES:

Francia: 21
E.U.A.: 10
Alemania: 3
Brasil: 4
Méjico: 3
Argentina: 2
Austria: 2
Canadá: 2
Colombia: 2
España: 2
Inglaterra: 2
Chile: 1
Gabón: 1
Japón: 1
India: 1
Italia: 1
Irlanda: 1
Polonia: 1
Indeterminado: 1

http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/p/estadisticas-de-la-resistencia-obispos-s.html

THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH THE RESISTANCE
600 SSPX Priests
3 BISHOPS
MANY OTHER BENEDICTINES, DOMINICANS, SSPX SISTERS, SSPX TERTIARIES

... and your point is?

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 16, 2014, 05:51:50 PM

Quote from: hollingsworth

mater dominici:

Quote

Fr Hewko's summary was that he (Fr. Tim) agreed with the Resistance priests about almost everything except what the proper course of action for a Society priest should be.

This is exactly what we have heard.  Yet Vinny seems to be telling us that Fr. T. Pfieffer stands four square with the Society.  That's not the way we understand it. His disagreement with the Resistance is basically tactical, not ideological.  He sees clearly what is wrong with the neo-sspx, but chooses for the time being to struggle from within.  Fr. Joe Pfeiffer has never said any differently, and he comes to our "resistance" community at least once a month, sometimes twice.

In fairness T., anyone that stands 'four square' in allegiance to anyone but God is misled.  As I am sure you do not stand 'four square' in agreement with everything each resistance priest has ever said or done, I am sure that there are things Fr. Tim P has issues with pertaining to how things were handled, particularly on a disciplinary level.  But I believe that there is where his problem ends.  If the foundation of the resistance is predicated on disciplinary issues (which I believe it is) and not on solid conflicts of faith, then the division it has caused is not warranted.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Sigfrid on March 16, 2014, 06:04:14 PM

unititle's list is inflated with a bunch of independents and SSPX priests who have not taken any public stance as well as priests who left the society for other reasons well before the current crisis like Fr Abrahamowicz who joined the IMBC (Euro-sedes). Might as well include "the nine" on that list as well with the bar so low for being counted as "resistance".

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Matthew on March 16, 2014, 06:10:48 PM

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: hollingsworth

mater dominici:

Quote

Fr Hewko's summary was that he (Fr. Tim) agreed with the Resistance priests about almost everything except what the proper course of action for a Society priest should be.

This is exactly what we have heard.  Yet Vinny seems to be telling us that Fr. T. Pfieffer stands four square with the Society.  That's not the way we understand it. His disagreement with the Resistance is basically tactical, not ideological.  He sees clearly what is wrong with the neo-sspx, but chooses for the time being to struggle from within.  Fr. Joe Pfeiffer has never said any differently, and he comes to our "resistance" community at least once a month, sometimes twice.

In fairness T., anyone that stands 'four square' in allegiance to anyone but God is misled.  As I am sure you do not stand 'four square' in agreement with everything each resistance priest has ever said or done, I am sure that there are things Fr. Tim P has issues with pertaining to how things were handled, particularly on a disciplinary level.  But I believe that there is where his problem ends.  If the foundation of the resistance is predicated on disciplinary issues (which I believe it is) and not on solid conflicts of faith, then the division it has caused is not warranted.

Well that's not surprising, as this is coming from you.

You're one of those accordista types. You remind me of John McFarland or others like him.

You don't understand it, you don't want to understand it, etc. You give no acknowledgement whatsoever of the real problems in the SSPX today. And I'm not just talking about disciplinary issues. I'm talking about openness to the modern world, Vatican II, the Conciliar Church, etc.

I'm talking about priests ordained in 2001 that are already speaking differently from what they were taught in the seminary.

People all over the world are noticing these things -- on their own -- even though there is no charismatic personality doing the convincing. It's people independently coming to the same conclusions. People in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, Asia -- did I leave any inhabited continents out?

One of the biggest Resistance supporters in my area came to his first Resistance-affiliated Mass without ever having met Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, or Bishop Williamson. This man was not swayed by anyone's rhetoric or strong personality. He simply did his homework, and didn't want to be a part of the new SSPX.

None of this strong evidence do you acknowledge.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: MaterDominici on March 16, 2014, 06:14:11 PM

Quote from: Sigfrid

unititle's list is inflated with a bunch of independents

It splits them out at the bottom.

MIEMBROS DE LA FSSPX: 29
NO MIEMBROS DE LA FSSPX: 32

But, I wouldn't discount the departure of a priest who was previously covering an SSPX Mass location and now is not. (I don't know how many this applies to.) Except on rare occassion, the only priest we ever have at our SSPX chapel is someone who is not a member of the SSPX.

When Fr Ringrose stopped working with the Society, the SSPX established a new Mass location in that area, so it certainly shows that some of these priests weren't all that "independent".

Quote

and SSPX priests who have not taken any public stance

Who are you referring to?

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 16, 2014, 06:15:38 PM

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: hollingsworth

mater dominici:

Quote

Fr Hewko's summary was that he (Fr. Tim) agreed with the Resistance priests about almost everything except what the proper course of action for a Society priest should be.

This is exactly what we have heard.  Yet Vinny seems to be telling us that Fr. T. Pfieffer stands four square with the Society.  That's not the way we understand it. His disagreement with the Resistance is basically tactical, not ideological.  He sees clearly what is wrong with the neo-sspx, but chooses for the time being to struggle from within.  Fr. Joe Pfeiffer has never said any differently, and he comes to our "resistance" community at least once a month, sometimes twice.

In fairness T., anyone that stands 'four square' in allegiance to anyone but God is misled.  As I am sure you do not stand 'four square' in agreement with everything each resistance priest has ever said or done, I am sure that there are things Fr. Tim P has issues with pertaining to how things were handled, particularly on a disciplinary level.  But I believe that there is where his problem ends.  If the foundation of the resistance is predicated on disciplinary issues (which I believe it is) and not on solid conflicts of faith, then the division it has caused is not warranted.

Well that's not surprising, as this is coming from you.

You're one of those accordista types. You remind me of John McFarland or others like him.

You don't understand it, you don't want to understand it, etc. You give no acknowledgement whatsoever of the real problems in the SSPX today. And I'm not just talking about disciplinary issues. I'm talking about openness to the modern world, Vatican II, the Conciliar Church, etc.

I'm talking about priests ordained in 2001 that are already speaking differently from what they were taught in the seminary.

People all over the world are noticing these things -- on their own -- even though there is no charismatic personality doing the convincing. It's people independently coming to the same conclusions. People in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, Asia -- did I leave any inhabited continents out?

One of the biggest Resistance supporters in my area came to his first Resistance-affiliated Mass without ever having met Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, or Bishop Williamson. This man was not swayed by anyone's rhetoric or strong personality. He simply did his homework, and didn't want to be a part of the new SSPX.

None of this strong evidence do you acknowledge.

Matthew, hopefully you are not lawyer if this post passes for evidence.  Can you point me to a fairly concise list of evidence that doesn't include flying saucers?

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 16, 2014, 06:19:03 PM

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: hollingsworth

mater dominici:

Quote

Fr Hewko's summary was that he (Fr. Tim) agreed with the Resistance priests about almost everything except what the proper course of action for a Society priest should be.

This is exactly what we have heard.  Yet Vinny seems to be telling us that Fr. T. Pfieffer stands four square with the Society.  That's not the way we understand it. His disagreement with the Resistance is basically tactical, not ideological.  He sees clearly what is wrong with the neo-sspx, but chooses for the time being to struggle from within.  Fr. Joe Pfeiffer has never said any differently, and he comes to our "resistance" community at least once a month, sometimes twice.

In fairness T., anyone that stands 'four square' in allegiance to anyone but God is misled.  As I am sure you do not stand 'four square' in agreement with everything each resistance priest has ever said or done, I am sure that there are things Fr. Tim P has issues with pertaining to how things were handled, particularly on a disciplinary level.  But I believe that there is where his problem ends.  If the foundation of the resistance is predicated on disciplinary issues (which I believe it is) and not on solid conflicts of faith, then the division it has caused is not warranted.

You're one of those accordista types. You remind me of John McFarland or others like him.

... and for the record, I am NOT for an accord.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Matto on March 16, 2014, 06:20:54 PM

Quote from: VinnyF

... and for the record, I am NOT for an accord.

Good. I think an accord would be horrible and a form of mass spiritual ѕυιcιdє.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: MaterDominici on March 16, 2014, 06:27:34 PM

Quote from: VinnyF

Can you point me to a fairly concise list of evidence ... ?

Courtesy of a French priest:
The Impossible Reconciliation (http://www.amazon.com/The-Impossible-Reconciliation-Docuмents-Operation/dp/1492348309/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395012063&sr=8-1&keywords=impossible+reconciliation)

Courtesy of an Australian:
Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє? (https://isthisoperationѕυιcιdє.wordpress.com/)

Have you read them?
Will you?

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 16, 2014, 07:37:52 PM

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: VinnyF

Can you point me to a fairly concise list of evidence ... ?

Courtesy of a French priest:
The Impossible Reconciliation (http://www.amazon.com/The-Impossible-Reconciliation-Docuмents-Operation/dp/1492348309/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395012063&sr=8-1&keywords=impossible+reconciliation)

Courtesy of an Australian:
Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє? (https://isthisoperationѕυιcιdє.wordpress.com/)

Have you read them?
Will you?

I have not. I will!  however, if all this is about the reconcilliation that I am not in favor of and that I personally think will not happen for another decade at least, what is the point? Is there more substance than the aborted Reconciliation?

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: B from A on March 16, 2014, 07:55:10 PM

Quote from: VinnyF

... and for the record, I am NOT for an accord.

For the record, if the SSPX were to make an accord with Modernist Rome (modernist Rome as she is right now  - you know, the Francis "we might consider civil unions" Rome), would you continue to support Bishop Fellay & the SSPX?  

You may treat this as a strictly hypothetical question, given your earlier mention that you don't anticipate it happening.  Just use your imagination to pretend that the impossible happened & they did make a deal, would you still support the SSPX?  Would it change anything for you, in your practice, or your attitude toward the SSPX, etc?  And if your answer is in the form of, "it would depend on the conditions of the deal", then please specify in what way.  

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 16, 2014, 08:20:21 PM

Quote from:  B from A

Quote from: VinnyF

... and for the record, I am NOT for an accord.

For the record, if the SSPX were to make an accord with Modernist Rome (modernist Rome as she is right now  - you know, the Francis "we might consider civil unions" Rome), would you continue to support Bishop Fellay & the SSPX?  

You may treat this as a strictly hypothetical question, given your earlier mention that you don't anticipate it happening.  Just use your imagination to pretend that the impossible happened & they did make a deal, would you still support the SSPX?  Would it change anything for you, in your practice, or your attitude toward the SSPX, etc?  And if your answer is in the form of, "it would depend on the conditions of the deal", then please specify in what way.  

Honestly, if a deal were made with the current Pope and his current agenda, it would change my attitude toward the deal negotiators.  The conditions of the deal would be an issue but I find it impossible to imagine a deal that would provide an "iron-clad" protection to continue the apostolate.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: hugeman on March 16, 2014, 08:40:13 PM

Too many are missing the main event:
 There's not likely to be any accord-- at least any public accord. Bergoglio and Mueller have probably seen how incompetent Fellay and Co handled the last set of docuмents. Fellay, in his AFD, has already sold his soul, and the SSPX, down the river. Remember-- he promised  to dedicate all his efforts to bring about this union--regardless of what happens. He has never, ever, publicly stood up and retracted, to the pope and to the world, the AFD.

 It is far more likely that his handlers will just have a "soft" merger. The Novus Ordo pres-by-ters will attend the new seminary in Virginia for "Latin Mass " orientation and crash courses; SSPX seminarians will be invited to Novus Ordo training camps; N.O teachers will "visit" SSPX seminaries, N.O. Bishops will continue to confirm SSPX children (like in France); marriages will be "performed" with BOTH Novus Ordo Pres-by-ters and SSPX priests both officiating (as in Europe now); and such cooperation will continue until all the parties think its ripe for a seamless agreement.

   They have already accepted the Vatican Council; ninety five per cent of it is okay; they have already stopped preaching against the Novus Ordo; they have already accepted the New Mass in principle. More pres-by-ters and "monsigneurs," all unordained, will continue too move into SSPX locations (like in Ridgefield Retreat House). This is all most likely in keeping with the recommendations of their marketing consultants: Make the two organizations virtually identical, just carve out for the SSPX the "high road" type of services (e.g. the High Anglican Church), and eventually take the place of the infamous "Legions of Christ" of the Marcial Maciel debacle-- who also held themselves out to "save the church for the pope!" Behind all their pomp and circuмstance-- there was no substance, just filth. When all the old timers are hammered into submission in the SSPX, there will also be nothing behind the "pomp and circuмstances."

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: holysoulsacademy on March 16, 2014, 08:50:06 PM

Quote from: hugeman

More pres-by-ters and "monsigneurs," all unordained, will continue too move into SSPX locations (like in Ridgefield Retreat House).

Someone else mentioned this to us too.  A NO Msgr. has moved in to Ridgefield - is this to assist at Masses, Confessions?
I was going to post an inquiry about this to get a second validation.
Now it's confirmed.

:facepalm:

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: B from A on March 16, 2014, 09:00:26 PM

Quote from: hugeman

Too many are missing the main event:
 There's not likely to be any accord-- at least any public accord.  Fellay, in his AFD, has already sold his soul, and the SSPX, down the river. Remember-- he promised  to dedicate all his efforts to bring about this union--regardless of what happens. He has never, ever, publicly stood up and retracted, to the pope and to the world, the AFD.     They have already accepted the Vatican Council;

I agree.  After asking my question about "what if there is a deal", I was typing up another response along these lines - i.e. that "accord or no accord" is not the primary issue, but the liberalizing, the neutralizing, of which there are countless examples.  But I was not satisfied with what I typed, and as I do not have a "concise list of evidence" readily available at my fingertips, I decided not to bother with it.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: MaterDominici on March 17, 2014, 06:02:24 AM

Quote from: VinnyF

Honestly, if a deal were made with the current Pope and his current agenda, it would change my attitude toward the deal negotiators.  The conditions of the deal would be an issue but I find it impossible to imagine a deal that would provide an "iron-clad" protection to continue the apostolate.

Given A and B, why do you find the attempted negotiations which have already occurred to be acceptable?

Leaving aside the question of what individuals should do about it, why has your opinion of the negotiators not already changed?

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: MaterDominici on March 17, 2014, 06:09:48 AM

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: VinnyF

Can you point me to a fairly concise list of evidence ... ?

Courtesy of a French priest:
The Impossible Reconciliation (http://www.amazon.com/The-Impossible-Reconciliation-Docuмents-Operation/dp/1492348309/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395012063&sr=8-1&keywords=impossible+reconciliation)

Courtesy of an Australian:
Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє? (https://isthisoperationѕυιcιdє.wordpress.com/)

Have you read them?
Will you?

I have not. I will!  however, if all this is about the reconcilliation that I am not in favor of and that I personally think will not happen for another decade at least, what is the point? Is there more substance than the aborted Reconciliation?

The purpose of these docuмents is to prove that the present leadership of the Society desires a deal with Rome -- converted or not -- and that they have and continue to do, say, and change things in an effort to make the Society more appealing to the Roman side of the negotiating table.

If you were a priest or layman in favor of a deal, there would be no reason to do or say anything at all. But, if you're not in favor of this newly-publicized direction, the question of what, if anything, a priest or layman should do about it should be addressed.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: MaterDominici on March 17, 2014, 06:24:31 AM

Quote

I personally think will not happen for another decade at least

It's already been nearly 2 years since these things became public. I do believe that if the "letter of the 3 bishops" had not been made public, that the Society would quite likely already be approved by Rome. I also can't imagine at this point that Fr Pflueger's estimation that the Society will have Rome's approval by August 2014 could be possible.

But, my question for you is if you believe the timeline for a deal to be about a decade from now, at what point will you become concerned and believe that it's proper for a priest or layman to say or do something about it? At 5 years? 3 years? 1 year?

If you think no deal is possible now, but it might be in a decade, surely you agree that something would have to change during that time. What do you imagine these changes would be? Do you have no problem with them?

I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. I do have a very hard time understanding someone who does not desire a deal with Rome, but believes that all Society members and parishioners should not be concerned and/or say nothing about the ongoing actions of Society leadership.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 17, 2014, 06:30:06 AM

There is an easy solution to all of this. The SSPX could make a list of the scandals and heresies of Bergoglio and denounce him as a valid pontiff and call for the unification of all Catholics against the modernist sect that occupies our buildings.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 17, 2014, 08:42:00 AM

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: VinnyF

Honestly, if a deal were made with the current Pope and his current agenda, it would change my attitude toward the deal negotiators.  The conditions of the deal would be an issue but I find it impossible to imagine a deal that would provide an "iron-clad" protection to continue the apostolate.

Given A and B, why do you find the attempted negotiations which have already occurred to be acceptable?

Leaving aside the question of what individuals should do about it, why has your opinion of the negotiators not already changed?

Because I see absolutely no difference between +Fellay's desire to regularize the Society and the Archbishop's attempt, which I also was not crazy about.  The Achbishop's Protocol was much scarier than the 2012 docuмent in that it placed the Society under an unnamed group of "Traditional Bishops" and also accepted Lumen Gentium, the validity of the Novus Ordo, and the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

After spending months hammering out the Protocol with +Ratzinger, +ABL, as we all know, signed it and then reneged the next day because he did not, in his words, trust that he would be given a Bishop.  If Rome would have accepted the June consecrations, we would be celebrating 25 years of regularity.

In 2012, Bishop Fellay started with the Protocol but modified it in a way that was unacceptable to Rome (substitution of the Oath Against Modernism in place of the CCC to arbitrate disputes).  Hence the agreement failed and +Fellay in hindsight, thinks that to be fortunate given what has happened since.

+Fellay appears to me to share, at some level, the same desire to have canonical regularity for the Society as +ABL did.  I do not hold that against either of them although I believe the path is dangerous given the current Pope and episcopate.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 17, 2014, 08:49:27 AM

Quote from: hugeman

More pres-by-ters and "monsigneurs," all unordained, will continue too move into SSPX locations (like in Ridgefield Retreat House). This is all most likely in keeping with the recommendations of their marketing consultants:

So I guess it doesn't "bother" you that Fr. Voigt is one of those Novus Ordo  pres-by-ters, formed in the Novus Ordo?  

Come to think of it, I imagine you also feel the same way about the pres-by-ter, Fr Ringrose, who also came from the Diocese of Baltimore and a Novus Ordo formation?

Hopefully, you're boycotting their Masses as their formation make them undesirable.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: B from A on March 17, 2014, 09:25:18 AM

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: hugeman

More pres-by-ters and "monsigneurs," all unordained, will continue too move into SSPX locations (like in Ridgefield Retreat House). This is all most likely in keeping with the recommendations of their marketing consultants:

So I guess it doesn't "bother" you that Fr. Voigt is one of those Novus Ordo  pres-by-ters, formed in the Novus Ordo?  

Come to think of it, I imagine you also feel the same way about the pres-by-ter, Fr Ringrose, who also came from the Diocese of Baltimore and a Novus Ordo formation?

Hopefully, you're boycotting their Masses as their formation make them undesirable.

I thought he was referring to the fact of not being conditionally ordained.  Both Frs. Voigt & Ringrose are conditionally ordained in the Traditional rite.  Of course hugeman can speak for himself, but I only saw him mention "unordained", not their "formation".

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 17, 2014, 09:36:11 AM

Quote from: MaterDominici

The purpose of these docuмents is to prove that the present leadership of the Society desires a deal with Rome -- converted or not.

If you were a priest or layman in favor of a deal, there would be no reason to do or say anything at all. But, if you're not in favor of this newly-publicized direction, the question of what, if anything, a priest or layman should do about it should be addressed.

Again I'll point out that this was also +ABL's conviction and "conversion" was neither a part of his negotiation, nor the reason he changed his mind.  It was about, again in his words, being able to continue its mission without being crushed by the hierarchy.  So the fact that +Fellay holds the opinion that being recognized by the Vicar of Christ is a good thing is not problematic for me, as long as the Society is not sold into modernism.  These are my personal feelings and while they are consistent with +ABL's actions along these lines, I don't hold this opinion just because he or +Fellay do.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 17, 2014, 09:42:02 AM

Quote from:  B from A

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: hugeman

More pres-by-ters and "monsigneurs," all unordained, will continue too move into SSPX locations (like in Ridgefield Retreat House). This is all most likely in keeping with the recommendations of their marketing consultants:

So I guess it doesn't "bother" you that Fr. Voigt is one of those Novus Ordo  pres-by-ters, formed in the Novus Ordo?  

Come to think of it, I imagine you also feel the same way about the pres-by-ter, Fr Ringrose, who also came from the Diocese of Baltimore and a Novus Ordo formation?

Hopefully, you're boycotting their Masses as their formation make them undesirable.

I thought he was referring to the fact of not being conditionally ordained.  Both Frs. Voigt & Ringrose are conditionally ordained in the Traditional rite.  Of course hugeman can speak for himself, but I only saw him mention "unordained", not their "formation".

That certainly did not seem to be his main point. +ABL conditionally ordained Fr. Ringrose but Fr. Voigt was only recently conditionally ordained by +Williamson.  I don't remember reading any calls about his being "kicked out" of the resistance prior to that for either being a Novus Ordo-presbyter-formed priest or having a Novus Ordo presbyter ordination.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: B from A on March 17, 2014, 09:59:33 AM

Quote from: VinnyF

...substitution of the Oath Against Modernism in place of the CCC to arbitrate disputes...

Please show me where in the docuмent it says this.  I see nothing about using the Oath Against Modernism to arbitrate disputes.  Of course we can't see what he "substituted" because Bp. Fellay has never made public the original preamble given to him by Cardinal Levada.  The only mention I see of the Oath Against Modernism is in footnote 7, which also lists Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.  And the section of the AFD which uses footnote 7 does not say anything about "resolving disputes."  Please explain.

Quote from: VinnyF

The Achbishop's Protocol was much scarier than the 2012 docuмent in that it placed the Society under an unnamed group of "Traditional Bishops" and also accepted Lumen Gentium, the validity of the Novus Ordo, and the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

The 1st phrase is a totally unjust comparison, because the 1988 Protocol includes both the doctrinal parts & juridical questions (i.e. terms of the deal, I guess you could call it).  But Cardinal Levada's proposal to +F in 2011 was in 2 separate parts, of which, AFAIK, we haven't seen the juridical part.  One thing we know about it is that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local modernist ordinary.  Did Bishop Fellay's verbal shrug of the shoulders regarding this point, "since when is life without difficulties" bother you?

As for the 2nd phrase:  re: Lumen Gentium, it did not accept the whole of it, but only paragraph 25.   As for the rest, not only did the 2012 also accept those things, but it accepted more & worse, such as legitimate promulgation of the New Mass, religious liberty of VII being reconcilable with Tradition, and also the Oath of Fidelity which +ABL condemned.  As for the 1983 Code, are you aware that the SSPX uses that and refers to it frequently these days in their operations, including the "suspension a divinis" of Fr. Pinaud?  Do you believe that Bishop Fellay has the jurisdiction to suspend a priest a divinis?  And do you believe Fr. Pinaud's "crime" was sufficient cause to suspend him a divinis?    

I don't have time to post on this further right now, but just a few more questions, as long as we're on the AFD:

Do you agree with the 2012 AFD that the affirmations of VII and of the later Pontifical Magisterium on the right to religious liberty is reconcilable with Catholic Tradition?   (The 1988 did not (http://www.therecusant.com/abplefebvre-1988-protocol) say it was reconcilable.)  

Do you agree with the 2012 AFD that the new Mass is "legitimately" promulgated?  (The 1988 protocol did not say "legitimately".)

Do you agree with the 2012 AFD that Vatican II "enlightens ... certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated"?

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 17, 2014, 10:16:46 AM

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote

I personally think will not happen for another decade at least

It's already been nearly 2 years since these things became public. I do believe that if the "letter of the 3 bishops" had not been made public, that the Society would quite likely already be approved by Rome. I also can't imagine at this point that Fr Pflueger's estimation that the Society will have Rome's approval by August 2014 could be possible.

But, my question for you is if you believe the timeline for a deal to be about a decade from now, at what point will you become concerned and believe that it's proper for a priest or layman to say or do something about it? At 5 years? 3 years? 1 year?

If you think no deal is possible now, but it might be in a decade, surely you agree that something would have to change during that time. What do you imagine these changes would be? Do you have no problem with them?

I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. I do have a very hard time understanding someone who does not desire a deal with Rome, but believes that all Society members and parishioners should not be concerned and/or say nothing about the ongoing actions of Society leadership.

MD - thanks for at least being interested in hearing by thoughts.  Hopefully, my words  appear charitable to you since that is my intent.

At this point, I believe that the only relevant timeline is the lifespan of the current pope, so I can't put years to it.  For as long as Francis occupies the See, there is no prospect of a suitable canonical arrangement because it at least appears to me that he is not interested in passing on the faith that was entrusted to him and would thwart anyone else who tried to. This is plain in his actions over the last year. He is the Rodney King pope.  If you point me to his successor and tell when he will assume the See, maybe I could make a prediction, unless his successor is Muller or Kaspar.

Quote from: MaterDominici

at what point will you become concerned and believe that it's proper for a priest or layman to say or do something about it?

We are talking about an order of priests so I don't believe there is anything a layman can do about it except communicate with the SG.  The letter of the three Bishops is the proper way to make the SG aware of serious misgivings of any concern pertaining to the Society.  The fact that it was made public was wrong.  Any priest should likewise make his concerns known at whatever point he has concerns in a private manner (not Youtube).

So in a nutshell, I believe that no recognition or agreement is possible now because, in +ABL's words, there is no way that a canonical structure can be erected that would reasonably protect the autonomy of the SSPX under this pope, this curia, and this generally episcopacy. We would be "crushed" with the pope facilitating the crushing.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Wessex on March 17, 2014, 10:43:40 AM

If you want to see the future look to the seminaries and schools; look to the key parishes; look to the latest batch of new superiors. Be ahead of the liberal curve and not behind it! The new direction will not be found in sleepy backwaters where elderly pastors are approaching their pensions. The new blood will be well versed in tiptoeing around V2 which they will see and accept as one more point of reference in the history of the Church. Rejection will no longer be an option; something the Society was always unclear about.

No, there was little difference between ABL's desire to treat in 1988 and Bp. F's in 2012. Having gone to the extreme of appointing themselves out of necessity, it certainly borders on treachery to see them throw in the towel over major issues and haggle over minor ones. It makes one wonder whether they really believed in what they said. And what on earth was the SSPX really all about!

After forty years we may answer that it bore all the frustrations of a cultural shift that was being translated into new theory and practice. Rome had to go the same way as society and could no longer harbour and comfort reaction. But were our frustrations strong enough to lead to something substantial that would counter this cultural shift? Evidently, not, but some brave souls keep trying. With failure comes resignation and a myriad of excuses. So, more than ever the Society takes on an existential character where logic and reason are in short supply but where material resources, clerical employment and lay habituation keep the machine going for now. If managed properly, it may even outlive Rome!

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: holysoulsacademy on March 17, 2014, 11:39:31 AM

Quote from:  B from A

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: hugeman

More pres-by-ters and "monsigneurs," all unordained, will continue too move into SSPX locations (like in Ridgefield Retreat House). This is all most likely in keeping with the recommendations of their marketing consultants:

So I guess it doesn't "bother" you that Fr. Voigt is one of those Novus Ordo  pres-by-ters, formed in the Novus Ordo?  

Come to think of it, I imagine you also feel the same way about the pres-by-ter, Fr Ringrose, who also came from the Diocese of Baltimore and a Novus Ordo formation?

Hopefully, you're boycotting their Masses as their formation make them undesirable.

I thought he was referring to the fact of not being conditionally ordained.  Both Frs. Voigt & Ringrose are conditionally ordained in the Traditional rite.  Of course hugeman can speak for himself, but I only saw him mention "unordained", not their "formation".

I understood the same. But I could be wrong.

There was a time when SSPX laity did not have to be concerned about NO priests because they understood that SSPX considered NO having doubtful validity IF THEY WERE ORDAINED AFTER VATICAN II.  

The understanding among the laity is that priests ordained pre-Vat2 would only need to be re-trained to bring them back to where they departed after Vat2.

If they were ordained after Vat2 then they would have to be trained in the preVat2 rites PLUS CONDITIONALLY ORDAINED by the SSPX Bishop, so as to complete anything that was lacking.

At least that was what was explained to me.

Now in light of the AFD, they accept the validity of all NO Sacraments which makes everything a lot more complicated.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 17, 2014, 11:42:10 AM

.

Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30474&min=0#p4)

Quote from: stgobnait

when i came to sspx first, and saw the little congregation, i balked. then they told me, its not about numbers. same applies to the resistance,we hope for growth, and believe it will come, so those who want to join rome should do so now, what are they waiting for?

They're waiting for Rome to accommodate the trappings of Tradition, and that is all.  Superficial people don't care about doctrine;  all they care about are appearances.  They want the smells and bells of Tradition, but if it comes without substance, that's just fine with them.  What they don't believe is that after one or two generations of that, their progeny will have no preference even for the smells and bells.  



But there is a flip side to this question, and that is, "Why are so many SSPX regulars afraid of the Resistance?  Why don't they join the Resistance?  What are the Faithful waiting for?"

The ones I know of are 'waiting' for +Fellay to give them permission to join the Resistance!  

Others have been reading DICI and sspx.org for years and they have never seen any announcement of the existence of any Resistance, or of any alternative to what the Menzingen-denizens proffer.  

The Recusant is now into Issue #15, and each issue has 34 pages.  That means 500 pages of intense material that you will NEVER SEE on DICI.

Fellayites have been conditioned to scorn the very word "the Resistance," despite the fact that ABL and his activities and followers were called "the Resistance" at that time.  This is a glaring example of historical revisionism, and the errors of Russia, now present in the Church.  

In 1962, Pope John XXIII was a prideful man, who had an idea of 'great things' he wanted to accomplish in the Church.  After he became pope, he read the Third Secret of Fatima, and saw there words that were an OBSTACLE to his personal agenda, and his pride would not allow him to recognize that the problem was in his agenda.  His response then was that the contents of the Secret were "not for Our pontificate."  He basically pushed Our Lady aside, and willfully continued with his plan.


.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 17, 2014, 12:06:08 PM

Quote from:  B from A

Quote from: VinnyF

...substitution of the Oath Against Modernism in place of the CCC to arbitrate disputes...

Please show me where in the docuмent it says this.  I see nothing about using the Oath Against Modernism to arbitrate disputes.  Of course we can't see what he "substituted" because Bp. Fellay has never made public the original preamble given to him by Cardinal Levada.  The only mention I see of the Oath Against Modernism is in footnote 7, which also lists Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.  And the section of the AFD which uses footnote 7 does not say anything about "resolving disputes."  Please explain.

Footnote (7) originally had the CCC where it now has the anti-modernist Oath.  You certainly wouldn't have Levada citing the Pius XII Oath as a reference in understanding the Deposit of Faith.  That is what I meant.

Quote from:  B from A

Quote from: VinnyF

The Achbishop's Protocol was much scarier than the 2012 docuмent in that it placed the Society under an unnamed group of "Traditional Bishops" and also accepted Lumen Gentium, the validity of the Novus Ordo, and the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

The 1st phrase is a totally unjust comparison, because the 1988 Protocol includes both the doctrinal parts & juridical questions (i.e. terms of the deal, I guess you could call it).  But Cardinal Levada's proposal to +F in 2011 was in 2 separate parts, of which, AFAIK, we haven't seen the juridical part.  One thing we know about it is that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local modernist ordinary.  Did Bishop Fellay's verbal shrug of the shoulders regarding this point, "since when is life without difficulties" bother you?

The structure was never finalized or agreed to.  I do understand that the particular structure, as it exists in canon law today, requires this permission.  But it was firstly never a done deal (and signed), nor was it beyond the power of the Pope to create a variant of a prelature or universal diocese whereby permission was always requested but not required.  That is where +Fellay was going although such a structure does not currently exist that looks like this.  I believe that he was most interested in the prelature because it gave the SSPX power to incorporate the religious orders, whereas a universal diocese (like the military diocese) did not. It was a negotiation never completed but still more detail and accommodation was required.

Quote from:  B from A

As for the 2nd phrase:  re: Lumen Gentium, it did not accept the whole of it, but only paragraph 25.  

Not sure where you see that the totality of LG is accepted.  In my reading, it only says that the "doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the College of Bishops, with the Pope as its head" per LG is accepted.

Quote from:  B from A

As for the rest, not only did the 2012 also accept those things, but it accepted more & worse, such as legitimate promulgation of the New Mass, religious liberty of VII being reconcilable with Tradition, and also the Oath of Fidelity which +ABL condemned.

Firstly, tell me where you see Religious Liberty mentioned in the preamble.

For the New Mass, are you saying that Paul VI, as pope, did not have the legitimate or legal authority to promulgate the New Mass?  The DD does not admit that the New Mass is "legitimate" - only that SSPX concedes that pope had the legal right, as Pope, to promulgate it, and he did, bastard Mass or not.  +Fellay removed their proposed text that admitted to its liceity in favor of admitting the obvious legal right that the Pope has to promulgate the Mass.

Quote from:  B from A

As for the 1983 Code, are you aware that the SSPX uses that and refers to it frequently these days in their operations, including the "suspension a divinis" of Fr. Pinaud?  

Do you believe that there is any other Code of Canon Law currently binding on the Catholic Church?

Quote from:  B from A

Do you believe that Bishop Fellay has the jurisdiction to suspend a priest a divinis?  And do you believe Fr. Pinaud's "crime" was sufficient cause to suspend him a divinis?  

I honestly do not know the answer to this question without looking up the canon he sited in the suspension.  I expect he cited some canon authorizing the SG to take that action but I don;t know if it was properly applied or not and I also do not now the details of Fr. Pinaud's case.

Quote from:  B from A

Do you agree with the 2012 AFD that Vatican II "enlightens ... certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated"?

I believe that "The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.."  but no, I don;t believe that V2 enlightens anything.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: hugeman on March 17, 2014, 01:01:28 PM

That is correct; I was quite clear I was referring to Novus Ordo Pres-by-ters
who have been made such under the new 'sacraments' of the conciliar church. I have
never expressed any concerns with respect to Father Ringrose's
Orthodoxy, I was quite upset that the SSPX snuck fr Voight into the confessionals snd classrooms in Syracuse without telling the Catholic faithful. Likewise, I was not pleased that Father Pfeiffer brought him into the 'resistance' without him being ordained. I expressed myself at the time, and it has been reported that Bp. Williamson corrected the situation.

There are some readers of these traditional sites who do the work of satan, and are intent on spreading misperceptions, inaccuracies, and falsehoods. A Catholic should be able to discern
between those who honestly question to learn and those who dishonestly question solely to confuse and obfuscate. Evidently, the moderator expects us to keep our eyes open and brain engaged.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 17, 2014, 01:13:31 PM

Quote from: holysoulsacademy

The understanding among the laity is that priests ordained pre-Vat2 would only need to be re-trained to bring them back to where they departed after Vat2.

If they were ordained after Vat2 then they would have to be trained in the preVat2 rites PLUS CONDITIONALLY ORDAINED by the SSPX Bishop, so as to complete anything that was lacking.

At least that was what was explained to me.

Now in light of the AFD, they accept the validity of all NO Sacraments which makes everything a lot more complicated.

AFD didn't change that and is not inconsistant with +ABL or how the SSPX has always operated. A N.O. priest approaches the SSPX and it is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.  The Society firstly tries to determine if the reformed (post V2) rite was followed, preferably by video if one exists.  All AFD confirms is that the SSPX does not believe that the new rite is, in itself, a significant enough departure from Trent to render itself invalid. The validity would be in the proof that the matter-form-intent was followed. When in doubt, then conditional ordination is called for.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: VinnyF on March 17, 2014, 01:18:39 PM

Quote from: hugeman

I was quite upset that the SSPX snuck fr Voight into the confessionals snd classrooms in Syracuse without telling the Catholic faithful. Likewise, I was not pleased that Father Pfeiffer brought him into the 'resistance' without him being ordained.

You, and several others.  There were parishioners who would not go to morning Mass if he was the celebrant right up until he left.

Fr. Ringrose had the same problem when he brought Fr. Dadameo on board, although he took care of his Conditional ordination immediately.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 20, 2014, 02:55:09 AM

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from:  B from A

Quote from: VinnyF

...substitution of the Oath Against Modernism in place of the CCC to arbitrate disputes...

Please show me where in the docuмent it says this.  I see nothing about using the Oath Against Modernism to arbitrate disputes.  Of course we can't see what he "substituted" because Bp. Fellay has never made public the original preamble given to him by Cardinal Levada.  The only mention I see of the Oath Against Modernism is in footnote 7, which also lists Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.  And the section of the AFD which uses footnote 7 does not say anything about "resolving disputes."  Please explain.

Footnote (7) originally had the CCC where it now has the anti-modernist Oath. You certainly wouldn't have Levada citing the Pius XII Oath as a reference in understanding the Deposit of Faith.  That is what I meant.

The problem with this is, the Oath Against Modernism is not "the Pius XII Oath."  It's 45 years older than Pius XII's time.

This probably means that VinnyF has never read or understood Sacrorum Antistitum, nor does he know what I'm talking about.  If VinnyF has perhaps read a paragraph or two of Pascendi, he wouldn't have understood it, nor does he care to understand it.  That's ancient history!  Let's move on!  "It's bright new, beautiful tomorrow, shining at the end of every day! It's a bright, new beautiful tomorrow, and tomorrow is just a dream away!"


.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 20, 2014, 03:22:17 AM

.

The 3 bests posts in this whole thread are the following, hands down:

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: VinnyF

Honestly,
if a deal were made with the current Pope and his current agenda, it would change my attitude toward the deal negotiators.
The conditions of the deal would be an issue but
I find it impossible to imagine a deal that would provide an "iron-clad" protection to continue the apostolate.

Given A and B, why do you find the attempted negotiations which have already occurred to be acceptable?

Leaving aside the question of what individuals should do about it, why has your opinion of the negotiators not already changed?

It would be nice to actually get an answer to the question, instead of an answer to a DIFFERENT question.  It was a great question, but to no surprise, it received a poor answer.

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: VinnyF

Can you point me to a fairly concise list of evidence ... ?

Courtesy of a French priest:
The Impossible Reconciliation (http://www.amazon.com/The-Impossible-Reconciliation-Docuмents-Operation/dp/1492348309/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395012063&sr=8-1&keywords=impossible+reconciliation)

Courtesy of an Australian:
Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє? (https://isthisoperationѕυιcιdє.wordpress.com/)

Have you read them?
Will you?

I have not. I will!  however, if all this is about the reconcilliation that I am not in favor of and that I personally think will not happen for another decade at least, what is the point? Is there more substance than the aborted Reconciliation?

The purpose of these docuмents is to prove that the present leadership of the Society desires a deal with Rome -- converted or not -- and that they have and continue to do, say, and change things in an effort to make the Society more appealing to the Roman side of the negotiating table.

If you were a priest or layman in favor of a deal, there would be no reason to do or say anything at all. But, if you're not in favor of this newly-publicized direction, the question of what, if anything, a priest or layman should do about it should be addressed.

More good questions;  more poor answers.  At some point, one must realize there has been an act of will that prevents any real progress toward the truth.  But what is truth?  "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."

 


Get it?



Translation of the position of VinnyF:  
I am not in favor of any normalization with unconverted Rome,
however, I also do not think it is prudent for the faithful
to take any stand in opposition to the gradual slide
of the SSPX into the very Modernism
that unconverted Rome typifies.  
The reason I think this way is this:  
I have no idea what Modernism is, nor do I care to find out!
I don't mind if that means, according to St. Paul in Romans i. 32,
that I am no better than the devils themselves, because,
I'm just having fun at your expense,
for this is for me entertainment, and my presence here is an acting-out
of my false religion,
my worship of my false god, which is my right to be entertained, you know, like Bread and Circuses.
Vatican II is 95% acceptable, and religious liberty is in the mix.
So I have a right to practice my own religious liberty, even here on CI.
I'm just in this for the ride, like a trip to an amusement park.  
I enjoy posting my blathering nonsense on CI
because,
it evokes a REACTION from other members!
Nor do I care that this is why trolls like to post here,
because,
I am not a troll!
How 'uncharitable' of you to even THINK that of me!!  

Shame, shame, shame!  

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote

I personally think will not happen for another decade at least

It's already been nearly 2 years since these things became public. I do believe that if the "letter of the 3 bishops" had not been made public, that the Society would quite likely already be approved by Rome. I also can't imagine at this point that Fr Pflueger's estimation that the Society will have Rome's approval by August 2014 could be possible.

But, my question for you is if you believe the timeline for a deal to be about a decade from now, at what point will you become concerned and believe that it's proper for a priest or layman to say or do something about it? At 5 years? 3 years? 1 year?

If you think no deal is possible now, but it might be in a decade, surely you agree that something would have to change during that time. What do you imagine these changes would be? Do you have no problem with them?

I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. I do have a very hard time understanding someone who does not desire a deal with Rome, but believes that all Society members and parishioners should not be concerned and/or say nothing about the ongoing actions of Society leadership.

If the whole world is not a better place, then at least CI is, because of MaterDominici.


.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 20, 2014, 03:40:18 AM

.

I find it curious that the Index page lists this thread as follows:  





How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet?  1, 2, 3, ... 12 ... Nobody.
 




Any student of Mathematics and Logic would appreciate that.


.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on March 20, 2014, 03:50:30 AM

Quote from: hollingsworth

mater dominici:

Quote

Fr Hewko's summary was that he (Fr. Tim) agreed with the Resistance priests about almost everything except what the proper course of action for a Society priest should be.

This is exactly what we have heard.  Yet Vinny seems to be telling us that Fr. T. Pfieffer stands four square with the Society.  That's not the way we understand it. His disagreement with the Resistance is basically tactical, not ideological.  He sees clearly what is wrong with the neo-sspx, but chooses for the time being to struggle from within.  Fr. Joe Pfeiffer has never said any differently, and he comes to our "resistance" community at least once a month, sometimes twice.

And that is the action I'm taking.  

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 20, 2014, 08:36:13 AM

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

I find it curious that the Index page lists this thread as follows:  





How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet?  1, 2, 3, ... 12 ... Nobody.
 




Any student of Mathematics and Logic would appreciate that.


.

Be careful, she or he is very sensitive about jokes related to his or her name.

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Nobody on March 20, 2014, 02:19:17 PM

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

I find it curious that the Index page lists this thread as follows:  





How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet?  1, 2, 3, ... 12 ... Nobody.
 




Any student of Mathematics and Logic would appreciate that.


.

Be careful, she or he is very sensitive about jokes related to his or her name.

:really-mad2: Don't worry, Nobody will bite you for a little joke..:roll-laugh2:

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: Nobody on March 20, 2014, 11:24:09 PM

I suggest we have a little drop down box that shows who gave a thumbs down and who gave a thumbs up. It would tell a lot about the people posting on this forum..

Title: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ?
Post by: PerEvangelicaDicta on March 20, 2014, 11:39:13 PM

Quote

If the whole world is not a better place, then at least CI is, because of MaterDominici.

 :applause: