> Kennedy Hall—the Neo-SSPX’s unofficial mouthpiece—now floats the idea of Vatican II Bishop Schneider overseeing the Society, just as Huonder already infiltrated with Novus Ordo oils. The 2012 practical agreement bore more rotten fruit.

Will there ever be resistance? Or just more silent attendance and “resisting” from within?



[youtube]_-OgqHzOn30[/youtube]

Conversely, it's why I don't buy the accusations against +Vigano.  What's the cui bono?  What has +Vigano accomplished to harm Tradition?  Has he persuaded a single sedevacantist or R&R that they're wrong and need to go back to the Conciliar Church?  Quite the contrary.  While neo-SSPX are moving in that direction, +Vigano passed them up in the other direction, and the greatest "+Vigano effect" has actually been to convinced some Conciliar types that it's not absolutely verboten to think that V2 is a pile of rot that must be thrown out and that it's also not some wicked evil to question whether Bergoglio et al. may not have been legitimate popes.  "Wow, here we have a famous high-ranking member of the [putative] hierarchy saying Vatican II is trash, the NOM offends God, and that Bergoglio isn't pope.  I guess that if he thinks it's OK, I might think about it too."

Same with the conspiracy theories about +Lefebvre being "controlled opposition".  What would have become of the Traditional movement had there been no +Lefebvre?  Traditional Catholics coalesced into a worldwide organization under him, and he even gave rise indirectly to FSSP, ICK, etc.  There would have been no "Indult" Mass or "Motu" Mass ... and in fact a large majority of today's sedevacantists ultimate trace their roots back to +Lefebvre.  Without him, it would have been a group of independent priests, perhaps at some time having obtained consecration ... like the ORCM, very few of whom are still around.  Father Leo Carley in Akron (90 years old and still offering daily Mass and not only Sunday Mass but driving 90 minutes to Wheeling VA every Sunday) ... he might be the last one of that generation.  Father Carley started off with Father McKenna in Connecticut in the early 1970s, and I know that he was getting holy oils from Bishop McKenna after his consecration in 1986, but before the SSPX consecrations.  In any case, back on topic, the Traditional movement would probably amount to almost nothing right now had it not been for Archbishop Lefebvre.

In any case, because +Lefebvre and +Vigano have done far more good than any of the bad attributed to them, it's an absurd non-starter to accuse them of having been "controlled opposition".  I have not seen a single credible cui bono postulated regarding their activities.

I'm dueling with a number of dogmatic sedevacantist types on X that accuse EVERYONE of being a conspirator, without evidence, just because they're WRONG.  You know ... it is possible to just be WRONG about something.  So, they say that Strickland is a conspirator, for example.  So, it's not possible in their brains for someone just to be wrong for their own reasons.  It's the same reason that some SVs went after +Lefebvre, because he wouldn't go SV, that must mean he's a controlled opposition leader, right?

That reminds me of people who attribute every evil in the world to the devil, who see demons under every bush.  Well, the sources of evil are not only the devil but the world and the flesh.  Given our fallen nature, it's perfectly possible (and likely) for people to fall into sin without any need for diabolical involvement.  It's one of the great criticisms I have of Fr. Ripperger's "apostolate".  He projects that attitude that demons are behind almost everything, and gets people thinking in those terms, with a huge list of "demon of [this]" and "demon of [that]".  There's even, I kid you not, a "demon of flatulence" ... so that if I have a need to fart, it must be a demon ... rather than the bean burrito I had for lunch at Taco Bell.  That's a very unhealthy attitude and could lead to Catholics interacting at least mentally with demonic entities that can be very dangerous ... so say nothing of the fact that it's forbidden for lay Catholics to issue commands to demons.

So just like it's possible that there's a non-demonic cause of flatulence, it's equally possible for various individuals to just be wrong about their interpretation of the Crisis without some nefarious motive.  Whether they're of "good will" (a term which people routinely misinterpret when I use it) is a different matter.  So, for instance, they may be subtly motivated by human respect or some other motivation that's contributing to their error, and St. Thomas taught that since the intellect is by its nature designed to grasp truth, when people cling to error, it's usually do the influence of bad will.  But, that's in the internal forum for God to decided, and this type of "bad will" or "intellectual dishonesty" does not necessarily mean that they're sitting around thinking:  "I am a servant of Satan and let me think of how I can hurt Traditional Catholicism today."

Conversely, it's why I don't buy the accusations against +Vigano.  What's the cui bono?  What has +Vigano accomplished to harm Tradition?  Has he persuaded a single sedevacantist or R&R that they're wrong and need to go back to the Conciliar Church?  Quite the contrary.  While neo-SSPX are moving in that direction, +Vigano passed them up in the other direction, and the greatest "+Vigano effect" has actually been to convinced some Conciliar types that it's not absolutely verboten to think that V2 is a pile of rot that must be thrown out and that it's also not some wicked evil to question whether Bergoglio et al. may not have been legitimate popes.  "Wow, here we have a famous high-ranking member of the [putative] hierarchy saying Vatican II is trash, the NOM offends God, and that Bergoglio isn't pope.  I guess that if he thinks it's OK, I might think about it too."

Same with the conspiracy theories about +Lefebvre being "controlled opposition".  What would have become of the Traditional movement had there been no +Lefebvre?  Traditional Catholics coalesced into a worldwide organization under him, and he even gave rise indirectly to FSSP, ICK, etc.  There would have been no "Indult" Mass or "Motu" Mass ... and in fact a large majority of today's sedevacantists ultimate trace their roots back to +Lefebvre.  Without him, it would have been a group of independent priests, perhaps at some time having obtained consecration ... like the ORCM, very few of whom are still around.  Father Leo Carley in Akron (90 years old and still offering daily Mass and not only Sunday Mass but driving 90 minutes to Wheeling VA every Sunday) ... he might be the last one of that generation.  Father Carley started off with Father McKenna in Connecticut in the early 1970s, and I know that he was getting holy oils from Bishop McKenna after his consecration in 1986, but before the SSPX consecrations.  In any case, back on topic, the Traditional movement would probably amount to almost nothing right now had it not been for Archbishop Lefebvre.

In any case, because +Lefebvre and +Vigano have done far more good than any of the bad attributed to them, it's an absurd non-starter to accuse them of having been "controlled opposition".  I have not seen a single credible cui bono postulated regarding their activities.

I'm dueling with a number of dogmatic sedevacantist types on X that accuse EVERYONE of being a conspirator, without evidence, just because they're WRONG.  You know ... it is possible to just be WRONG about something.  So, they say that Strickland is a conspirator, for example.  So, it's not possible in their brains for someone just to be wrong for their own reasons.  It's the same reason that some SVs went after +Lefebvre, because he wouldn't go SV, that must mean he's a controlled opposition leader, right?

That reminds me of people who attribute every evil in the world to the devil, who see demons under every bush.  Well, the sources of evil are not only the devil but the world and the flesh.  Given our fallen nature, it's perfectly possible (and likely) for people to fall into sin without any need for diabolical involvement.  It's one of the great criticisms I have of Fr. Ripperger's "apostolate".  He projects that attitude that demons are behind almost everything, and gets people thinking in those terms, with a huge list of "demon of [this]" and "demon of [that]".  There's even, I kid you not, a "demon of flatulence" ... so that if I have a need to fart, it must be a demon ... rather than the bean burrito I had for lunch at Taco Bell.  That's a very unhealthy attitude and could lead to Catholics interacting at least mentally with demonic entities that can be very dangerous ... so say nothing of the fact that it's forbidden for lay Catholics to issue commands to demons.

So just like it's possible that there's a non-demonic cause of flatulence, it's equally possible for various individuals to just be wrong about their interpretation of the Crisis without some nefarious motive.  Whether they're of "good will" (a term which people routinely misinterpret when I use it) is a different matter.  So, for instance, they may be subtly motivated by human respect or some other motivation that's contributing to their error, and St. Thomas taught that since the intellect is by its nature designed to grasp truth, when people cling to error, it's usually do the influence of bad will.  But, that's in the internal forum for God to decided, and this type of "bad will" or "intellectual dishonesty" does not necessarily mean that they're sitting around thinking:  "I am a servant of Satan and let me think of how I can hurt Traditional Catholicism today."

Ok so the bean burrito reference and comparison has me in tears, I need some time to reflect and answer. 😂