Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: BaldwinIV on August 12, 2025, 04:40:47 PM
-
MODERATOR: Interview removed by demand of Fr. Pivert.
-
MODERATOR: Interview removed by demand of Fr. Pivert.
-
Thanks for posting, Baldwin. Nice looking website.
-
Have I understood correctly? Fr. Pivert says it’s too dangerous to the Faith to go to SSPX Mass, one should not use any of their priests even for Confession or other Sacraments because you cannot count upon them not being modernist. He says Sedevacantists are also not to be used by the Faithful. But he also criticizes “independent” for not having a bishop because their chapels won’t last. Like Bp. Williamson (RIP), it is too late for seminaries, the only way to form priests is by an individual finding a bishop, one of those consecrated by Bp. W., to be his apprentice. It is too late for any type of organization be it seminary, school, monastery, convent, fraternity. Catholics who cannot access him or priest(s?) who associate with him, should be content with baptism (implied lay baptism) and marriage (without a priest, the couple give the vows to one another before two Catholic witnesses). In the USA, this is not legally recognized, therefore, in the eyes of the world and for all civil purposes, financial, legal, etc. it’s shacking up. Kind of makes a problem for the kids, right?
Making spiritual Communion and having perfect Contrition for Confession, are sufficient. Read the missal, pray the Rosary, say daily prayers. For spiritual counsel, confer with a close friend. That’s it.
What of the person who has no one? Like Fr. Pfeiffer in the past, Fr. Pivert cites the Japanese keeping the Faith 250 years organized into secret home chapels, and the case of a woman imprisoned 27 years in solitary confinement. I guess except for CI, that’s me.
He also in so many words rejects the positions of Fr. Chazal and Bp. Sanborn, although their names are not mentioned.
The translation of the letter is very awkward, at times, makes no sense, as in, use of the work “cork.” I don’t think he means the wood of a tree shaped into the stopper of a wine bottle or used as a floatation device!
Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Is Fr. Pivert a member of any organization and does he use a particular bishop?
-
Could it be a translation problem? Only Confession is a real sacrament? What on earth! Reading this on face value already indicates many problems with the positions of Fr. Pivert, the main one, a priest being a loose cannon reporting to no authority.
-
It's a language issue. His English is not very proficient. He was close to + Williamson. He has a web page.
-
Have I understood correctly? Fr. Pivert says it’s too dangerous to the Faith to go to SSPX Mass, one should not use any of their priests even for Confession or other Sacraments because you cannot count upon them not being modernist.
No, he's French, it's a language issue. He has the faith, don't worry. I'll clear it up:
Yes, he doesn't want people to go to the SSPX, except for confession if it's absolutely necessary (mortal sin). "It's a real sacrament" - he meant "valid", i.e. that the SSPX at least has true apostolic succession. With the FSSP and Novus Ordo, confession is a doubtful sacrament because they use Novus Ordo bishops. So, don't go to them for confession.
The SSPX priests in Germany are very, very liberal. And completely silent on the Crisis (I heard only 2 sermons in 2 years, most people there don't have a clue about what Lefebvre actually taught). They also like JPII a lot. I still go to the chapels after the Mass, to meet up with people, but for the Mass itself, I pray the "Sanctification of the Sunday" and take spiritual communion. The problem is, as he points out, the silence, the Novus Ordites influencing people badly, etc.
St. Thomas teaches that (a) whoever communicates with a sinful, heretical or schismatic priest becomes a sharer of his sin (ST III Q82 A9). And the spiritual communion is equally graceful, given that no physical communion is possible without sin (STIII Q80 A1). So nobody is "deprived of graces" as some "trads" like to claim. There is a PDF of the "old" SSPX on how to do spiritual communion: https://dubia.cc/static/pdf/SantificaoDoDomingoFSSPX.pdf (https://dubia.cc/static/pdf/SantificaoDoDomingoFSSPX.pdf) - so I translated it into English here: https://dubia.cc/en/sanctification (https://dubia.cc/en/sanctification). Alternatively one can also pray the Missal, of course.
We are supposed to boycott priest that have a concubine, how much more priests that are intentionally silent on the biggest error in the Church today.
He says Sedevacantists are also not to be used by the Faithful. But he also criticizes “independent” for not having a bishop because their chapels won’t last.
No, he said they (the "True Resistance", Hewkoists) are saying this about us, the "Fake Resistance". They say that our Fake Resistance chapels won't last, that our bishops are silent, that we don't have bishops, that we will fail, that we've already failed, etc.
With sedevacantists - he has no problems with them, the problem is the dogmatism. He explained (outside of the interview) that the pope only comes after Faith and Tradition. The pope is just the final, highest, authority - if some problem of discipline or dispute cannot be resolved at the local or episcopal level, then the pope steps in. Sedevacantists like to pull the rhetoric trick of "the pope has failed" = "the Church has failed" (the best option IMO is just "sub conditione naming").
In the USA, this is not legally recognized, therefore, in the eyes of the world and for all civil purposes, financial, legal, etc. it’s shacking up. Kind of makes a problem for the kids, right?
No, because one is the civil marriage, the other one is the religious marriage, which the state doesn't care about anyway. Civil marriage is required no matter what.
It is too late for any type of organization be it seminary, school, monastery, convent, fraternity. Catholics who cannot access him or priest(s?) who associate with him, should be content with baptism (implied lay baptism) and marriage (without a priest, the couple give the vows to one another before two Catholic witnesses).
This was the opinion of BpW - basically that it's more about the formation received, not so much the "seminary" itself. So the point is to "study" for the priesthood, not that you went to an XYZ seminary. He said, when he was in Econe (under Lefebvre), there were seminarians with wildly different levels of education and prior training. So he was ordained after only 4 1/2 years, instead of the regular 6 years.
I personally highly disagree with this view, I still think that traditional seminaries (Dominicans of Avrille, Mosteiro da Santa Cruz, HJM Seminary with Fr. Chazal, Hewkos Farm, Viganòs attempts) are necessary in the long run, but in the short run the option is "convince a bishop that you're good enough to be ordained", until proper seminaries exist.
The translation of the letter is very awkward, at times, makes no sense, as in, use of the work “cork.” I don’t think he means the wood of a tree shaped into the stopper of a wine bottle or used as a floatation device!
It's just 1:1 transcoded and cleaned up. I think he meant either "quack", i.e. someone who talks a lot or "cork" as in "someone who still has the old sprit, pre Vatican II". My problem with this is that these old quacks were the people who sold us out and, especially in Germany, they're either already dead or actively support the NO.
It's going back to BpWs story of how he was converted by one of those "old priests who still had the faith", so BpW had a bit of romanticism and thinks we can still do the same 60 years later. I don't think it's a good idea.
At dinner later he said "If you want to be a priest, go to one of the bishops like Bp Stobnicki, he will tell you where to go, what to do". He likes Bp Stobnicki a lot.
I hope that cleared up the worst translation errors. He is 72, was ordained by Lefebvre and has a website at https://abbe-pivert.com (https://abbe-pivert.com)
-
Thanks, Baldwin, for clearing up some of it, but it seems like a hopeless, confusing mess so far as saving one’s soul. If a priest has a wrong belief or intention and he doesn’t vocalize or otherwise communicate it, I’m guilty of his sins? If his sin of intention is by omission, I’m still guilty so I must stay away if I cannot download his mind? This is ludicrous!
I’m not responsible for a priest’s sins unless it is obvious, ie. he states heresy, he promotes evil practices in public.
He says to flee the live cannon when he is one, himself?
So, someone like me, if I have a chance to save my soul, must remain entirely isolated religiously speaking after getting someone, anyone, I guess, to lay baptize me. After that I pray my Rosary, say daily prayers, confess to God alone, hope I have perfect contrition, make spiritual communions, and do the best I can, all solo. Then I’ll possibly make it to Heaven?
That makes no sense unless I truly am in solitary confinement, deprived of all spiritual helps.
I don’t know French beyond a pre-K level, like numbers, colors, days of the week, and internet translations are fairly useless. I’ll not even bother with Fr. Pivert’s website.
After reading letters like this, I feel like there’s no hope, so why bother?
Adopting Fr. Pivert’s program is far more dangerous to me than any SSPX chapel or priest, or any brand of Traditionalism, Sedevacantist, Sedeprivationist, FSSP, indult, etc. He recommends Bp. Williamson with whom I regularly corresponded and conversed for some 20 years. Never once did H.E. leave me feeling like I was predestined to go to Hell. In fact, the direct opposite. And it wasn’t because Bp. W. was “old fashioned.”
With all due respect, I think I’ll be avoiding Fr. Pivirt’s writings.
-
I'm so tired of people who will take something sketchy that Bishop Williamson said and make that as the Truth. I get that if you have a weak conscience and catechism, then you want to take the easiest route, but Bishop Williamson himself said "if I am wrong, cut my head off" . He wanted people to think for themselves.
So if you want to go to the SSPX, then go and leave us all in the resistance alone. We want to preserve the Faith, pure and undefiled, and compromisers like you just weigh us down.
-
Quote from: girlytrad (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg995977#msg995977) 2025-08-15, 8:29:48 AM
I'm so tired of people who will take something sketchy that Bishop Williamson said and make that as the Truth. I get that if you have a weak conscience and catechism, then you want to take the easiest route, but Bishop Williamson himself said "if I am wrong, cut my head off" . He wanted people to think for themselves.
So if you want to go to the SSPX, then go and leave us all in the resistance alone. We want to preserve the Faith, pure and undefiled, and compromisers like you just weigh us down.
Honestly, this is the most level-headed post on the forum. It tells people to think for themselves and defend the Faith without getting caught up in every rumor or offhand comment.
-
I'm so tired of people who will take something sketchy that Bishop Williamson said and make that as the Truth. I get that if you have a weak conscience and catechism, then you want to take the easiest route, but Bishop Williamson himself said "if I am wrong, cut my head off" . He wanted people to think for themselves.
So if you want to go to the SSPX, then go and leave us all in the resistance alone. We want to preserve the Faith, pure and undefiled, and compromisers like you just weigh us down.
It is precisely this non-Catholic attitude, condemned by today's gospel of the Pharisee and the Publican, that I despise.
I have no problem with others making the decision that for them and their family it may be a danger to the Faith to attend the SSPX and therefore to take the decision to make a clean break with the SSPX and sanctify the Sunday by praying at home when a Resistance priest is not available.
But those who find it necessary to call those of us in the Resistance who do not share their view, or rather, do not find it applicable to our situation, "compromisers" whom they would like to have nothing to do with, "leave us alone", should examine their consciences.
True Catholics should be overjoyed that any soul of good will would come into their midst. Did you despise Novus Ordo Catholics coming to the Traditional Mass when you were in the SSPX?
If you want to "preserve the Faith pure and undefiled", please tell me how I am endangering that by attending a Resistance Mass.
Archbishop Lefebvre gave us the principle which should govern our decision in this matter: we must not put our Faith in danger. In the early days of the Novus Ordo he even permitted his seminarians to attend the New Mass on their vacations and "didn't dare" tell the faithful not to attend Mass on Sundays. His attitude - not his principles - changed with time as it became clear beyond a doubt what a grave danger to the Faith the NOM represented. Can that be said of SSPX Masses, and in all circuмstances? It is in fact arguable that it can be said of your opinion that one should avoid the SSPX like the plague. For many Resistance Catholics (if you will allow us to consider ourselves such) this would mean almost never attending Sunday Mass. In spite of all the possible ways of addressing this situation, such as those suggested by Fr Pivert, in practice it nonetheless results in many souls losing the Faith or at least drifting away. There is more than one way to put your Faith in danger.
An attitude of humility, like the Publican's, is what we all need. Do what you need to do to keep the Faith. Consult a priest you trust. Be careful pontificating on what others should do, even if you are a priest, just as Bishop Williamson had the prudence to do. We are in a crisis, it's not always that simple.
-
Quote from: Plenus Venter (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996105#msg996105) 2025-08-16, 5:40:16 PM
It is precisely this non-Catholic attitude, condemned by today's gospel of the Pharisee and the Publican, that I despise.
I have no problem with others making the decision that for them and their family it may be a danger to the Faith to attend the SSPX and therefore to take the decision to make a clean break with the SSPX and sanctify the Sunday by praying at home when a Resistance priest is not available.
But those who find it necessary to call those of us in the Resistance who do not share their view, or rather, do not find it applicable to our situation, "compromisers" whom they would like to have nothing to do with, "leave us alone", should examine their consciences.
True Catholics should be overjoyed that any soul of good will would come into their midst. Did you despise Novus Ordo Catholics coming to the Traditional Mass when you were in the SSPX?
If you want to "preserve the Faith pure and undefiled", please tell me how I am endangering that by attending a Resistance Mass.
Archbishop Lefebvre gave us the principle which should govern our decision in this matter: we must not put our Faith in danger. In the early days of the Novus Ordo he even permitted his seminarians to attend the New Mass on their vacations and "didn't dare" tell the faithful not to attend Mass on Sundays. His attitude - not his principles - changed with time as it became clear beyond a doubt what a grave danger to the Faith the NOM represented. Can that be said of SSPX Masses, and in all circuмstances? It is in fact arguable that it can be said of your opinion that one should avoid the SSPX like the plague. For many Resistance Catholics (if you will allow us to consider ourselves such) this would mean almost never attending Sunday Mass. In spite of all the possible ways of addressing this situation, such as those suggested by Fr Pivert, in practice it nonetheless results in many souls losing the Faith or at least drifting away. There is more than one way to put your Faith in danger.
An attitude of humility, like the Publican's, is what we all need. Do what you need to do to keep the Faith. Consult a priest you trust. Be careful pontificating on what others should do, even if you are a priest, just as Bishop Williamson had the prudence to do. We are in a crisis, it's not always that simple.
One cannot attend a Neo-SSPX Mass or receive their sacraments and claim to be part of the true resistance. By participating, one publicly consents to a society that has submitted to Modernist Rome, embraced the errors of Vatican II, and formally aligned itself with the Conciliar hierarchy. True resistance is lived in full fidelity to +Archbishop Lefebvre, preserving the Faith as handed down, refusing to grant legitimacy to compromise, and remaining entirely outside every act of conciliar submission. Attendance is not neutral; it is consent, and consent nullifies resistance. Any claim to resistance while participating in their services is therefore logically and morally impossible.
-
But those who find it necessary to call those of us in the Resistance who do not share their view, or rather, do not find it applicable to our situation, "compromisers" whom they would like to have nothing to do with, "leave us alone", should examine their consciences.
I didn't call anyone anything, but I cannot tell people to go to SSPX Masses. Neither could Bishop Williamson and Fr. Chazal (the video popped up in my feed recently, on the age-old question of "should we still go to SSPX Masses"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nomsJid2v9A
Although I think Fr. Hewko himself is going too far with his "True Resistance" shtick, it's usually a natural consequence of having anything to do with the Resistance. Some of our German Resistance members were even publicly denounced from the pulpit by their SSPX priest (and the SSPX was even gleeful about "distancing themselves").
One of our new German Resistance members posted a (very, very mild) short TikTok edit of Bp. Stobnicki, and then some Russian layman and a social media Novus Ordo "Priest" reported our activities to the Menzingen hierarchy. Since our modernist enemies are not very smart, the Russian guy then posted the response E-Mail publicly on TikTok (:facepalm:), which just confirms the Resistance position. Look at this trash:
(https://i.imgur.com/5E4HKZ2.png)
"Should polemical or disrespectful statements be made there about the New Mass, Pope John Paul II, the current Pope Leo XIV, or other clergy, we expressly distance ourselves from this type of criticism.
Approaching others in this manner is not in the spirit of the society." - signed, Stuttgart.
Then two days after they "distanced themselves" from him publicly, they privately retracted back and tried to get him to go back in their chapel. I have been in abusive relationships and this is the perfect definition of gaslighting. They know what they are doing, they'll be nice to you UNTIL you try to go away.
They also don't like Fr. Hesse all too much, likely because he criticized their "Saint" JPII. Luckily some of his fighting spirit has passed on, but the priests here really like JPII and his "family planning" evangelism, etc. The chapel in Berlin even has an SSPX pilgrimage with a "New Mass" participation in it. Guess that's not a problem now. And we're talking about Berlin, aka Sodom Inc.
One of the priests in Berlin even told me that it's possible for abortion to not be a sin if the woman doesn't know beforehand that it's a sin. The whole "you need absolutely perfect knowledge otherwise it's not a sin" error is wild among the clergy, which is why they don't preach against the vices of the Novus Ordo Corona refugees. So, that's the level of "priestly training" that we're at now: keep the people in the dark so that they may "find out themselves what is sinful for them an what isn't". And then one of the priests in Berlin told us that it would be a grave sin to go to Resistance Masses because "they are preaching hatred" (???). Luckily the guy he told it to already knew what was up, but yeah. This is the current policy in Menzingen: liberal, sweet and soft - as long as you're not trying to leave. They're gone mate, they're gone.
I don't condemn others for going to the SSPX, but the problems will naturally arise, that's my experience. The SSPX hates the Resistance so much, because we show them a mirror of what they should have been. They hate our guts and I'm supposed to take "communion" from them, how can I stand before God with that. Silence is worse than heresy: silence is not an "error", but it is a grave, grave sin. Although I don't like Fr. Hewkos constant rhetoric, I can see where he's coming from. May God have mercy on my soul for being a German. I don't know why especially Germans always have to be the biggest modernists.
I am not in communion with these traitors the same way St. Hermenegild chose death over taking communion from an Arian bishop. Liberalism and silence is worse than Arian heresy.
In spite of all the possible ways of addressing this situation, such as those suggested by Fr Pivert, in practice it nonetheless results in many souls losing the Faith or at least drifting away. There is more than one way to put your Faith in danger.
Not really, unless you go against St. Thomas saying that a spiritual communion isn't a real communion. I had this opinion, too, but I've discarded it. Anyone who will tell me that I will get lose the faith if I rather pray the Missal and Breviary for 2 hours rather than take communion from Fr. Liberal preaching about the new Carlo Acutis canonization, I will laugh in your face (yes, this actually happened).
Fr. Pivert said to me: What is way more important for keeping the faith are good, holy friends. Even confessors can't do much. There are people who go to Mass, but they read bad books, listen to bad music and keep bad company. Result is, nothing changes in their life or it gets worse.
My personal experience is that my faith went up drastically after I didn't go to Mass there anymore. I guess with all of the above, you can see why. Living in the desert is more fruitful for the faith than going to Mass with these traitors.
-
I didn't call anyone anything, but I cannot tell people to go to SSPX Masses. Neither could Bishop Williamson and Fr. Chazal (the video popped up in my feed recently, on the age-old question of "should we still go to SSPX Masses"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nomsJid2v9A
Although I think Fr. Hewko himself is going too far with his "True Resistance" shtick, it's usually a natural consequence of having anything to do with the Resistance. Some of our German Resistance members were even publicly denounced from the pulpit by their SSPX priest (and the SSPX was even gleeful about "distancing themselves").
One of our new German Resistance members posted a (very, very mild) short TikTok edit of Bp. Stobnicki, and then some Russian layman and a social media Novus Ordo "Priest" reported our activities to the Menzingen hierarchy. Since our modernist enemies are not very smart, the Russian guy then posted the response E-Mail publicly on TikTok (:facepalm:), which just confirms the Resistance position. Look at this trash:
(https://i.imgur.com/5E4HKZ2.png)
"Should polemical or disrespectful statements be made there about the New Mass, Pope John Paul II, the current Pope Leo XIV, or other clergy, we expressly distance ourselves from this type of criticism.
Approaching others in this manner is not in the spirit of the society." - signed, Stuttgart.
Then two days after they "distanced themselves" from him publicly, they privately retracted back and tried to get him to go back in their chapel. I have been in abusive relationships and this is the perfect definition of gaslighting. They know what they are doing, they'll be nice to you UNTIL you try to go away.
They also don't like Fr. Hesse all too much, likely because he criticized their "Saint" JPII. Luckily some of his fighting spirit has passed on, but the priests here really like JPII and his "family planning" evangelism, etc. The chapel in Berlin even has an SSPX pilgrimage with a "New Mass" participation in it. Guess that's not a problem now. And we're talking about Berlin, aka Sodom Inc.
One of the priests in Berlin even told me that it's possible for abortion to not be a sin if the woman doesn't know beforehand that it's a sin. The whole "you need absolutely perfect knowledge otherwise it's not a sin" error is wild among the clergy, which is why they don't preach against the vices of the Novus Ordo Corona refugees. So, that's the level of "priestly training" that we're at now: keep the people in the dark so that they may "find out themselves what is sinful for them an what isn't". And then one of the priests in Berlin told us that it would be a grave sin to go to Resistance Masses because "they are preaching hatred" (???). Luckily the guy he told it to already knew what was up, but yeah. This is the current policy in Menzingen: liberal, sweet and soft - as long as you're not trying to leave. They're gone mate, they're gone.
I don't condemn others for going to the SSPX, but the problems will naturally arise, that's my experience. The SSPX hates the Resistance so much, because we show them a mirror of what they should have been. They hate our guts and I'm supposed to take "communion" from them, how can I stand before God with that. Silence is worse than heresy: silence is not an "error", but it is a grave, grave sin. Although I don't like Fr. Hewkos constant rhetoric, I can see where he's coming from. May God have mercy on my soul for being a German. I don't know why especially Germans always have to be the biggest modernists.
I am not in communion with these traitors the same way St. Hermenegild chose death over taking communion from an Arian bishop. Liberalism and silence is worse than Arian heresy.
Not really, unless you go against St. Thomas saying that a spiritual communion isn't a real communion. I had this opinion, too, but I've discarded it. Anyone who will tell me that I will get lose the faith if I rather pray the Missal and Breviary for 2 hours rather than take communion from Fr. Liberal preaching about the new Carlo Acutis canonization, I will laugh in your face (yes, this actually happened).
Fr. Pivert said to me: What is way more important for keeping the faith are good, holy friends. Even confessors can't do much. There are people who go to Mass, but they read bad books, listen to bad music and keep bad company. Result is, nothing changes in their life or it gets worse.
My personal experience is that my faith went up drastically after I didn't go to Mass there anymore. I guess with all of the above, you can see why. Living in the desert is more fruitful for the faith than going to Mass with these traitors.
Excellent post. Do you have the full email from Menzingen that you could share?
-
One cannot attend a Neo-SSPX Mass or receive their sacraments and claim to be part of the true resistance. By participating, one publicly consents to a society that has submitted to Modernist Rome, embraced the errors of Vatican II, and formally aligned itself with the Conciliar hierarchy. True resistance is lived in full fidelity to +Archbishop Lefebvre, preserving the Faith as handed down, refusing to grant legitimacy to compromise, and remaining entirely outside every act of conciliar submission. Attendance is not neutral; it is consent, and consent nullifies resistance. Any claim to resistance while participating in their services is therefore logically and morally impossible.
I do not care whether I am “part of the true resistance.” I care even less what others think about me in this respect. A priest whose main interest is the same as that of the Church, the salvation of souls by adhering to the dogma and traditions as handed down until V2, is a help to me. If that is not the case, or the priest refuses me for whatever reasons, I move on. If necessary, I make do without as I did for nearly three years during the c-sickness.
I did not do a great job of it, many days doing the bare minimum, but giving up wasn’t an option.
-
Excellent post. Do you have the full email from Menzingen that you could share?
No, only the testimony of the crazy Novus Ordo "priest" who called Econe / Menzingen, to report our TikTok activities. I also messed up the timeline, the NO priest reporting us to Menzingen coincided with the original TikTok post, but wasn't a direct response.
The NO priest started by claiming online that we (Resistance) are "Muttermörder" (Matriciders), since we are "killing the Mother Church" (masonic Rome). Again, they're trying to claim that they "barely tolerate" the SSPX, in order to get the SSPX "back into full communion", whatever, they don't get it.
He's not the smartest, poor soul. What is however interesting, is that he called Econe and they even picked up the phone (Lefebvre would have just laughed and hanged up). I usually don't like to make private chats public, but in this instance, the priest himself even gave permission (he was so proud that he could bully Econe). "A fool tells everyone he is a fool."
Here are the chats, with translated messages below. Apparently the NO Priest didn't know the difference between "SSPX" and "SSPX Resistance" and thought calling Menzingen would have any effect.
(https://i.imgur.com/vmMT5cD.png)
Blue: [...] You are labeling an inhomogenous group "matriciders", although there isn't even a consensus among our group?
NO Priest: I will be calling the district superiors of the FSSPX tomorrow anyway. I spoke to Econe on the phone today, and they were NOT enthusiastic about it. In fact, they advised me to put an end to this business with these “youngsters.”
(https://i.imgur.com/8uceW5Y.png)
Crazy NO priest: "I called Econe yesterday and they weren't very enthusiastic either, and they urgently referred me to Father Pfluger. But give him a call. I already told him your name (at least your first name). He's considering looking in the confirmation register from June 29, and since I also know your girlfriend's name, which I told him (if I'm not mistaken, she has a Turkish name (Tugce) and another name (Eva), although I wasn't sure about that, he won't have any problem. So, as I said, give him a call. I'm sure he'll be happy to hear from you."
Blue: "Are those threats? You are welcome to point out my mistakes :)"
(https://i.imgur.com/Kej23un.png)
Unrelated guy: Uh bro I am supposed to tell you that Michael called Econe. You should also tell the others.
Blue: we don't really care
(https://i.imgur.com/2b6wZJB.png)
Crazy NO Priest: "Today, I spoke on the phone with Father Pfluger (District Superior of the FSSPX) for an hour and honestly addressed everything, including my statements made in anger. Conclusion: All statements made on certain platforms in the name of the Society of St. Pius X are not and do not belong to their official statements! All groups or individuals acting in their name are acting without mandate or function!"
---
Anyway. After that, the "distancing" from the SSPX happened (instead of distancing themselves from this unhinged "priest", like any sane person). Oh well. Welcome to 2025, where we don't even have to hack computers to leak any E-Mails, these people are so proud of threatening us that they post it publicly. Now we have hacked leaks of clergy officials with Emoji characters in between them. I hate this timeline so much, it's not even funny anymore.
Stay away from the Novus Ordo, stay away from the SSPX. I would puke rather than take communion from Fr. Pfluger. Poor soul, may God have mercy on him.
Also, here is our "extremely offensive" TikTok edit (warning, don't watch, you will die instantly): https://www.tiktok.com/@777cogi777/video/7525138073311661334
-
It is precisely this non-Catholic attitude, condemned by today's gospel of the Pharisee and the Publican, that I despise.
I have no problem with others making the decision that for them and their family it may be a danger to the Faith to attend the SSPX and therefore to take the decision to make a clean break with the SSPX and sanctify the Sunday by praying at home when a Resistance priest is not available.
But those who find it necessary to call those of us in the Resistance who do not share their view, or rather, do not find it applicable to our situation, "compromisers" whom they would like to have nothing to do with, "leave us alone", should examine their consciences.
True Catholics should be overjoyed that any soul of good will would come into their midst. Did you despise Novus Ordo Catholics coming to the Traditional Mass when you were in the SSPX?
If you want to "preserve the Faith pure and undefiled", please tell me how I am endangering that by attending a Resistance Mass.
Archbishop Lefebvre gave us the principle which should govern our decision in this matter: we must not put our Faith in danger. In the early days of the Novus Ordo he even permitted his seminarians to attend the New Mass on their vacations and "didn't dare" tell the faithful not to attend Mass on Sundays. His attitude - not his principles - changed with time as it became clear beyond a doubt what a grave danger to the Faith the NOM represented. Can that be said of SSPX Masses, and in all circuмstances? It is in fact arguable that it can be said of your opinion that one should avoid the SSPX like the plague. For many Resistance Catholics (if you will allow us to consider ourselves such) this would mean almost never attending Sunday Mass. In spite of all the possible ways of addressing this situation, such as those suggested by Fr Pivert, in practice it nonetheless results in many souls losing the Faith or at least drifting away. There is more than one way to put your Faith in danger.
An attitude of humility, like the Publican's, is what we all need. Do what you need to do to keep the Faith. Consult a priest you trust. Be careful pontificating on what others should do, even if you are a priest, just as Bishop Williamson had the prudence to do. We are in a crisis, it's not always that simple.
When priests in our ranks advise certain people to go to SSPX Masses because of "their particular circuмstances", there is no long term plan usually given. Its as if they can happily attend SSPX for the next 30 years and everything will be ok. It sounds good in the short term, but long term it is very bad advice. (Frog in boiling water)
When people fade out in the long run from not attending Mass maybe we should ask what the root cause of that is. Its not because they do not have Mass. It is because they lack catechism and zeal. So perhaps priests should encourage that.
Because long term attending the SSPX, just like attending the Novus Ordo, inculcates an attitude of indifference. And this is probably the most toxic thing to a Catholic soul. The people who attend everything from SSPX to Novus Ordo, regard themselves as Catholic. They are to be commended for persevering at least. But everything else is voided. They risk falling into mortal sin for everything else except non Mass attendance. Starting with indifference to error.
It might shock many priests reading this but please consider the profile of the person who begs you to understand their "situation" in relation to SSPX Masses. Are they not usually women? Who fear losing am ambiance of piety? Or poorly catechised laymen, who (and be really honest about this) are failing in terms of their leadership of their families or are poorly catechised? (note I said "usually" before you react)
Dearest Fathers, you are physicians of souls. Imagine a physician has a patient entering his clinic with delusions. Is it not his duty to try to cure the root of the delusion rather than to allow the person to continue in it? There may be times when the physician should not press too hard on the delusion for fear of too strong a reaction, but that does not mean he should enter into the delusion with the patient!
To Plenus Venter, it may have seemed that I was being harsh to all souls considering the resistance, but it was a direct response to that particular person who was being unusually stubborn, and then broadly to all those who have such an attitude. Their very public attitude leads to scandal, in that it leads people to equivocate the SSPX with the resistance.
-
I want to go to Heaven. I want the Faith. It doesn’t matter to me what the actual people call themselves, Resistance, Fake Resistance, Catholic Faith of Tradition, R & R, Sedevacantist, Sedeprivationists, and so forth.
Yes, I AM a woman; one who’d like nothing more than to have a chapel where I could go every Sunday and never concern myself with whether the priest is real, the Sacraments are valid and licit, there’s a Godly bishop proclaiming the Faith in public and rebuking civil authorities when necessary, when there is a Pope in Rome who proclaims the unadulterated Catholic Faith to the world. Barring this, it’d be great to have a husband, children, extended family and Catholic friends with which I’m surrounded. God has apparently willed I have none of these. I do the best I can, solo. As to Mass, Sacraments, and priest, I take what little I can get when it presents itself. If an SSPX priest, ordained by Bp. W. is willing drive to hear my Confession and give Communion, I’m availing myself of the opportunity. Whatever his sins of affiliation with this bishop or that, leaning towards Sede or not, membership in a priestly fraternity, be it SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, or whatever, these are not matters of Faith or morals. If he’s a notorious public sinner, then no, I don’t want him. If such is not the case, he takes the “wrong” stand on clerical matters, matters upon which I am unqualified to judge and about which many holy priests, religious, and bishops cannot agree, I am not guilty of whatever errors he may turn out to hold. If the form, matter, and intention are correct, and he is willing to assist me, I’d be a fool to refuse.
-
Quote from: Seraphina (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996198#msg996198) 2025-08-17, 4:03:06 PM
I want to go to Heaven. I want the Faith. It doesn’t matter to me what the actual people call themselves, Resistance, Fake Resistance, Catholic Faith of Tradition, R & R, Sedevacantist, Sedeprivationists, and so forth.
Yes, I AM a woman; one who’d like nothing more than to have a chapel where I could go every Sunday and never concern myself with whether the priest is real, the Sacraments are valid and licit, there’s a Godly bishop proclaiming the Faith in public and rebuking civil authorities when necessary, when there is a Pope in Rome who proclaims the unadulterated Catholic Faith to the world. Barring this, it’d be great to have a husband, children, extended family and Catholic friends with which I’m surrounded. God has apparently willed I have none of these. I do the best I can, solo. As to Mass, Sacraments, and priest, I take what little I can get when it presents itself. If an SSPX priest, ordained by Bp. W. is willing drive to hear my Confession and give Communion, I’m availing myself of the opportunity. Whatever his sins of affiliation with this bishop or that, leaning towards Sede or not, membership in a priestly fraternity, be it SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, or whatever, these are not matters of Faith or morals. If he’s a notorious public sinner, then no, I don’t want him. If such is not the case, he takes the “wrong” stand on clerical matters, matters upon which I am unqualified to judge and about which many holy priests, religious, and bishops cannot agree, I am not guilty of whatever errors he may turn out to hold. If the form, matter, and intention are correct, and he is willing to assist me, I’d be a fool to refuse.
Seraphina, your longing for Heaven and the Faith is real, but settling for any priest who is compromised with the Conciliar Church, its errors, or false positions such as Sedevacantism is spiritually dangerous. Such compromise takes the fight out of the soul, weakens supernatural faith, and is not merely a matter of clerical politics; it is a matter of Faith and morals. You are not abandoned. When sacraments are doubtful or compromised, spiritual communions, acts of perfect contrition, and the rosary bring abundant grace, often more than compromised clergy could give. Better to suffer without sacraments for a time than to risk betraying the Faith. Hold fast, for Our Lady promised, “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.” Viva Cristo Rey.
-
Seraphina, your longing for Heaven and the Faith is real, but settling for any priest who is compromised with the Conciliar Church, its errors, or false positions such as Sedevacantism is spiritually dangerous. Such compromise takes the fight out of the soul, weakens supernatural faith, and is not merely a matter of clerical politics; it is a matter of Faith and morals. You are not abandoned. When sacraments are doubtful or compromised, spiritual communions, acts of perfect contrition, and the rosary bring abundant grace, often more than compromised clergy could give. Better to suffer without sacraments for a time than to risk betraying the Faith. Hold fast, for Our Lady promised, “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.” Viva Cristo Rey.
Benedikt, are you male or female? Married? Have Catholic family and friends? How many years have you gone without any Mass, Sacraments, or priest, and with no social support other than unknown people online? Can you travel? Move? Because I cannot do either any longer. I’ve neither the money nor the health.
Let me guess, you’re a disciple of Fr. Hewko?
-
Quote from: Seraphina (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996225#msg996225) 2025-08-17, 5:51:27 PM
Benedikt, are you male or female? Married? Have Catholic family and friends? How many years have you gone without any Mass, Sacraments, or priest, and with no social support other than unknown people online? Can you travel? Move? Because I cannot do either any longer. I’ve neither the money nor the health.
Let me guess, you’re a disciple of Fr. Hewko?
My personal situation is irrelevant. The truth of the Faith and the spiritual crisis we face does not depend on age, health, or location. I am very blessed to receive the sacraments at least once a year. Many have gone ten to fifteen years without them, and this is nothing compared to the Japanese martyrs who preserved the Faith without sacraments for over two hundred years. This position is held by many priests loyal to Archbishop Lefebvre, not only Father Hewko. Father Pivert is another example, even if you do not agree with him. What matters is prayer, vigilance, and fidelity to Christ, and guiding souls who are spiritually blind wherever we are. But you have already made your position clear: you are not part of this SSPX resistance.
-
This is not Japan, not yet!
Which is “this” resistance?
I guess you’re right.
“That” resistance doesn’t claim me, either.
And that’s okay.
The only earthly group to which I’ve ever firmly belonged is my family,
but they’re all gone, now.
Schools, jobs, clubs, associations, friends, they’re all here today, gone tomorrow.
It’s best to keep to oneself and to God.
-
Where I live, the Ukranian Catholic churches are common as the Novus Ordo ones but they seem as modernist as the NO. SSPX missions are slowly increasing but they are still sparse. SSPX Resistance is basically non-existent as well as Sede chapels. By the direction the Neo-SSPX is heading, there might be a bigger Resistance movement but many missions are already struggling financially to operate. And many parishioners drive many hours to get there. Personally, I've seen so much compromise in the SSPX already and I left the NO two years ago.
We also tell people to move near a TLM so they're closer to the sacraments but what happens if the TLM is compromised (like the SSPX) or it gets shut down (indult, FSSP)? I can imagine that it would be harder for someone who grew up attending the SSPX to join the Resistance because it'll be a loss of community, being comfortable, closer driving distance, etc.
-
Quote from: Seraphina (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996231#msg996231) 2025-08-17, 6:52:32 PM
This is not Japan, not yet!
Which is “this” resistance?
I guess you’re right.
“That” resistance doesn’t claim me, either.
And that’s okay.
The only earthly group to which I’ve ever firmly belonged is my family,
but they’re all gone, now.
Schools, jobs, clubs, associations, friends, they’re all here today, gone tomorrow.
It’s best to keep to oneself and to God.
This is spiritually worse than Japan. Back then, the faithful had no priests or sacraments, yet never wavered. Today, Catholics have Mass and the sacraments but often choose comfort and compromise over fidelity.
-
This is spiritually worse than Japan. Back then, the faithful had no priests or sacraments, yet never wavered. Today, Catholics have Mass and the sacraments but often choose comfort and compromise
I hardly call three to four home visits per year, no Mass, comfort and compromise. I just hope I went often enough years ago when I could still travel long hours, work long hours, and get by on little to no sleep. Those weekday Masses, Confession, Communion, catechism vanished with a change of management, shall we say.
-
When priests in our ranks advise certain people to go to SSPX Masses because of "their particular circuмstances", there is no long term plan usually given. Its as if they can happily attend SSPX for the next 30 years and everything will be ok. It sounds good in the short term, but long term it is very bad advice. (Frog in boiling water)
When people fade out in the long run from not attending Mass maybe we should ask what the root cause of that is. Its not because they do not have Mass. It is because they lack catechism and zeal. So perhaps priests should encourage that.
Because long term attending the SSPX, just like attending the Novus Ordo, inculcates an attitude of indifference.
When Resistance Catholics attending SSPX Masses become indifferent and like the 'frog in boiling water', we should likewise ask what the root cause of that is. It's not because they are attending the Traditional Mass and frequenting the sacraments and hearing the almost exclusively edifying sermons (that is still the rule in the SSPX, perhaps not in Germany?). No, it is for the reason you cite for your cause: they lack catechism and zeal... and they have not understood the crisis.
Fr Pivert answers the question "And what do you think are the biggest errors of the society of St. Pius X?" with this succinct response: "The silence. And that's what it is very difficult to understand, because silence is not an error. It is not a fighting error. It's an easier way to fall in error when you do not know it.". Now whether you resist the slide of the SSPX by continuing to attend and voicing your concerns, or by staying at home and depriving yourself of the sacraments, the same void exists, the same silence - unless you actively take measures to educate yourself about the crisis. And this is the answer to this problem, understanding the battle we are in. You can just as well go off the rails with any other Resistance priest as you can with the SSPX. Just look at what has transpired already in the Resistance in less than 15 years...
It is a grave sin to not fulfill your Sunday obligation. It requires a proportionate reason not to do so. Be careful trying to bind consciences. Catholic Tradition does not need more popes making dogmas where they do not exist. Prudential decisions change with circuмstances. Leave it to directors of souls.
-
Quote from: Plenus Venter (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996253#msg996253) 2025-08-17, 9:56:26 PMQuote from: Plenus Venter (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996253#msg996253) 2025-08-17, 9:56:26 PM
When Resistance Catholics attending SSPX Masses become indifferent and like the 'frog in boiling water', we should likewise ask what the root cause of that is. It's not because they are attending the Traditional Mass and frequenting the sacraments and hearing the almost exclusively edifying sermons (that is still the rule in the SSPX, perhaps not in Germany?). No, it is for the reason you cite for your cause: they lack catechism and zeal... and they have not understood the crisis.
Fr Pivert answers the question "And what do you think are the biggest errors of the society of St. Pius X?" with this succinct response: "The silence. And that's what it is very difficult to understand, because silence is not an error. It is not a fighting error. It's an easier way to fall in error when you do not know it.". Now whether you resist the slide of the SSPX by continuing to attend and voicing your concerns, or by staying at home and depriving yourself of the sacraments, the same void exists, the same silence - unless you actively take measures to educate yourself about the crisis. And this is the answer to this problem, understanding the battle we are in. You can just as well go off the rails with any other Resistance priest as you can with the SSPX. Just look at what has transpired already in the Resistance in less than 15 years...
It is a grave sin to not fulfill your Sunday obligation. It requires a proportionate reason not to do so. Be careful trying to bind consciences. Catholic Tradition does not need more popes making dogmas where they do not exist. Prudential decisions change with circuмstances. Leave it to directors of souls.
I’m sorry, but you cannot claim to be part of the Resistance while attending the Neo-SSPX. Resistance is defined by fidelity to the uncompromised traditional Faith and priesthood, not by labels or self-identification within a compromised framework. Even if you see yourself as a “conservative” Neo-SSPX member, attending a community that has submitted in practice and spirit to conciliar errors undermines your witness, weakens faith, and saps zeal. Claiming Resistance while participating in this framework is a contradiction that cannot be reconciled without abandoning the true fight for the Faith.
The argument that any spiritual tepidity among SSPX attendees comes only from personal lack of zeal or catechesis is gravely mistaken. The danger is structural, doctrinal, and spiritual. Since 2012, the Neo-SSPX has submitted in practice and spirit to Vatican II, which contains grave errors and heresies on religious liberty, ecuмenism, and the nature of the Church. Exposure to this conciliar spirit is not neutral; it slowly erodes faith, saps courage, and takes the fight out of the faithful, leaving them vulnerable to spiritual decline. No matter how frequent the Mass, how edifying the sermons, or how diligent the individual, the fruits are rotten. Tepidity is not personal weakness; it is the natural consequence of being immersed in a community that silently accepts error and abandons the uncompromised battle for the Faith. Catholics who truly wish to preserve their faith, zeal, and salvation must avoid the Neo-SSPX entirely and seek only priests and communities that transmit the traditional priesthood and doctrine intact, as +Archbishop Lefebvre upheld. To attend is not merely imprudent, it is a grave danger to one’s spiritual life, a slow weakening that cannot be remedied by sermons or habit alone. The faithful must recognize the stakes: the Neo-SSPX is not a safe harbor, but a vessel adrift in conciliar heresy and error, and only unwavering fidelity to uncompromised Tradition preserves the soul, the Faith, and the courage to fight for Christ and His Church.
-
Who claims to be “part of the resistance?” And what IS the Resistance, exactly? People claiming the label don’t agree with each other, often to the point of despising one another.
It is clearly not an organization in the sense of having a leader, a chain of command, or even a membership list.
So far as I can see, the resistance is a very loosely affiliated random assortment of bishops, priests, laity whose only common link is having somehow once been connected to the SSPX until 2012 and later.
Today there are cults of personality, cults of slightly tighter organizations that at least have names, and individual laity who’ve attached themselves in some way to a person or a group, but who come and go. It’s like an amoeba, a blob that slides, expands and contracts, changes shape and depth, divides and reabsorbs pieces at random.
Bp. W. declined to lead this “resistance” foreseeing this in advance.
He analogized it to “herding cats.”
I think of it as attempting to pick up a raw egg from a marble countertop.
It doesn’t work.
The Church has not failed for that is impossible.
What has failed is the human at the head and most of his subordinates on down.
Without Catholic leadership, the whole Body suffers.
Until there is a Catholic Pope who acts like a Catholic Pope on the Chair of Peter,
things will not work.
When those calling themselves Traditional Catholics backbite and devour one another, the prudent person neither bites nor allows himself to be devoured.
That is why I have no problem being told, “You aren’t part of the Resistance.”
I’m also not novus ordo, indult, motu, FSSP, SSPX, or whatever.
I consider myself the dog beside the Master’s table, eating up whatever morsels of food fall my way. 🐕
-
Quote from: Seraphina (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996284#msg996284) 2025-08-18, 8:12:36 AM
Who claims to be “part of the resistance?” And what IS the Resistance, exactly? People claiming the label don’t agree with each other, often to the point of despising one another.
It is clearly not an organization in the sense of having a leader, a chain of command, or even a membership list.
So far as I can see, the resistance is a very loosely affiliated random assortment of bishops, priests, laity whose only common link is having somehow once been connected to the SSPX until 2012 and later.
Today there are cults of personality, cults of slightly tighter organizations that at least have names, and individual laity who’ve attached themselves in some way to a person or a group, but who come and go. It’s like an amoeba, a blob that slides, expands and contracts, changes shape and depth, divides and reabsorbs pieces at random.
Bp. W. declined to lead this “resistance” foreseeing this in advance.
He analogized it to “herding cats.”
I think of it as attempting to pick up a raw egg from a marble countertop.
It doesn’t work.
The Church has not failed for that is impossible.
What has failed is the human at the head and most of his subordinates on down.
Without Catholic leadership, the whole Body suffers.
Until there is a Catholic Pope who acts like a Catholic Pope on the Chair of Peter,
things will not work.
When those calling themselves Traditional Catholics backbite and devour one another, the prudent person neither bites nor allows himself to be devoured.
That is why I have no problem being told, “You aren’t part of the Resistance.”
I’m also not novus ordo, indult, motu, FSSP, SSPX, or whatever.
I consider myself the dog beside the Master’s table, eating up whatever morsels of food fall my way. 🐕
The Resistance is fidelity to the pre-2012 SSPX and +Archbishop Lefebvre’s uncompromised mission: the traditional Mass, sacraments, and doctrine. It resists the Neo-SSPX, which has submitted in practice and spirit to conciliar errors. Disputes, loose affiliations, or personality conflicts do not change this reality. Sitting on the sidelines or “taking morsels” from compromised communities is spiritually dangerous. True Resistance is principled, not personal, and those who wish to preserve the Faith must avoid the Neo-SSPX entirely and seek priests who transmit Tradition intact.
-
Morsels are better than starvation. No one becomes a modernist by receiving Communion a few times a year. It’s not as if the priest gives modernism to me on the Host! In fact, I can’t recall the subject ever coming up. It’s one thing to die for Christ, quite another to die because Bp. Fellay decided to go against Archbishop LeFebvre. Prospective is needed. I’m not recommending anyone else copy me. I’m doing as best I can under my circuмstances.
-
When Resistance Catholics attending SSPX Masses become indifferent and like the 'frog in boiling water', we should likewise ask what the root cause of that is. It's not because they are attending the Traditional Mass and frequenting the sacraments and hearing the almost exclusively edifying sermons (that is still the rule in the SSPX, perhaps not in Germany?). No, it is for the reason you cite for your cause: they lack catechism and zeal... and they have not understood the crisis.
Fr Pivert answers the question "And what do you think are the biggest errors of the society of St. Pius X?" with this succinct response: "The silence. And that's what it is very difficult to understand, because silence is not an error. It is not a fighting error. It's an easier way to fall in error when you do not know it.". Now whether you resist the slide of the SSPX by continuing to attend and voicing your concerns, or by staying at home and depriving yourself of the sacraments, the same void exists, the same silence - unless you actively take measures to educate yourself about the crisis. And this is the answer to this problem, understanding the battle we are in. You can just as well go off the rails with any other Resistance priest as you can with the SSPX. Just look at what has transpired already in the Resistance in less than 15 years...
It is a grave sin to not fulfill your Sunday obligation. It requires a proportionate reason not to do so. Be careful trying to bind consciences. Catholic Tradition does not need more popes making dogmas where they do not exist. Prudential decisions change with circuмstances. Leave it to directors of souls.
Plenus Venter, I am very surprised at your response. May I ask you to consider a few things in counter balance to what you just said?
"The Silence" - When Father Pivert talks about this it means this: That a person goes to a Catholic Mass with the rightful expectation that they will receive instruction through the pulpit on how to understand and resist the errors of the time. Errors mainly of the Novus Ordo religion, but also of the world around us, which the Conciliar Religion has capitulated to. They receive silence instead when going to the SSPX. This silence by the priests is scandalous. The faithful there are slowly suffocated. The sheep are not fed.
So if you are with me so far, answer me this: How can it therefore be good for any Catholic soul to go to such a Mass? You say that if they have catechism and zeal then it's okay. That may be so for grown adults like ourselves with good catechism. But it is not true of children, many women led by emotions and intuition, and other poorly educated people.
Should it all be left then to the father of the family to instruct his wife and children as you imply? Is he not owed some support by the priest in this duty? How can such a situation be good in the long run for families? Is it surely not better for the family to wait even a few months for a visit from a resistance priest who can then help them, and strengthen them in the Faith?
Consider also what message this sends the children. Dad lets them fraternize with children who are pro SSPX. Should he tell them not to? But he has already told them effectively, (by his actions) that they are Catholic. What manner of confusion might this cause in fragile minds of the young!
And you say the two silences are the same. In a way yes, but in another way no. Because you go into an SSPX Mass expecting it to be Catholic, and it is not. It is an unnecessary occasion of sin. At least by staying at home, the faithful soul has the consolation that they have done everything in their power to avoid occasions of sins to their faith. Any right minded Catholic should want to meet their maker in this state, wouldn't you think?
Because what manner of derangement drives a person to want to attend at all costs, a Mass where nobody even understands the fight anymore, including the priest? To "voice their concerns". Will that be effective? How often might they do that? Saying "voice your concerns" sounds tough on paper, but when you work out the practicalities, you realize pretty quickly its a pretext when SSPX Mass attenders say this to us, while calling themselves resistance.
And why does it not work? I will tell you why. Because nobody in the SSPX milieu, including the priest would take that person seriously. The first thing they would quite rightly say is "Well if you like the resistance so much, why don't you go there! You are coming here to the SSPX and our position is reconciliation with Rome" And the person sinks back down into themselves continuing to go for years on end. Getting no encouragement from the mileu around them, and eventually their original experience with resistance clergy gets forgotten, they have no incentive to invite them to say Mass because they are getting Mass already, and they fade out of view.
I have lost count of the number of people I have known since 2012, that talked tough and faded out. Losing interest in the resistance clergy. Maybe logging onto cathinfo or youtube occasionally to get a tickle from a Bishop Williamson sermon, but that's about it. And many of these people were well formed. As the years have gone on, I have become even more hardened on this point watching my friends lose spiritual consciousness like they are taking some kind of anesthetic.
You are right Plenus Venter, that you can go off the rails with a resistance priest. Well this is surely true because so many are ambivalent now on the SSPX! But secondly, there can be all manner of moral issues, and we know this with certain members of the clergy driving faithful away through inconsiderate (to put it very mildly) behavior. Some clergy of ours ought even to be avoided depending on the situation. But this is all relatively rare and in no way applies across the board.
What does apply across the board is the SSPX position which priests within are obliged to comply with, at least through their external actions. So no matter where you go as a lay person, you can be guaranteed the same silence and indifference to the world and modernism. So no, it is not "just as well" that you can go astray with a resistance priest.
Finally, I think we should talk about these circuмstances. For the formation of consciences.
-
Quote from: girlytrad (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996322#msg996322) 2025-08-18, 11:18:47 AM
Plenus Venter, I am very surprised at your response. May I ask you to consider a few things in counter balance to what you just said?
"The Silence" - When Father Pivert talks about this it means this: That a person goes to a Catholic Mass with the rightful expectation that they will receive instruction through the pulpit on how to understand and resist the errors of the time. Errors mainly of the Novus Ordo religion, but also of the world around us, which the Conciliar Religion has capitulated to. They receive silence instead when going to the SSPX. This silence by the priests is scandalous. The faithful there are slowly suffocated. The sheep are not fed.
So if you are with me so far, answer me this: How can it therefore be good for any Catholic soul to go to such a Mass? You say that if they have catechism and zeal then it's okay. That may be so for grown adults like ourselves with good catechism. But it is not true of children, many women led by emotions and intuition, and other poorly educated people.
Should it all be left then to the father of the family to instruct his wife and children as you imply? Is he not owed some support by the priest in this duty? How can such a situation be good in the long run for families? Is it surely not better for the family to wait even a few months for a visit from a resistance priest who can then help them, and strengthen them in the Faith?
Consider also what message this sends the children. Dad lets them fraternize with children who are pro SSPX. Should he tell them not to? But he has already told them effectively, (by his actions) that they are Catholic. What manner of confusion might this cause in fragile minds of the young!
And you say the two silences are the same. In a way yes, but in another way no. Because you go into an SSPX Mass expecting it to be Catholic, and it is not. It is an unnecessary occasion of sin. At least by staying at home, the faithful soul has the consolation that they have done everything in their power to avoid occasions of sins to their faith. Any right minded Catholic should want to meet their maker in this state, wouldn't you think?
Because what manner of derangement drives a person to want to attend at all costs, a Mass where nobody even understands the fight anymore, including the priest? To "voice their concerns". Will that be effective? How often might they do that? Saying "voice your concerns" sounds tough on paper, but when you work out the practicalities, you realize pretty quickly its a pretext when SSPX Mass attenders say this to us, while calling themselves resistance.
And why does it not work? I will tell you why. Because nobody in the SSPX milieu, including the priest would take that person seriously. The first thing they would quite rightly say is "Well if you like the resistance so much, why don't you go there! You are coming here to the SSPX and our position is reconciliation with Rome" And the person sinks back down into themselves continuing to go for years on end. Getting no encouragement from the mileu around them, and eventually their original experience with resistance clergy gets forgotten, they have no incentive to invite them to say Mass because they are getting Mass already, and they fade out of view.
I have lost count of the number of people I have known since 2012, that talked tough and faded out. Losing interest in the resistance clergy. Maybe logging onto cathinfo or youtube occasionally to get a tickle from a Bishop Williamson sermon, but that's about it. And many of these people were well formed. As the years have gone on, I have become even more hardened on this point watching my friends lose spiritual consciousness like they are taking some kind of anesthetic.
You are right Plenus Venter, that you can go off the rails with a resistance priest. Well this is surely true because so many are ambivalent now on the SSPX! But secondly, there can be all manner of moral issues, and we know this with certain members of the clergy driving faithful away through inconsiderate (to put it very mildly) behavior. Some clergy of ours ought even to be avoided depending on the situation. But this is all relatively rare and in no way applies across the board.
What does apply across the board is the SSPX position which priests within are obliged to comply with, at least through their external actions. So no matter where you go as a lay person, you can be guaranteed the same silence and indifference to the world and modernism. So no, it is not "just as well" that you can go astray with a resistance priest.
Finally, I think we should talk about these circuмstances. For the formation of consciences.
Exactly. Attending the NEOSSPX without instruction leaves families and children spiritually unprotected, while even adults are slowly dulled. Waiting for a real Resistance priest who actively strengthens souls is far better than going to a Mass where guidance is absent.
-
The Resistance is fidelity to the pre-2012 SSPX and +Archbishop Lefebvre’s uncompromised mission: the traditional Mass, sacraments, and doctrine. It resists the Neo-SSPX, which has submitted in practice and spirit to conciliar errors. Disputes, loose affiliations, or personality conflicts do not change this reality. ...
True Resistance is principled, not personal, and those who wish to preserve the Faith must avoid the Neo-SSPX entirely and seek priests who transmit Tradition intact.
Well, I got news for Fr. Hewko and others like him -- you perfectly describe Bp. Zendejas here, as well as the priests who work with him. If you disagree or claim otherwise because he's "not on your team", any such cult members can go jump in the lake. Reality is reality, and it doesn't care about your feelings. Or your "team".
The fact is that Bp. Zendejas is perfectly described in what I quoted here. No amount of twisting his sermons from 10 years ago or torturing his words till they scream will change that.
The sad reality is that Fr. Pfeiffer had an undue human attachment to running a seminary. Bp. Williamson told him no (because he wasn't equipped to fulfill that office) and Fr. P wouldn't take no for an answer. Fr. P, and Fr. Hewko who lived in that milieu for years (and was formed by it) made the decision to start attacking any Resistance priests or bishops who weren't in their group, or who disagreed with Fr. Pfeiffer about anything. In their little cult, Fr. Pfeiffer in the de-facto pope. It's insane. But, sadly, true.
"We're the only true ______, everyone else is sold out, you have to avoid them..." It's the oldest story in the book of cult behavior. It's Cult 101.
It's sad to see such self-serving and cult-like behavior in the Resistance, but if you think about it, you wouldn't be shocked. What IS the "Resistance"? Who vets individuals before they enter? Who gives them their certificate of membership? Who is the ultimate authority in the Resistance? Answer? Anyone can join, there is no authority, and membership is merely claimed by whoever. So yeah -- just finding a bad apple "associated with" the Resistance means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Just like finding a horrible criminal (violator of women, thief, murderer) reflects NOTHING on your favorite devout Trad Catholic priest. They are both Men, yes -- but "manhood" is given out liberally; almost half the world is men. One man can be a horrible criminal, and the man next to him could be a living saint. YES, THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.
Unless you have an authoritative organization, with control over membership, authority over individual members, etc. then finding "evil" in the organization MEANS NOTHING with respect to the rest of the organization. It's basic logic.
-
Well, I got news for Fr. Hewko and others like him -- you perfectly describe Bp. Zendejas here, as well as the priests who work with him. If you disagree or claim otherwise because he's "not on your team", any such cult members can go jump in the lake. Reality is reality, and it doesn't care about your feelings. Or your "team".
The fact is that Bp. Zendejas is perfectly described in what I quoted here. No amount of twisting his sermons from 10 years ago or torturing his words till they scream will change that.
The sad reality is that Fr. Pfeiffer had an undue human attachment to running a seminary. Bp. Williamson told him no (because he wasn't equipped to fulfill that office) and Fr. P wouldn't take no for an answer. Fr. P, and Fr. Hewko who lived in that milieu for years (and was formed by it) made the decision to start attacking any Resistance priests or bishops who weren't in their group, or who disagreed with Fr. Pfeiffer about anything. In their little cult, Fr. Pfeiffer in the de-facto pope. It's insane. But, sadly, true.
"We're the only true ______, everyone else is sold out, you have to avoid them..." It's the oldest story in the book of cult behavior. It's Cult 101.
It's sad to see such self-serving and cult-like behavior in the Resistance, but if you think about it, you wouldn't be shocked. What IS the "Resistance"? Who vets individuals before they enter? Who gives them their certificate of membership? Who is the ultimate authority in the Resistance? Answer? Anyone can join, there is no authority, and membership is merely claimed by whoever. So yeah -- just finding a bad apple "associated with" the Resistance means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Just like finding a horrible criminal (violator of women, thief, murderer) reflects NOTHING on your favorite devout Trad Catholic priest. They are both Men, yes -- but "manhood" is given out liberally; almost half the world is men. One man can be a horrible criminal, and the man next to him could be a living saint. YES, THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.
Unless you have an authoritative organization, with control over membership, authority over individual members, etc. then finding "evil" in the organization MEANS NOTHING with respect to the rest of the organization. It's basic logic.
No one is running down Bishop Z nor promoting Fr. Hewko or Fr. Pfeiffer.
Just relax
-
Quote from: Matthew (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996584#msg996584) 2025-08-20, 12:15:34 PM
Well, I got news for Fr. Hewko and others like him -- you perfectly describe Bp. Zendejas here, as well as the priests who work with him. If you disagree or claim otherwise because he's "not on your team", any such cult members can go jump in the lake. Reality is reality, and it doesn't care about your feelings. Or your "team".
The fact is that Bp. Zendejas is perfectly described in what I quoted here. No amount of twisting his sermons from 10 years ago or torturing his words till they scream will change that.
The sad reality is that Fr. Pfeiffer had an undue human attachment to running a seminary. Bp. Williamson told him no (because he wasn't equipped to fulfill that office) and Fr. P wouldn't take no for an answer. Fr. P, and Fr. Hewko who lived in that milieu for years (and was formed by it) made the decision to start attacking any Resistance priests or bishops who weren't in their group, or who disagreed with Fr. Pfeiffer about anything. In their little cult, Fr. Pfeiffer in the de-facto pope. It's insane. But, sadly, true.
"We're the only true ______, everyone else is sold out, you have to avoid them..." It's the oldest story in the book of cult behavior. It's Cult 101.
It's sad to see such self-serving and cult-like behavior in the Resistance, but if you think about it, you wouldn't be shocked. What IS the "Resistance"? Who vets individuals before they enter? Who gives them their certificate of membership? Who is the ultimate authority in the Resistance? Answer? Anyone can join, there is no authority, and membership is merely claimed by whoever. So yeah -- just finding a bad apple "associated with" the Resistance means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Just like finding a horrible criminal (violator of women, thief, murderer) reflects NOTHING on your favorite devout Trad Catholic priest. They are both Men, yes -- but "manhood" is given out liberally; almost half the world is men. One man can be a horrible criminal, and the man next to him could be a living saint. YES, THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.
Unless you have an authoritative organization, with control over membership, authority over individual members, etc. then finding "evil" in the organization MEANS NOTHING with respect to the rest of the organization. It's basic logic.
While some debate who belongs to the Resistance, the objective measure is not self-claimed membership or popularity, but fidelity to +Archbishop Lefebvre’s uncompromised mission. True Resistance is marked by:
- Unwavering adherence to the traditional Mass and sacraments.
- Firm opposition to any compromise with the Neo-SSPX or conciliar errors.
- Continuation of the pre-2012 SSPX mission in word and deed.
Those who fail to meet these criteria, regardless of what labels they claim, cannot define or represent the authentic Resistance. Objective fidelity, not personality or self-proclaimed authority, is the standard.
-
When Resistance Catholics attending SSPX Masses become indifferent and like the 'frog in boiling water', we should likewise ask what the root cause of that is. It's not because they are attending the Traditional Mass and frequenting the sacraments and hearing the almost exclusively edifying sermons (that is still the rule in the SSPX, perhaps not in Germany?). No, it is for the reason you cite for your cause: they lack catechism and zeal... and they have not understood the crisis.
Fr Pivert answers the question "And what do you think are the biggest errors of the society of St. Pius X?" with this succinct response: "The silence. And that's what it is very difficult to understand, because silence is not an error. It is not a fighting error. It's an easier way to fall in error when you do not know it.". Now whether you resist the slide of the SSPX by continuing to attend and voicing your concerns, or by staying at home and depriving yourself of the sacraments, the same void exists, the same silence - unless you actively take measures to educate yourself about the crisis. And this is the answer to this problem, understanding the battle we are in. You can just as well go off the rails with any other Resistance priest as you can with the SSPX. Just look at what has transpired already in the Resistance in less than 15 years...
It is a grave sin to not fulfill your Sunday obligation. It requires a proportionate reason not to do so. Be careful trying to bind consciences. Catholic Tradition does not need more popes making dogmas where they do not exist. Prudential decisions change with circuмstances. Leave it to directors of souls.
What I don't understand is how some people see themselves in the "Resistance" when they go to Mass at the SSPX even when a Resistance priest is saying Mass a few kilometers away!!!
I don't question the motives, only the fact that one can see themselves part of this movement in these circuмstances...
-
Cults are full of self-proclaimed experts, leaders, and manipulators of others, mostly by fear and shame, and threat of exclusion and subsequent isolation, ie. shunning
If the shoe fits, wear it.
-
Quote from: Seraphina (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996685#msg996685) 2025-08-21, 4:16:52 PM
Cults are full of self-proclaimed experts, leaders, and manipulators of others, mostly by fear and shame, and threat of exclusion and subsequent isolation, ie. shunning
If the shoe fits, wear it.
I would imagine they said the same thing about the Athanasianites as well, when the whole world followed Arianism. Fidelity to the Faith will always look like this shoe to those who have already conformed to error.
-
I would imagine they said the same thing about the Athanasianites as well, when the whole world followed Arianism. Fidelity to the Faith will always look like this shoe to those who have already conformed to error.
Perhaps, indeed they did, but Athanasius did not respond in kind, with insults, rash judgments, accusations, and refusal to answer questions or listen to those with legitimate concerns.
So far as being isolated, Athanasius accepted his banishments and false excommunications with equanimity, telling his tiny flock, “They (Arians) may have the buildings, but we have the Faith.”
There is no record of nearly every sermon turning into a lengthy lament decrying the faults of Arius and the Arians instead of mainly expounding upon the Gospel and Epistle that they with him might increase in their knowledge and be strengthened in the Faith. Furthermore, Athanasius centered his teaching on adherence to Christ, Himself, not on some other Saint’s teachings, admirable as it may have been.
That is why he is titled, Saint Athanasius and Fr. Arius, a priest known for his heresy.
P.S. It is my personal observation, for what it’s worth, that break-off groups whose main emphasis remains upon, ‘What’s wrong with where we came from” usually comes to naught within a generation and a half, or else it turns into something else. (This is n o t my opinion. It’s my factual observation among both Catholics and Conservative Protestants.)
-
Perhaps, indeed they did, but Athanasius did not respond in kind, with insults, rash judgments, accusations, and refusal to answer questions or listen to those with legitimate concerns.
So far as being isolated, Athanasius accepted his banishments and false excommunications with equanimity, telling his tiny flock, “They (Arians) may have the buildings, but we have the Faith.”
There is no record of nearly every sermon turning into a lengthy lament decrying the faults of Arius and the Arians instead of mainly expounding upon the Gospel and Epistle that they with him might increase in their knowledge and be strengthened in the Faith. Furthermore, Athanasius centered his teaching on adherence to Christ, Himself, not on some other Saint’s teachings, admirable as it may have been.
That is why he is titled, Saint Athanasius and Fr. Arius, a priest known for his heresy.
P.S. It is my personal observation, for what it’s worth, that break-off groups whose main emphasis remains upon, ‘What’s wrong with where we came from” usually comes to naught within a generation and a half, or else it turns into something else. (This is n o t my opinion. It’s my factual observation among both Catholics and Conservative Protestants.)
+St. Athanasius endured exile, false accusations, and near-universal opposition, yet never wavered. Fidelity to the Faith is never measured by popularity, only by truth.
-
What I don't understand is how some people see themselves in the "Resistance" when they go to Mass at the SSPX even when a Resistance priest is saying Mass a few kilometers away!!!
I do not know of any situation like this when people willingly stayed away except when they were not notified enough in advance about the Resistance Mass to make arrangements to attend.
I see by your use of kilometers instead of miles, you are outside the USA. This HAS happened to me on a number of occasions where people, priest included, in the Resistance group who had my contact information and knew of my interest in attending, failed to inform me that a Mass was being held in my area. Or, once, I received a text message half an hour before the Resistance Mass started. At least someone tried, but I was already at the SSPX chapel on the Confession line. Even had I floored it out of the parking lot at 80 mph, I couldn’t have made it to the Resistance Mass in time for it to count as hearing Mass. It was in a home about 10 miles east of where I was living, and the SSPX was 16 miles west of my home.
I later got a disgruntled call about my absence! Sorry, but I’m not holy enough to appear instantly 26 miles away by a thought, and I can’t bilocate!
It has also happened that I find out a day to weeks after the fact. I’m not a mind reader! Often no one is to blame. Many Resistance Masses are not planned in advance or on any kind of schedule. Something happens that a priest must suddenly travel to a soul in need, and while in the area, has Mass. Had I known, I’d have attended!
Just do not criticize or condemn anyone without knowing their situation. It’s possible they had a commitment that took precedence, or were invincibly ignorant. Both have happened to me back when I still regularly attended SSPX and later, in the midst of Covid as I sat in my car in a wooded pull-off reading my missal.
-
+St. Athanasius endured exile, false accusations, and near-universal opposition, yet never wavered. Fidelity to the Faith is never measured by popularity, only by truth.
Agree. What’s your point?
-
I do not know of any situation like this when people willingly stayed away except when they were not notified enough in advance about the Resistance Mass to make arrangements to attend.
I see by your use of kilometers instead of miles, you are outside the USA. This HAS happened to me on a number of occasions where people, priest included, in the Resistance group who had my contact information and knew of my interest in attending, failed to inform me that a Mass was being held in my area. Or, once, I received a text message half an hour before the Resistance Mass started. At least someone tried, but I was already at the SSPX chapel on the Confession line. Even had I floored it out of the parking lot at 80 mph, I couldn’t have made it to the Resistance Mass in time for it to count as hearing Mass. It was in a home about 10 miles east of where I was living, and the SSPX was 16 miles west of my home.
I later got a disgruntled call about my absence! Sorry, but I’m not holy enough to appear instantly 26 miles away by a thought, and I can’t bilocate!
It has also happened that I find out a day to weeks after the fact. I’m not a mind reader! Often no one is to blame. Many Resistance Masses are not planned in advance or on any kind of schedule. Something happens that a priest must suddenly travel to a soul in need, and while in the area, has Mass. Had I known, I’d have attended!
Just do not criticize or condemn anyone without knowing their situation. It’s possible they had a commitment that took precedence, or were invincibly ignorant. Both have happened to me back when I still regularly attended SSPX and later, in the midst of Covid as I sat in my car in a wooded pull-off reading my missal.
That's right, I am not American 😊. Trust me, the persons I am talking about have avoided Resistance priests for over a year, they knew very well where and when Mass was. This is a deliberate avoidance by people who believe themselves to be in the Resistance. I might add that they are quite generous with the Resistance in other parts of the world, but in my opinion giving money to a cause doesn't mean that you are part of it.
Again, I don't question motives, but my mind is boggled by the dichotomy between words and actions in this case, that's all...
-
Benedikt and girlytrad, you would do well to consider this opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre taken from Michael Davies' Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Vol II Ch XL:
I had the opportunity of a long interview with the Archbishop a few weeks later when we discussed the matter. He was kind enough to summarize his considered opinion for me in writing (dated 9 May 1980). It read as follows:
Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass.
Thus where the Archbishop states that “these New Masses are incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation,” he is referring to New Masses which involve “sacrilegious acts which pervert the faith by diminishing it.” The declaration which he made at my request makes it quite clear that this was indeed his meaning.
Now consider the difference between an SSPX Mass and a New Mass. The conclusion is obvious.
-
That's right, I am not American 😊. Trust me, the persons I am talking about have avoided Resistance priests for over a year, they knew very well where and when Mass was. This is a deliberate avoidance by people who believe themselves to be in the Resistance. I might add that they are quite generous with the Resistance in other parts of the world, but in my opinion giving money to a cause doesn't mean that you are part of it.
Again, I don't question motives, but my mind is boggled by the dichotomy between words and actions in this case, that's all...
Well, I’d unboggle my mind and forget about what other people do or what they call themselves. They are not your responsibility. People do as they please. In this case, don’t sweat it.
-
Quote from: Plenus Venter (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996864#msg996864) 2025-08-23, 6:16:49 PM
Benedikt and girlytrad, you would do well to consider this opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre taken from Michael Davies' Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Vol II Ch XL:
I had the opportunity of a long interview with the Archbishop a few weeks later when we discussed the matter. He was kind enough to summarize his considered opinion for me in writing (dated 9 May 1980). It read as follows:Thus where the Archbishop states that “these New Masses are incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation,” he is referring to New Masses which involve “sacrilegious acts which pervert the faith by diminishing it.” The declaration which he made at my request makes it quite clear that this was indeed his meaning.
Now consider the difference between an SSPX Mass and a New Mass. The conclusion is obvious.
Michael Davies was not always a reliable transmitter of +Archbishop Lefebvre’s thought. He himself admitted that he wanted to “reassure” Catholics attached to the New Mass. So when Davies claims a private clarification, we must test it against the Archbishop’s public, repeated, official words.
+Archbishop Lefebvre never wavered. He declared:
“It is not enough to say the New Mass is valid if it is said correctly. One must also say that it is bad, for it was made with the intention of diminishing the faith, and it diminishes it effectively. It is therefore a sacrilegious rite. It is not permissible to participate in it.” (Homily, Lille, 29 August 1976)
And again:
“This Mass is unacceptable because it is a poisoned Mass. It is not only dangerous, it is bad and it was made with the idea of diminishing the faith. Therefore it is sacrilegious. A priest cannot lend his hands to perform such a rite. It is impossible.” (Interview, Fideliter, Sept–Oct 1984)
And again:
“This New Mass leads to sin against the Faith, and so it is a grave sin to participate in it, a sin against the Faith. It is a cooperation in the destruction of the Faith and in the revolution inside the Church.” (Conference, Econe, 1986)
This is the Archbishop’s true position: the New Mass is sacrilegious, poisoned, and cannot be attended.
At most, he acknowledged that confused souls may act in good faith and not incur subjective guilt. But that is very different from saying the rite itself fulfills the Sunday obligation. Objectively, the rite is an offense against God and cannot be participated in.
So the “conclusion is obvious” indeed: +Lefebvre rejected the New Mass entirely. Any appeal to Davies’ filtered version against the Archbishop’s own words is simply misrepresentation.
-
Well, I’d unboggle my mind and forget about what other people do or what they call themselves. They are not your responsibility. People do as they please. In this case, don’t sweat it.
Oh trust me, I have other problems to "sweat" over... However, it is quite annoying when these people lecture others over the "Resistance" and the way the SSPX is going when they themselves attend SSPX masses exclusively, when a Resistance priest is available almost every Sunday...
-
Then again, it's my fault for continuing to read crazy posts on this forum. I am signing out for good this time!
Bye everyone!
-
Michael Davies was not always a reliable transmitter of +Archbishop Lefebvre’s thought. He himself admitted that he wanted to “reassure” Catholics attached to the New Mass. So when Davies claims a private clarification, we must test it against the Archbishop’s public, repeated, official words.
+Archbishop Lefebvre never wavered. He declared:
“It is not enough to say the New Mass is valid if it is said correctly. One must also say that it is bad, for it was made with the intention of diminishing the faith, and it diminishes it effectively. It is therefore a sacrilegious rite. It is not permissible to participate in it.” (Homily, Lille, 29 August 1976)
And again:
“This Mass is unacceptable because it is a poisoned Mass. It is not only dangerous, it is bad and it was made with the idea of diminishing the faith. Therefore it is sacrilegious. A priest cannot lend his hands to perform such a rite. It is impossible.” (Interview, Fideliter, Sept–Oct 1984)
And again:
“This New Mass leads to sin against the Faith, and so it is a grave sin to participate in it, a sin against the Faith. It is a cooperation in the destruction of the Faith and in the revolution inside the Church.” (Conference, Econe, 1986)
This is the Archbishop’s true position: the New Mass is sacrilegious, poisoned, and cannot be attended.
At most, he acknowledged that confused souls may act in good faith and not incur subjective guilt. But that is very different from saying the rite itself fulfills the Sunday obligation. Objectively, the rite is an offense against God and cannot be participated in.
So the “conclusion is obvious” indeed: +Lefebvre rejected the New Mass entirely. Any appeal to Davies’ filtered version against the Archbishop’s own words is simply misrepresentation.
I agree, it was more a concession to souls who did not understand the gravity of the changes and so it was not a point well made by me. However, your reply indicates clearly why he reached this conclusion: "it is a poisoned Mass... it was made with the idea of diminishing the faith". That cannot be said in general of SSPX Masses, nor the sermons, nor the atmosphere... in general the opposite holds true. Avoiding the SSPX is arguably, depending on the circuмstances, likely to do more harm to souls and more likely to lead to loss of faith... all predicated on what may (even though very likely) happen in the future. If you cannot go to an SSPX Mass because they are silent about the fight for the faith, is it permissible to attend a Resistance Mass on a weekday when there is no sermon? Is it then permissible to attend an SSPX weekday Mass? It is important to know yourself, and know your faith, and understand the crisis. In this day and age, if you do not, then you will not be safe wherever you attend.
-
Michael Davies was not always a reliable transmitter of +Archbishop Lefebvre’s thought. He himself admitted that he wanted to “reassure” Catholics attached to the New Mass. So when Davies claims a private clarification, we must test it against the Archbishop’s public, repeated, official words.
The Archbishop had a high regard for Michael Davies and his writings, as can be read in the Archbishop's own hand as a preface to the first volume of the Apologia, even if he was not found amongst the faithful in 1988.
Regarding his position on the New Mass: https://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass-30166
What Archbishop Lefebvre said about the New Mass... in the beginning
We present here some excerpts from the book Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography (https://angeluspress.org/products/marcel-lefebvre-biography) which outline the first reactions of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to the Novus Ordo Missae and how he was compelled to eventually oppose assisting at the New Mass.
From the chapter: For the Catholic Priesthood
A problem: assisting at the New Mass
Since Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to the New Mass, he would not have it in the seminary. On the eve of the first Sunday of Advent 1969 when the Novus Ordo Missae came into force in the diocese of Fribourg, the archbishop simply said: “We’ll keep the old Mass, eh? ” Everyone agreed...
(...)
It is true that prudence might suggest to this or that priest “not to refuse the new Ordo for fear of scandalizing the faithful” by their witnessing his apparent disobedience to the bishop.[40] Such a priest should, however, “keep the Roman Canon which is still permitted, and say the words of consecration in a low voice according to the old form, which is still allowed.”[41] When Archbishop Lefebvre was absent on a Sunday, the seminarians would go and assist at Mass together at the Bernadine convent of La Maigrauge where an old monk celebrated the New Mass in Latin. The archbishop was not a man to rush souls. He allowed himself time to see the fruits more clearly in order to pass better judgment on the tree. He also wanted to hear the opinions of his colleagues in the episcopate, and find a consensus among his friends.
His friend Bishop de Castro Mayer (https://sspx.org/en/bishop-antonio-de-castro-mayer) found himself with a very painful problem of conscience with respect to his priests:
Can we, the bishops, be silent? Can we, pastors of souls, follow a via media, saying nothing and leaving each priest to follow his conscience as he wishes at such risk to so many souls? And if we say openly what we think, what will be the consequences? We will be removed... leaving many of the faithful in confusion and scandalizing the weakest souls."[42]
In January 1970 the Bishop of Campos had already solved his doubts. He translated the Short Critical Study (https://sspx.org/en/ottaviani-intervention) and distributed it among his priests.
It seems to me preferable that scandal be given rather than a situation be maintained in which one slides into heresy. After considerable thought on the matter, I am convinced that one cannot take part in the New Mass, and even just to be present one must have a serious reason. We cannot collaborate in spreading a rite which, even if it is not heretical, leads to heresy. This is the rule I am giving my friends."[43]
At the time, Archbishop Lefebvre’s position was not quite as categorical. He considered that the New Mass was not heretical, but as Cardinal Ottaviani had said, it represents serious dangers; thus in the course of time, “Protestant ideas concerning the Supper would be unconsciously accepted by the Catholics.” This was why children had to be taught the fundamental notions about the Mass. However, “it is an exaggeration to say that most of these Masses are invalid.” One should not hesitate to go a little further to have Mass according to the Roman Ordo; but “if one does not have the choice and if the priest celebrating Mass according to the Novus Ordo is faithful and worthy, one should not abstain from going to Mass.”[44]
From the chapter: “I adhere to Eternal Rome”
Faithfulness to the Mass of All Time: rejecting the Novus Ordo
Archbishop Lefebvre did not found his Society against the New Mass, but for the priesthood (https://sspx.org/en/node/772). However, the concerns of the priesthood now brought him to reject the new Ordo Missae.
The orthodoxy and validity of the New Mass
Archbishop Lefebvre did not hesitate to speak publicly on the question of the orthodoxy and validity of Paul VI’s Mass. He considered that “one cannot say generally that the New Mass is invalid or heretical”; however, “it leads slowly to heresy.”
(...)
In 1975, the archbishop added that the New Mass:
is ambivalent and ambiguous because one priest can say it with a totally Catholic faith in the sacrifice, etc., and another can say it with a different intention, because the words he pronounces and the gestures he makes no longer contradict [other intentions]."[9]
The problem of assisting at the New Mass
Some priests were torn between the need to keep the Faith as expressed by the traditional Mass and a desire to be obedient as they saw it. In the early days of the reforms, Archbishop Lefebvre advised them to keep at least the traditional Offertory and Canon and to say them in Latin. His advice to the seminarians as to the faithful was remarkably moderate in tone for one who was first to step up to the breach to repel the New Mass.
He exhorted them:
Make every effort to have the Mass of St. Pius V, but if it is impossible to find one within forty kilometers and if there is a pious priest who says the New Mass in as traditional a way as possible, it is good for you to assist at it to fulfill your Sunday obligation."
One can counter the dangers for the Faith through solid catechism:
Should all the world’s churches be emptied? I do not feel brave enough to say such a thing. I don’t want to encourage atheism."[10]
(...)
Little by little, the archbishop’s position hardened: this Mass with its ecuмenical rite was seriously ambiguous and harmful to the Catholic Faith.
This is why one cannot be made to assist at it to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation.”[15]
In 1975 he still admitted that one could “assist occasionally” at the New Mass when one feared going without Communion for a long time. However, in 1977, he was more or less absolute:
To avoid conforming to the evolution slowly taking place in the minds of priests, we must avoid—I could almost say completely—assisting at the New Mass."[16]
A poisoned liturgy
Soon, Archbishop Lefebvre would no longer tolerate participation at Masses celebrated in the new rite except passively, for example at funerals [this is also true for marriages—Ed].[17]
-
I agree, it was more a concession to souls who did not understand the gravity of the changes and so it was not a point well made by me. However, your reply indicates clearly why he reached this conclusion: "it is a poisoned Mass... it was made with the idea of diminishing the faith". That cannot be said in general of SSPX Masses, nor the sermons, nor the atmosphere... in general the opposite holds true. Avoiding the SSPX is arguably, depending on the circuмstances, likely to do more harm to souls and more likely to lead to loss of faith... all predicated on what may (even though very likely) happen in the future. If you cannot go to an SSPX Mass because they are silent about the fight for the faith, is it permissible to attend a Resistance Mass on a weekday when there is no sermon? Is it then permissible to attend an SSPX weekday Mass? It is important to know yourself, and know your faith, and understand the crisis. In this day and age, if you do not, then you will not be safe wherever you attend.
My original point, Benedikt, which I didn't make very clearly, was that if the Archbishop in the early days after the introduction of the New Mass thought it was better for the faithful to attend, "I do not want to encourage atheism", then how much more so would he have this attitude towards the true Mass said by priests of the SSPX where there is generally no inherent danger to the faith, but only the longer term danger of changes occurring after being absorbed into the Conciliar system. This must be weighed against the VERY REAL DANGER to souls of not attending Mass and the sacraments. For no matter what remedies you suggest to supply for the lack of Mass and sacraments, the danger IS very real. The whole issue of the New Mass and the evolution of the Archbishop's position shows how much it is an issue of prudence, and just how complex the question can be. That is why I object to those who are dogmatic about the issue and condemn others who disagree with their OPINION.
-
Quote from: Plenus Venter (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996883#msg996883) 2025-08-23, 7:34:46 PM
My original point, Benedikt, which I didn't make very clearly, was that if the Archbishop in the early days after the introduction of the New Mass thought it was better for the faithful to attend, "I do not want to encourage atheism", then how much more so would he have this attitude towards the true Mass said by priests of the SSPX where there is generally no inherent danger to the faith, but only the longer term danger of changes occurring after being absorbed into the Conciliar system. This must be weighed against the VERY REAL DANGER to souls of not attending Mass and the sacraments. For no matter what remedies you suggest to supply for the lack of Mass and sacraments, the danger IS very real. The whole issue of the New Mass and the evolution of the Archbishop's position shows how much it is an issue of prudence, and just how complex the question can be. That is why I object to those who are dogmatic about the issue and condemn others who disagree with their OPINION.
You are right to note that Archbishop Lefebvre showed pastoral patience in the early days of the New Mass for confused faithful. That, however, was never a license to compromise principle. He never sanctioned obedience to the system of Vatican II, registration with Rome, or public acceptance of conciliar authority.
The Neo-SSPX, by contrast, is a formal submission. Signing the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration and publicly registering with Conciliar Rome is not prudential weakness. It is cooperation in the destruction of the Faith. As +Archbishop Lefebvre declared:
“A priest who enters into this system, who accepts it, collaborates with the destruction of the Faith.” (Conference, Paris, 1981)
A Resistance Mass, when celebrated by priests who openly resist Conciliar Rome and its errors, preserves the Faith. Masses by priests who have submitted to Conciliar Rome, even if silent in sermons, do not preserve the Faith. Neo-SSPX Masses, by obedience to Conciliar Rome and silence on its errors, train the faithful to accept conciliar compromise. The danger to souls is not hypothetical or in the future. It is already real.
Even Bishop Williamson, in his clear days before contradiction, warned that those who attend the Neo-SSPX will lose the fight:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nomsJid2v9A&t=34s&pp=0gcJCa0JAYcqIYzv
This is not a question of opinion or prudence. It is about fidelity. Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society to resist the system. To attend priests who have bound themselves to that system is to abandon the very fight for which he gave his life.
The line is simple and unbending. Silence is weakness. Submission is betrayal. Betrayal is never safe for the Faith.
-
You are right to note that Archbishop Lefebvre showed pastoral patience in the early days of the New Mass for confused faithful. That, however, was never a license to compromise principle. He never sanctioned obedience to the system of Vatican II, registration with Rome, or public acceptance of conciliar authority.
The Neo-SSPX, by contrast, is a formal submission. Signing the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration and publicly registering with Conciliar Rome is not prudential weakness. It is cooperation in the destruction of the Faith. As +Archbishop Lefebvre declared:
“A priest who enters into this system, who accepts it, collaborates with the destruction of the Faith.” (Conference, Paris, 1981)
A Resistance Mass, when celebrated by priests who openly resist Conciliar Rome and its errors, preserves the Faith. Masses by priests who have submitted to Conciliar Rome, even if silent in sermons, do not preserve the Faith. Neo-SSPX Masses, by obedience to Conciliar Rome and silence on its errors, train the faithful to accept conciliar compromise. The danger to souls is not hypothetical or in the future. It is already real.
Even Bishop Williamson, in his clear days before contradiction, warned that those who attend the Neo-SSPX will lose the fight:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nomsJid2v9A&t=34s&pp=0gcJCa0JAYcqIYzv
This is not a question of opinion or prudence. It is about fidelity. Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society to resist the system. To attend priests who have bound themselves to that system is to abandon the very fight for which he gave his life.
The line is simple and unbending. Silence is weakness. Submission is betrayal. Betrayal is never safe for the Faith.
Indeed!
-
A Resistance Mass, when celebrated by priests who openly resist Conciliar Rome and its errors, preserves the Faith. Masses by priests who have submitted to Conciliar Rome, even if silent in sermons, do not preserve the Faith. Neo-SSPX Masses, by obedience to Conciliar Rome and silence on its errors, train the faithful to accept conciliar compromise. The danger to souls is not hypothetical or in the future. It is already real...
The line is simple and unbending. Silence is weakness. Submission is betrayal. Betrayal is never safe for the Faith.
Of course it is true that a bishop or priest is not doing everything necessary to defend and preserve the Faith if he is not alerting the faithful to the errors that threaten their Faith. That is why we resist. But to say that because of this omission, for which they will give an account, their Masses, sacraments and teaching do nothing to preserve the Faith is patently false. They obviously do nourish the faith, hope and charity of good souls and thus edify the Church.
As one of the faithful attending Mass at the SSPX I am not necessarily being silent, nor am I submitting in any way whatsoever to error. I am in a good position to alert priests and faithful to the change in direction, of which many are still unaware, with the ensuing dangers. It is not betraying anyone or anything. If I did not fulfill my Sunday obligation, however, I know beyond any doubt that for me, I would be betraying Our Lord and committing a mortal sin.
Barring a miracle, it seems likely that the SSPX will continue to slide into the arms of Conciliar Rome and that the silence of the Neo-SSPX could result in the greater number of SSPX Trads becoming modernist. But if this happens, how long will it take? It has certainly not happened in 13 years and to claim such would be a monstrous exaggeration. Will it take a few generations yet? Would all these souls be better off becoming home-aloners now? There is danger no matter what you do. It is important to know yourself and to know the fight for the Faith that we are engaged in, and to take into account the particular circuмstances that you and those dependent upon you find yourselves in.
Certainly, encourage souls to attend and support the Resistance, which is necessary to preserve the Faith as you rightly say. Certainly enlighten them to the new direction of the Neo-SSPX placing them on the slippery slide of liberalism. But stop pontificating when it comes to forbidding the faithful to attend truly Catholic sacraments. That was never the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre, nor is it Catholic.
-
Quote from: Plenus Venter (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996897#msg996897) 2025-08-23, 11:16:15 PMQuote from: Plenus Venter (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996897#msg996897) 2025-08-23, 11:16:15 PM
Of course it is true that a bishop or priest is not doing everything necessary to defend and preserve the Faith if he is not alerting the faithful to the errors that threaten their Faith. That is why we resist. But to say that because of this omission, for which they will give an account, their Masses, sacraments and teaching do nothing to preserve the Faith is patently false. They obviously do nourish the faith, hope and charity of good souls and thus edify the Church.
As one of the faithful attending Mass at the SSPX I am not necessarily being silent, nor am I submitting in any way whatsoever to error. I am in a good position to alert priests and faithful to the change in direction, of which many are still unaware, with the ensuing dangers. It is not betraying anyone or anything. If I did not fulfill my Sunday obligation, however, I know beyond any doubt that for me, I would be betraying Our Lord and committing a mortal sin.
Barring a miracle, it seems likely that the SSPX will continue to slide into the arms of Conciliar Rome and that the silence of the Neo-SSPX could result in the greater number of SSPX Trads becoming modernist. But if this happens, how long will it take? It has certainly not happened in 13 years and to claim such would be a monstrous exaggeration. Will it take a few generations yet? Would all these souls be better off becoming home-aloners now? There is danger no matter what you do. It is important to know yourself and to know the fight for the Faith that we are engaged in, and to take into account the particular circuмstances that you and those dependent upon you find yourselves in.
Certainly, encourage souls to attend and support the Resistance, which is necessary to preserve the Faith as you rightly say. Certainly enlighten them to the new direction of the Neo-SSPX placing them on the slippery slide of liberalism. But stop pontificating when it comes to forbidding the faithful to attend truly Catholic sacraments. That was never the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre, nor is it Catholic.
Attending the Neo-SSPX is not Resistance. It is a living contradiction, a surrender cloaked as struggle, fighting from within a society that has formally submitted to Conciliar Rome, which +Archbishop Lefebvre condemned without compromise. It places the society and the sacraments above the Faith itself, corrupting principle into betrayal. What may feel like prudence or fulfilling one’s obligation is in reality moral compromise.
Every Mass attended in this society trains souls to accept conciliar errors, silently aligning the faithful with Modernism. Even if the compromise is gradual, principle is timeless: submission is never excusable. Bishop Williamson in his clear days confirmed that those attending the Neo-SSPX risk losing the fight for the Faith. Attendance gives the illusion of opposing Modernism while actually cooperating with it. It endangers the spiritual battle and undermines the mission of true Resistance.
The reasons are exhaustive:
- *Formal submission to Conciliar Rome – participation legitimizes a system that is anti-Catholic.
- *Condemned “fight from within” – what +Lefebvre forbade.
- *Placing the society and sacraments above the Faith – a direct inversion of moral order.
- *Corruption of principle into prudence or betrayal – what feels right can be spiritually disastrous.
- *Exposure to Modernist influence – even silent compromise shapes the faithful toward error.
- *Endangerment of the spiritual battle – leads to losing the fight for the Faith.
- *False sense of Resistance – attendance masquerades as opposition but is cooperation.
- *Erosion over time – submission is betrayal regardless of speed or generations.
By the grace of God, true Resistance grows. Many will never stop fighting, holding the Faith above all.
You have picked the wrong side in this war.
-
This is not a question of opinion or prudence. It is about fidelity. Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society to resist the system. To attend priests who have bound themselves to that system is to abandon the very fight for which he gave his life.
If that is the case, you would never have followed the Archbishop before 1988. You would have been a home-aloner way back, perhaps following the Abbe de Nantes from afar? Then where would you be now?...
The Second Vatican Council was from 1962-25. The Society of St Pius X was erected in 1970.
What the Neo-SSPX has done in making deals with modernist Rome is gravely imprudent and will most likely have dire consequences, some of which we are seeing already with the acceptance of doubtful sacraments, including doubtful priests.
But that does not translate into sin or a danger to the Faith for everyone who attends good Catholic SSPX Masses as you want to insist. Such rigidity and lack of pastoral prudence endangers souls in my opinion.
I am not opposed to souls taking the decision that it is best for them or their family not to attend the SSPX, but I am opposed to the view that it must be given the red light for all. I have no doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre would have been of the same mind, as was Bishop Williamson.
-
You have already picked the wrong side in this war.
The only side I have picked is the Resistance. Your logic is faulty!
-
Quote from: Plenus Venter (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77604.msg996899#msg996899) 2025-08-23, 11:46:06 PM
If that is the case, you would never have followed the Archbishop before 1988. You would have been a home-aloner way back, perhaps following the Abbe de Nantes from afar? Then where would you be now?...
The Second Vatican Council was from 1962-25. The Society of St Pius X was erected in 1970.
What the Neo-SSPX has done in making deals with modernist Rome is gravely imprudent and will most likely have dire consequences, some of which we are seeing already with the acceptance of doubtful sacraments, including doubtful priests.
But that does not translate into sin or a danger to the Faith for everyone who attends good Catholic SSPX Masses as you want to insist. Such rigidity and lack of pastoral prudence endangers souls in my opinion.
I am not opposed to souls taking the decision that it is best for them or their family not to attend the SSPX, but I am opposed to the view that it must be given the red light for all. I have no doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre would have been of the same mind, as was Bishop Williamson.
Historical hypotheticals do not excuse present submission. The Neo-SSPX has publicly aligned itself with Conciliar Rome. Attending it is cooperation in error, not prudence, and objectively endangers the fight for the Faith.
You can kick and scream all you want, it does not change the reality.