As the moderator, I need to set the tone once in a while.

We're all very upset about the recent liberalization of the SSPX, as well as the deceptive talk coming from the SSPX and its official organs.

However, we must remember that we are first and foremost CATHOLIC, and we must live by charity and the laws of God. We can't lose ourselves to anger, frustration, etc. and violate the morals we claim to live by.

Making rash judgments about our "enemies" is not just, even if the enemy doesn't live by justice. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

I don't want to see such slander/rash judgment posted here. We're better than that.

Let's stick to the FACTS, shall we? We have plenty of them on our side. If I see members going astray from this, I will assume they are "plants" who have infiltrated to discredit and damage the Resistance.

God Bless,

Matthew

 :applause:
Well said, Matthew.  I've recently PMed several on this site about this very thing.  Sometimes we all get carried away, but let's be able to admit it when we've been wrong.  I once received many down-thumbs for objecting to mockery of Bishop Fellay and Fr. Rostand.  Like them or not, like what they stand for or not, they're still priests, bishops, and we are not.  The Church isn't a democracy.  As true Catholics, we must maintain respect because of the office where God has placed them.  I try to follow what I think is a good guide.  Before calling Bp. Fellay His Eagerness, for example, ask yourself whether you would say this to his face or in his presence to another.  If you would not, then don't do it on CI.  The internet is public.  For that reason, if I wouldn't say it or do it in public, then I won't say it or do it here.  That includes things like gossip, detraction, use of shame and embarrassment.  In Vienna, Bp. Williamson called for us, the scattered sheep whose shepherds have been struck by God, to cut each other slack, to refrain from rash judgment, to have charity such as becomes saints.  It is one thing to joke around, it is another to belittle, demean, put-down to curry favor of others.  It is again, one thing for Bp. Williamson to call Bp. Fellay a weasel.  It is quite another for you or I to do it. I believe Bp. W. WOULD say it to Bp. F.'s face.  Who here would dare to do the same?  Our Lord called Herod "that fox."  Did the BVM do it?  No, of course not!  There are sedevacantists on here who mock the Pope.  That, too, is wrong.  This is not a sede site.  Even if you believe the Chair is vacant, you should refrain from snide remarks for the sake of the Holy Office.  Let's be careful, also, to not flip the other direction so we're "offended" at everything.  Enough said!

There are sedevacantists on here who mock the Pope.  That, too, is wrong. This is not a sede site.

I agree with everything you posted except this. I don't know of any sedevacantist who would mock the Pope. And you're right that this isn't a sede site. It's a site for traditional Catholics, and we certainly qualify. Matthew can correct me if I'm wrong.

ETA: I don't know how the double-post happened. I tried to expound on the initial post and ended up with two. Oh, well.

Frances, I did. "Before calling Bp. Fellay His Eagerness, for example, ask yourself whether you would say this to his face or in his presence to another".. By phone, though, I live in Paraguay. Not "His Eagerness" (term unknown to me at the time -this was some years go) but I told him he needed an exorcism. Naturally I had to leave this message for him (I am a completely unknown person), but I did. And, I don't care if the message reached HEagernessBF or not. Will not be my sin. I have enough with my other sins. And, have been telling the same thing to other Priests are know (that they needed an exorcism). I don't care if they don't listen to me. Again, their sin, not mine.

I read Mathew's two posts, and thought they were well said. I was going to leave it at that. I don't think Mathew is trying to censor-- I see him as helping to keep the site mature and Catholic.

But with respect to some other comments, they could mislead people.I agree with everything said, except the words between :
"I've recently PMed..... several ..... Enough said!"

'
  "Like them or not-- like what they stand for or not? They are still priests"
  I recently attended a NOVUS Ordo funeral for a dear relative. The "priest" was our age. He actually knew , AND WORKED UNDER, the brave and courageous Father Francis Fenton. When we informed him that we did  not think much of his "service",  that we were appalled at his "claims of salvation,"  that we abhorred his characterization of the Catholic church ( the ten commandments are gone, that "we live by the beatitudes)."
   His response? Mockery for the Catholic Church. Mockery for the great Archbishop Lefebvre. Mockery for traditionalist priests, and, of course, paternal
"solicitude", in the modern 'feel goody way', for our souls. " come back to the church." Now-- some say he's a priest. ( probably Frances would?). Some say we should hold our tongue, not correct the priest. I say, because he's not been corrected his entire priestly life, he's gone off the rails into  the LaLaLand of  the one-world happy religion.Objectively speaking, he will lose his soul. And you would have me stand before Almighty God and admit that I saw him go wrong and said NOTHING to him?

    Bishop Fellay was trained by the best of priests, and by the Archbishop Lefebvre. So were Bp. TdM, Bp. AdG, Fr. Schmidberger, Fr. Laisney, and many others. But, like this modernist pastor in the recent funeral ( they call it a mass of resurrection), they have lost their bearings. They have allowed their minds to be polluted by modernism and liberalism. But, unlike the funeral pastor above, they are keeping just enough trappings of traditionalism to trick and fool the faithful. They won't yet take off their cassocks, like their buddy ratzinger did at the Vatican Council, because that would be too obvious. And they won't enforce an "Oath for Modernism", that would be a tell tale sign.
    But how about an oath pledging allegiance to the modernist heretic in Rome? You see-- that's thoroughly traditional to have allegiance to your pope-- who could fight that? Couch it all in some words that sound traditional, and now you have a whole  traditional Catholic society pledging fidelity to a thoroughly modernist person. Clever--very clever these Romans!
    When Christ saw the heretics and non-believers outside His Father's Temple, He didn't mince any words. He took off His belt and let the fur start flying. Christ Said,"Either you're with Me or you are against Me. Either you are cold or you are hot. I would that you be cold or hot (because then I could correct you), but because you- (weasels),  are neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth!"
   "The Church isn't a democracy."
     And , I submit, neither is the Catholic faith a democracy. Yet, why do Fr. Schmidberger, Bp Fellay, Fr. Rostand, Fr.Lorans, et al think they could change the faith-- and not even tell, or consult, the faithful?? And, if you maintain they are not trying to change the faith-- what is this entire dispute about? If we are just "arguing" about externals, we all should be punished, as Archbishop Mueller says of our Bishops, and turn into a monastery for the rest of our days.
    We are fighting for the faith! These little changes, step by step, is exactly how they introduced the "new" catholic faith to the masses in the fifty's and sixty's. And Fellay and Co. are doing it all over again!
     He has stated that Religious Liberty (a mortal sin) can be accepted in a limited fashion. He has said the Vatican Council (a robber council), is okay and could be followed-- only some interpretations were wrong! He has said that the new code of Canon Law (the code that confirmed all the leftist changes toward modernism) can now be followed. He has said that Ratzinger's Rome is moving "traditional" (even as Ratzinger renewed the syncristic worship of all false gods in Assissi, even as Ratzinger appointed sodomite after sodomite to cardinalates and bishoprics all over the world).
   However, when it comes to telling the faithful what they are really doing in Rome, NOW--it's " Not a Democracy-- the faithful have no right to know what their priests do" ( yes-- they actually said this. Their total disdain for the faithful is greater than the disdain modernist priests have for tradition!).
    "This is not a sede site."  
     What makes us so sure that, were he alive today, the Archbishop would not have reached the conclusion he alluded to several times "at some point we may have to say he is not the pope"?  We know he did not believe that Ratzinger was even a Catholic! Only the good Lord knows what his opinion of bergoglio would be! But why even bring that subject up? This comment reminds me of Fr. Rostand, when he came to Ridgefield last fall to enforce his "no communion for you" decrees, he stated to the faithful in a conference that Fr.Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal were just like "the nine" who were "kicked out" by the Archbishop because they were sede vacantists. Wrong ! I rose and advised Father that his comment was incorrect, and uncalled for. "The nine" were objecting to a number of issues (mostly modernist moves by Econe, directed by Fr. Schmidberger), and sede vacantism was not one of them. As a matter of fact, the Archbishop had specifically told his priests that, if you don't think the pope is the pope, just keep it to yourselves." Graciously, Father Rostand accepted the correction, saying, "well, I wasn't here then, but that is what I was told!"
     The readers and contributors of this site should be, I submit, looked at  as Roman Catholics, until proven otherwise. Period. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion for many , and should be discussed in it's own threads. In fact, in my Diocese, EVERYBODY is a sede vacantist.Since our leftist bishop of the novus ordo was elevated to Archbishop in Washington, Bridgeport is without a Bishop, so the whole See is vacant.(Well, okay-- it's been vacant for a long, long time, prior to Lori, we had Egan here !).
     And, finally, to your major point. Yes, I have spoken to Father LeRoux, to Father Rostand, and , given the chance, I would speak to Bp. Fellay. They are a dismal failure in leadership of the Catholic Church. They are risking the demolition of the Society of Saint Pius X, and this demolition could stop, if they regained they faith. Not likely to happen, though-- they are committed modernists, and they are committed to supporting each other in their errors.
   

I think trads have become so confused they no longer no what it means to be charitable to the enemies of Christ.  They either kiss up to them or go overboard with ad hominen attacks.  

Some of us came late to Tradition and never had a formation.  We look to the old schoolers to teach us.

Quote from: Frances

There are sedevacantists on here who mock the Pope.  

I agree with everything you posted except the above. No sedevacantist that I know would ever mock the Pope.

I have an introduction I'd like to make.

Charlemagne, reality. Reality, Charlemagne.

What rock did you crawl out from under? I have met *dozens* of Sedevacantists online (some IRL) who have mocked the putative pope. It's one of the most common "maladies" of sedevacantists, as a matter of fact.

Everything I've said here about Bp Fellay I would say to his face..as diplomatic as possible...Everything Fr. Pfeiffer sd was true and that's why he was expelled...He kept the AFD a secret....had he not kept it a secret at the time 1/2 the SSPX would have rallied to the Resistance and Bp Fellay would have been justly ousted...

What is the AFD?

I don't think it's so famous that we can use initials instead of spelling it out...