Author Topic: Latest discord from SSPX priests - outrageous statements etc (Read 15283 times)

Matthew · « **on:** May 15, 2012, 01:16:09 AM »

Posted earlier by LordPhan, but buried in a long thread and I missed it myself! Lesson learned; here is the very important post:

Yesterday I saw a disturbing sermon from the District Superior of Canada, pronounce that:

1: That Bishop Fellay has done as much as or more for the SSPX than
Archbishop Lefebvre! (I kid you not, he said these words)

2: That a non-Catholic businessman told Menzingen that the SSPX were wrong
in their methods; that is one example of why they should join Rome

3: He attacked the priest who leaked the letter, calling it a mortal sin
to
do so. He said that if someone receives a letter from someone and shows it
to someone else, that it is a mortal sin. Well, I received an email and
showed it to someone today; I don't think I committed a mortal sin.

4: He disgustingly referred to Bishop Williamson as a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier.

5: He praised the Pope numerous times, including the above jab, which
amounted to “Rome was gracious enough to overlook one of our Bishops being
a
h0Ɩ0cαųst denier).

6: He essentially said we must obey Bishop Fellay without question. (How
can
one be a member of the SSPX, let alone one of its Superiors, and not know
what false obedience is!)

I’m not the only one who had a problem with this; there were several
others.

I got word from a friend that he had the complete opposite sermon from another famous SSPX Priest:

Quote from: famous SSPX priest

commented that the SSPX position has always been no practical deal without doctrinal solution, and that Bp Fellay seems dot be abandoning is. He then gave a sermon condemning relativism/subjectivism (basically a more detailed version of the 3 bishops' letter). After Mass he send the letters in question to everyone on the chapel email list and commented that BpF's response was "unconvincing".

AJNC · « **Reply #1 on:** May 15, 2012, 02:36:04 AM »

And I received this today from an SSPX priest:

many priests are talking about " Grace of State " as if it is an article of Faith, without coming up with proper refutation of whatever points or concerns that are being raised on Rome - SSPX matter!
I wonder what happened to the "Grace of State" of the bishops of the various dioceses until now...!!! What happened to the "Grace of State" when SSPX was " condemned" for holding on to the tradition of the Church?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** May 15, 2012, 02:41:42 AM »

There's a cult mentality in the SSPX, and there are probably many freemasons in the SSPX.

Anyone still disagree with that assessment?

ggreg · « **Reply #3 on:** May 15, 2012, 03:29:50 AM »

I agree there is a cult mentality.

Never seen evidence of Freemasons.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** May 15, 2012, 03:37:40 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

I agree there is a cult mentality.

Never seen evidence of Freemasons.

It stands to reason they must be involved.

Archbishop Lefebvre called it "masonic Rome" - any deal with Rome is a deal with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. And the "real deal" is behind the scenes.

To what extent actual members of the SSPX are initiated is uncertain. The fact that Jean Luc Maxence (who writes for a masonic journal) wrote a foreword for Father Celier's book Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists is significant.

Ethelred · « **Reply #5 on:** May 15, 2012, 03:47:34 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

There's a cult mentality in the SSPX, and there are probably many freemasons in the SSPX.

Anyone still disagree with that assessment?

No, not anymore.

With the sellout to Newrome, Menzingen is doing exactly what the Freemasons and their Jєωιѕн masters want. Finally they succeeded in silencing their arch-enemy Archbishop Lefebvre respectively his foundation (the good Archbishop often mentioned how the Jєωs and Freemasons and Communists joined their forces in attacking him and his small foundation, because they're one he said).

It started to become obvious in the beginning of 2009 when the SSPX publicly embraced the anti-christian "Holo dogma" and hunted one of "their" faithful bishops, the brave Bishop Williamson. That was like an admission price into the NWO structure. I heard a few smart SSPX priest saying: Well, I'm not a defender of Bishop Williamson, but still no catholic can speak and act in way as Menzingen (and Stuttgart etc) is doing...

So it's save to assume there must be Freemasons in high positions. Otherwise Krah would not have succeeded! By their fruits you will know them (edit: Ah, I see now that you, Telesphorus, think the same: "It stands to reason they [=Freemasons] must be involved". Exactly).
Krah and his Jєωιѕн backers must die laughing...

They shouldn't forget however: He who laughs last, laughs loudest.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** May 15, 2012, 03:58:59 AM »

In hindsight it's clear that Bishop Fellay's "elder brothers" statement was a public show of submission.

cathman7 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 15, 2012, 05:57:45 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Posted earlier by LordPhan, but buried in a long thread and I missed it myself! Lesson learned; here is the very important post:

Yesterday I saw a disturbing sermon from the District Superior of Canada, pronounce that:

1: That Bishop Fellay has done as much as or more for the SSPX than
Archbishop Lefebvre! (I kid you not, he said these words)

2: That a non-Catholic businessman told Menzingen that the SSPX were wrong
in their methods; that is one example of why they should join Rome

3: He attacked the priest who leaked the letter, calling it a mortal sin
to
do so. He said that if someone receives a letter from someone and shows it
to someone else, that it is a mortal sin. Well, I received an email and
showed it to someone today; I don't think I committed a mortal sin.

4: He disgustingly referred to Bishop Williamson as a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier.

5: He praised the Pope numerous times, including the above jab, which
amounted to “Rome was gracious enough to overlook one of our Bishops being
a
h0Ɩ0cαųst denier).

6: He essentially said we must obey Bishop Fellay without question. (How
can
one be a member of the SSPX, let alone one of its Superiors, and not know
what false obedience is!)

I’m not the only one who had a problem with this; there were several
others.

Wow, I did not realize this.

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** May 15, 2012, 06:38:37 AM »

Along these same lines, prior to his sermon, the SSPX priest at our chapel made a few announcements about the "issue".

He told us that the bishops are merely having a disagreement on the best way to proceed during in the current evironment. He likened it to how parents occassionally disagree on the best way to correct a wayword child. The release of the letters on the internet exposed the disagreement and was, therefore, not helpful towards "our eventual canonical status with Rome."

He noted that the internet can be used for good and for evil and the leak of these letters is an example of how the internet can be used for evil.

He cautioned us no to spread rumours and that everything will be fine.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #9 on:** May 15, 2012, 06:44:09 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

In hindsight it's clear that Bishop Fellay's "elder brothers" statement was a public show of submission.

Wow.

Hadn't thought of that.

:scratchchin:

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #10 on:** May 15, 2012, 06:46:16 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Along these same lines, prior to his sermon, the SSPX priest at our chapel made a few announcements about the "issue".

He told us that the bishops are merely having a disagreement on the best way to proceed during in the current evironment. He likened it to how parents occassionally disagree on the best way to correct a wayword child. The release of the letters on the internet exposed the disagreement and was, therefore, not helpful towards "our eventual canonical status with Rome."

He noted that the internet can be used for good and for evil and the leak of these letters is an example of how the internet can be used for evil.

He cautioned us no to spread rumours and that everything will be fine.

Since my SSPX priest also gave such a sermon -against his will- this last week, I think the priests were ordered to do so.

I say against his will, because he apologized to the faithful for not having time to speak about Our Lady on Mother's Day as he would have liked.

Clearly then, he was told what to say.

Cristian · « **Reply #11 on:** May 15, 2012, 07:33:20 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

there are probably many freemasons in the SSPX.

For those reading Spanish I think you should read

http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/carta-de-lectores-el-ocaso-de-la-fsspx-o-cronica-de-una-infiltracion/ (1 part)

and

http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/carta-de-lectores-el-ocaso-de-la-fsspx-o-cronica-de-una-infiltracion-2o-parte/ (2 part)

Quick translation of a little paragraph:

Quote

Feliz Causas... wrote: "after a conference in the region of Nantes, Michèle Reboul tells this story: "the day before some ordinations Msgr. Lefebvre received 2 seminarians who confessed to him they were affiliated to some masonic sects, and they asked ABL not to ordain them and warned him: "and there are others infiltrated in the SSPX, Msgr!"

And then he adds: "What Msgr. Lefebvre told me was much more worse: he told me that a priest he just ordained that morning came to his office and told him sarcastically that he was a Freemason, that his aim was to destroy the SSPX and therefore the true Church and now that he was ordained he (ABL) couldn`t do anything. Then he added that other Freemasons (3 o 4, I can´t remember) were seminarians and pursued the same objective"

My opinion is:

1) To think the enemies will not try (and succeed) to infiltrate SSPX and Sede groups seems rather naif. If they infiltrated the Church in the old days why not infiltrating the traditional groups?

2) In spite of point 1, I believe infiltration is not the main problem (and it was not the main problem during the XX century either) but rather the bad priests, bad bishops, lack of training, etc. etc.

PS: I`m surprised nobody posted this pic which should be quite shocking for all SSPX members
http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.com.ar/2012_04_01_archive.html

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** May 15, 2012, 11:06:41 AM »

Quote from: Cristian

PS: I`m surprised nobody posted this pic which should be quite shocking for all SSPX members
http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.com.ar/2012_04_01_archive.html

How do you suggest this is shocking for SSPX members?

Cristian · « **Reply #13 on:** May 15, 2012, 11:13:50 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Cristian
PS: I`m surprised nobody posted this pic which should be quite shocking for all SSPX members
http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.com.ar/2012_04_01_archive.html

How do you suggest this is shocking for SSPX members?

I`m sorry, for some the link reason it didn´t work. I meant this pic

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/blog-sacri-palazzi-en/detail/articolo/13982/

John Grace · « **Reply #14 on:** May 15, 2012, 11:46:59 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: TKGS
Along these same lines, prior to his sermon, the SSPX priest at our chapel made a few announcements about the "issue".

He told us that the bishops are merely having a disagreement on the best way to proceed during in the current evironment. He likened it to how parents occassionally disagree on the best way to correct a wayword child. The release of the letters on the internet exposed the disagreement and was, therefore, not helpful towards "our eventual canonical status with Rome."

He noted that the internet can be used for good and for evil and the leak of these letters is an example of how the internet can be used for evil.

He cautioned us no to spread rumours and that everything will be fine.

Since my SSPX priest also gave such a sermon -against his will- this last week, I think the priests were ordered to do so.

I say against his will, because he apologized to the faithful for not having time to speak about Our Lady on Mother's Day as he would have liked.

Clearly then, he was told what to say.

There have been several of these types of sermons in Ireland. I'm often tempted to say to the cleric they must take people for fools but as Seraphim the priests are ordered to do so. I'm not a SSPX member so don't see why I should get in to an argument with a cleric just because he is under obedience and forced to read such things.

I do agree that people shouldn't spread rumours but at same time it is worrying a priest would dismiss facts as rumours.

It's apt that the children was used. People are treated like children by some Society priests. It's beyond laughable.

I had this with a cleric based at St George's House who initially thought he had me with the "internet rumour" line. He changed his tune when I highlighted facts. He didn't know how to react.He was quite patronising to treat me like a child.