Author Topic: NOT A RUMOR (Read 46897 times)

Wessex · « **Reply #60 on:** December 09, 2015, 06:41:20 AM »

Quote from: BJ5

Another rumor from an otherwise reliable and well-connected anonymous source bites the dust. Do we not have the resources to be Catholic without hanging on to what the SSPX or +Fellay does? Is it time to move on yet or is our gluttonous obsession with all things SSPX part of our existence feeding a hunger that cannot be otherwise satisfied? Is our existence, even our name, to be characterized forever by what we are NOT?

This is the condition/disease contracted by the SSPX family and it hard for some folk to be cured of it. The post-conciliar world has left us not knowing what to do with our residual Catholicism and we seek in vain some kind of structure and community that resembles the past however imperfectly in which to exercise it.

The SSPX was such a timely option for trads and it was kept alive because it constructed a conveniently fuzzy formula that appealed to those daring to challenge the Romans yet not wanting to lose that strange romantic feeling they had for this mecca of the west. I can understand fading French aristocrats jumping on such a bandwagon but less so the successors of Americans desperate to escape the old European order. What contradictions come to mind when contrasting the life and times of a system which divinely exercised the partnership of church and state with the terms and practices of the new republican idyll defining the USA! Anyway, these are more grounds for confusion.

Now, the soap opera we are witnessing is being kept alive (and I do not mean with infusions of ox blood) through regular cloak and dagger instances as drugs feeding the sick SSPX mentality. Secrecy and wild speculation seems to be the principal religion of the audience and a ritual has been developed keeping them on the edge of their pews. The crooks in black in Menzingen know how to play this game and their pathetic acolytes worldwide head the list of useful fools. In time this affair will become an amusing footnote as a recorded minor distraction that so engaged a dying remnant. But students of history will indeed note it for its negative characteristics rather than its positive ones.

BJ5 · « **Reply #61 on:** December 09, 2015, 07:25:18 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: BJ5
Another rumor from an otherwise reliable and well-connected anonymous source bites the dust. Do we not have the resources to be Catholic without hanging on to what the SSPX or +Fellay does? Is it time to move on yet or is our gluttonous obsession with all things SSPX part of our existence feeding a hunger that cannot be otherwise satisfied? Is our existence, even our name, to be characterized forever by what we are NOT?

Another brain bites the dust.

How is posting a single post "obsessing"? You do realize, of course, that this long thread has lots of *different* people each contributing 1, 5, 10 minutes of their time to it. 10 minutes does not constitute an obsession, much less a "gluttonous obsession".

I notice you have contributed to this thread as much as (half?) the participants. Physician, heal thyself. You're not "above it all" as much as you think you are.

And where the heck do you get the notion that we needed this thread to stay Catholic? Now you're just pulling stuff out of your ___. Well I'm here to tell you your sanctimonious sounding accusations have no basis in reality whatsoever.

As for the name "Resistance", we have to use language to convey meaning. What do you propose, "Christian" and be thought protestant? Or go with "Catholic" and be considered Novus Ordo? If we stick with "Traditional Catholic" that could mean anything, from Indult to sedevacantist. Sometimes it's handy to have a name that sizes up a position accurately.

I think Resistance (to Modernism) works well. And you bet we're "against" Modernism as long as the heresy holds traction. Yes, it sounds contrarian, but we really ARE marching contrary to the whole broad path to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr represented by the Conciliar Church and it's bosom buddy, the Modern World.

My point was that if the SSPX is not now what it was founded as, why perpetuate our (loose) organization in terms of what it is not? We resist the SSPX, we are the anti-SSPX, we are what they used to be, etc.

Will the resistance ever be able to distinguish itself without using the term SSPX, especially as the chasm between the SSPX and the Resistance grows wider?

I think my brain is still fairly in tact, BTW, although a bit old perhaps.

JPM · « **Reply #62 on:** December 09, 2015, 07:29:13 AM »

Quote from: Patricius

But you also have to remember that Bishop Schneider said that the deal has been signed last July.

One thing I didn't mentioned last Thursday was that the bishop also said to the priests that the visitations of the SSPX seminaries by himself, cardinal Brandmüller, and others, were concluded positively, and that the official reports given to the Pope by these visitors were all very laudatory.

Bishop Schneider visited the seminary in February. A month after the supposed signing, in August, he gave an interview recommending that the SSPX should be accepted "as they are."

Perhaps what we have are all truthful pieces that just don't go to the same puzzle.

HiddenServant · « **Reply #63 on:** December 12, 2015, 12:50:42 PM »

Even though some of the Catholic heirarchy accept them ,
it does seem good enough to those against tradition. In the
light of the Apostasy we really need a rosary crusade !

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #64 on:** December 12, 2015, 06:47:09 PM »

Rorate Caeli has another advertisement for the SSPX seminary today. Announcement coming soon?

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/12/updatevideo-on-new-traditional-seminary.html