Author Topic: Possible outcomes for Ostriches (Read 2113 times)

Matthew · « **on:** March 22, 2014, 07:33:56 AM »

We all know "ostriches", who have their heads in the sand regarding the current SSPX crisis (I know that ostriches don't actually put their heads in the sand, that it's actually a common myth, but bear with me!)

What is going to happen to them?

There are only a few possibilities.

For purposes of this post, "Epiphany" refers to a crystal-clear manifestation of a problem in the SSPX. A deal is done, and/or the SSPX starts saying occasional Novus Ordo Masses, etc.

(Of course, a case could be made that we've already reached that Epiphany point. GREC, the Doctrinal Declaration, the official quotes from +Fellay defending Vatican II, etc. But these items only constitute an Epiphany for philosophers, deep thinking types, and those who see the logical conclusion of things AND are willing to be "one of the first" to act.)

So without further ado, here are the possible outcomes for those who resist the Resistance:

1. They acknowledge the truth after the Epiphany, and humbly admit they were wrong.

2. They go along with whatever the SSPX does, continuing to perform mental gymnastics in order to continue to partake of the Tridentine Mass and chapel they've helped build up with their own money over many years.

3. Disgusted with the realization of what has happened, they stop attending the SSPX but out of pride (of course they have a better excuse, but the true reason is pride) they don't start supporting the Resistance either. They start attending the Novus Ordo or Indult (sounds strange, but this kind of thing has actually happened before).

4. Disgusted with Tradition, and unwilling to attend Mass in "unprofessional" locations, and also disgusted with the Novus Ordo, (and still convinced by the neo-SSPX propaganda that Sedevacantism is horribly sinful), they stop attending Mass anywhere.

5. Along the same lines as #4, they not only stop attending Mass, but give up on Catholicism altogether. (This has also happened -- don't kid yourself!)
Some in this category might go Eastern Rite, or Eastern Orthodox.

Considering how many huge red flags this group is ignoring right now, I can't put too much hope on outcome #1.

Also, many of those who don't support the Resistance have uttered phrases that suggest they have an inordinate attachment to the SSPX's current setup -- weekly Mass and sacraments, SSPX schools, convenience, etc. Inordinate attachments always result in compromise.

None of the other outcomes have a happy ending. These people need lots of prayers.

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2014, 08:43:22 AM »

Frankly, Matthew, I think the same can be said for people who absolutely reject the sedevacantist thesis as well, though I don't think the declaration of sainthood on a public and pertinacious heretic will be the tipping point. Instead, I think the straw that breaks the camel's back will be the papal approval of women's ordination (which is probably still a few years away) or, perhaps something that may be right around the corner (in October), the official approval of sodomite relationships and/or serial bigamy.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2014, 10:37:44 AM »

.

When I first read your list, Matthew, I thought, "that just about covers it."

Then on second thought, it occurred to me that number 3,

"...They start attending the Novus Ordo or Indult..." combined with 4 and 5, (or) "...they stop attending Mass anywhere (or) give up on Catholicism altogether...,"

is incomplete.

It seems to me that you've left out those who go sedevacantist, and you've also left out those who might attempt to start up their own religion anew, calling it "Catholic," but basing it on their own set of perceptions as to what Catholic is and is not. I'm thinking of something like the Old Catholics who broke away from Vatican I in 1864 or thereabouts.

Certainly we already have sedevacantists, but whether we have any viable examples of the second group is another matter. I'm saying it's a POSSIBILITY, based on the havoc that might be consequent to "a crystal-clear manifestation of a problem in the SSPX."

Furthermore, your number 1 could have multiple aspects:

Quote

So without further ado, here are the possible outcomes for those who resist the Resistance:

1. They acknowledge the truth after the Epiphany, and humbly admit they were wrong.

Those who humbly admit they were wrong might then join the Resistance, or, they might do something else. For they might admit they were wrong about the SSPX, but still profess that the Resistance was wrong as well, such that they group together with others who believe that THEY have the truth, and that the SSPX, AS WELL AS the Resistance, do not have the truth.

IOW, This could get REALLY messy.

.

soulguard · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2014, 10:51:53 AM »

I dont think the SSPX should make a deal with Rome at this stage, but I do not see evidence that it will make a deal. The biggest hint that the SSPX would make a deal is this group called "GREC", but how powerful they are I do not know. The mass of the SSPX is valid and no resistance priest should be telling people to stay away from it. Someone told me that I was better off not knowing much about the cινιℓ ωαr in the SSPX because it gets very messy.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2014, 11:38:24 AM »

.

In all of this, number 2 stands out as the lone item that would be self-contained as it were:

2. They go along with whatever the SSPX does, continuing to perform mental gymnastics in order to continue to partake of the Tridentine Mass and chapel they've helped build up with their own money over many years.

It is defined as the church of Bishop Fellay, essentially, because whatever he says is their benchmark of orthodoxy. All they would seem to care about is appearances, but its more than that, really. Because the appearances have already changed over the past 19 years of Fellayism.

When the cross-bearer was eliminated in Post Falls, there was no outcry from the faithful. A few scattered voices objected, but they were shouted down by the lemmings who are prone to "mental gymnastics" -- whatever it takes to garner the approval of the Great One or his minions.

When any priest dares to mention there is an inconsistency in what's coming out of Menzingen, they are punished, or sent to Africa to evangelize the baboons or to Antarctica to evangelize the penguins, and where is the outcry of the faithful? There might be a few scattered voices of objection but these are ostracized and shunned by the so-called faithful Fellayites, the mental gymnasts.

There is a culture of togetherness that has formed around the SSPX regulars, such that a family with two or three vocations is an SSPX family, such that +Fellay and his yes-men have developed a balancing act whereby they are the authority, with "grace of state" (never mind that we all have this grace of state!) regardless of their having no jurisdiction.

You can't say they have no jurisdiction, lest you'd be shunned.

The cult of Fellay doesn't appreciate being called a cult, because the truth hurts.

All they would seem to care about is appearances, but it's more than that, really.

When termites eat the wooden framework of a building, the surface of the lumber exposed to the air around it still looks like lumber. The 2 x 4 studs still look like 2x4's, and the 6 x 12 girders still look like 6x12's. But take a chunk of #4 rebar and shove it into the wood, and you'll see how solid it is. Take a screwdriver and push into the side of a 2x4 and watch it sink in like it would into a Thanksgiving turkey. The termites have eaten the insides of the wood, leaving the appearances of wood on the surface.

I think it is better described that all they really care about is how they FEEL about the appearances. So long as Fellay et. al. can provide for them the FEELING that the appearances are credible, then the newfangled $20,000 stone altar at Econe with the floating, removable crucifix above is okay, because along with the thing itself comes the FEELING (delivered by its spokesman) that assures them, "Everything's Gonna Be OKay" (EGBOK).

What is most important in all this is the FEELING of "unity" that they have because their current spokesman proclaimed, "We have achieved unity," on the very grave of ABL in July of 2012.

.

BlackIrish · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2014, 11:54:09 AM »

"We have achieved unity".

1984, Doublespeak

we = the enemies of God

achieved unity = assumed all strategic positions and we will proceed to crush the remaining flock

B from A · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2014, 12:16:32 PM »

This exchange, though it was in another thread, seems to fit here (at least in understanding the psychology of why one might choose to put his head in the sand):

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Matthew
Actually, out of a dozen families in Austin, TX that come to my SSPX chapel every other week (whenever the SSPX Austin chapel doesn't have Mass), ALL of them are against the Resistance, except for one couple.

It's a shame they are all so blind. Here they drive hours (plural) on Sunday so they won't have to miss Mass every other week, so they seem quite dedicated on paper, yet they can't see what's going on in the SSPX.

This reminds me of a conversation I had recently with the parents of Stephen Heiner. They told me they have two daughters (sisters of Stephen) who live in St. Mary's Kansas, and attend the SSPX chapel there. I asked if they are on the side of Bishop Fellay or if they attend the Resistance Masses in St. Mary's. They replied that both daughters are on the side of the Society, because one of them is married to a man who is a nephew of one of the priests (she named the priest but I forgot his name) and that his family has several vocations in the Society, a brother, and priests and nuns. Therefore, there is a social bond, a kind of groupthink of common loyalty that holds +Fellay and the Capitulants as a sort of untouchable standard (not their literal words). It seems to me this is the same "blindness" that Matthew refers to, where they can't see what's going on in the SSPX.

Well, you know there is another relatively famous example of this: John MacF. who used to post on CI and Ignis Ardens. His son is a (newly-ordained, "Le Roux" brand) SSPX priest, so he's kind of stuck, as it were. Humanly speaking, it takes a lot of guts to start attending Resistance Masses when your son is still an SSPX priest in good standing.

It doesn't excuse it, nor does it exempt him from the future consequences of ignoring the truth -- but at least it is understandable human behavior.

And it reminded me of something from Non Possumus, particularly the part about "Normalcy Bias":
(sorry, it's just a google translation)

Quote

... remaining as if we were in the '50s and the way of new Bing Crosby, ...there are priests who do not know nor care to know the faithful and others who are close to them in an effort to have fun awkwardly, there are gentrified and pending recipes yogurt provided by devout parishioners, while justifying the expulsion of a bishop ("it's only a gangrenous finger had to be cut so that the foot does not rot"), certainly there are priests who refuse to answer correspondence of the faithful because of fear of infection "resistance " virus and stop its alleged reasons argue , lacking papers valid and unable to answer in their blind obedience and guilty arguments, there are priests of teen spirit halting in the aestheticism of the chapel or the liturgy and the beautiful choir, like that and that alone confirm the faith they have proven , there are priests who wanted to deny the sacraments to the faithful because they were sympathetic to the deposed bishop,heresy ! , no priests managed or influenced by groups outside the Fellowship , affluent well-placed officials in their posts in trepidan not expel those who disagree with them in a matter of judgment as the crisis of the Fraternity 's priests are mere administrators the sacraments , lulled into the routine of what they believe is better because "we are not middle line " , there are priests who see and know these things, but they remain silent for fear of losing your convenience or to be marked for the rest , "we must continue to the majority. " Etcetera , etcetera, etcetera .

An unreal weather, forced to simulate " normal" and "peace" , even the very carefree playfulness of political leaders , their forced and nervous humor, has been going on quite some time ago in the New Brotherhood , through official policy the congregation. Some manage to see it, others resabiados of liberalism , no.

There is a phenomenon in psychology called "Normalcy Bias". A smart political analyst mentions to describe the possible social dissolution and disintegration that Argentina suffers. I would do the equivalent as the same is happening in the SSPX. I quote this analyst :

- "The condition of " Normalcy Bias "or Normalcy Bias is well known by psychologists and sociologists. It refers to a mental state of denial in which individuals enter when facing a disaster or the possibility of an imminent danger. The "Normalcy Bias" leads people to underestimate both the possibility and minimize it actually happens a disaster, and the potential consequences for their health and safety.

-The " Normalcy Bias " often produces situations where people can not prepare for a probable and imminent disaster. Leads people to believe that something that has never happened before, never going to happen. Therefore, we cling to our habitual, repetitive and regular way of life, despite the overwhelming evidence that a great danger looming.

- This factor is part of human nature. Unfortunately, the "Normalcy Bias" inhibits our ability to deal with a disaster, once it gets going. People with this syndrome have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. In other words, the idea is that people that nothing bad will happen, because it has not happened before. It is also known as analysis paralysis, incredulous response or ostrich effect. The latter refers to someone who behaves like an ostrich that buries its head in the sand.

-The " Normalcy Bias " also leads people to interpret warnings and reconsider information inaccurately , in order to project an optimistic outcome that leads people to infer a less serious situation. In short, it is a kind of analgesic drug that numbs a person in imminent danger.

- Just as people in Pompeii watched for hours as the volcano erupted without evacuate the city , many people did not react until it was too late. Although you might try to warn others, the reality is that some people will never take preventive measures, even when they have the crisis facing their noses. Perhaps there derive the sentence that says " people do not believe in volcanoes until the lava burns you fret ."

This is what is happening in the New Society. People who do not want to know what happens, people who deny the reality, people do not recognize liberals, people who say "there were many crises in the fraternity, this is a more" people who do not want to see or you see and hold what should not stand, people who think magically fix things. I say people because their attitude is not exactly the faithful fighters, soldiers of Christ the King unable to tolerate cheating, lying , confusion and cowardice. There is in all this an excuse unhealthy affection sets the own social convenience, comfort, human affections, amical gathering, the congregation itself, above the truth. But faith can not be sustained without the truth. You can not hold onto cowardly manner. Faith does not stand without the unconditional love of our Lord. That is why Christ said, " If any man comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife , children , and brothers and sisters, and even life itself, can not be my disciple" (Luke . 14 , 25-26).

But this is misunderstood , because the lack of charity and arbitrariness that are seen in the New Fraternity van disguised in love at "unity " of the congregation, the supreme good , but the union is not in any way possible, and as so now there is no - where truth and charity are not the highest seat . St. Paul warns against human wisdom and tells the Colossians that , once their hearts are closely united by charity, will be " filled with all the riches of a perfect intelligence to know the mystery of God the Father and Christ Jesus in whom are locked up all treasures of wisdom and knowledge " (Col. 2:3). The choice of human wisdom and prudence , charity, false , jumping over the clear and wise warnings dropped Monsignor Lefebvre, especially in the last years of his life , leading to this blackout to see and have the courage to decide to act accordingly. Now a distorted Fraternity desvirilizada can not say , as a congregation , " we are the aroma of Christ to God " (II Cor . 2, 15 ) , although there are good men and women who strive to not succuмb to disaster .

Good to know that to know where one stands need not be at odds with inner peace . The SSPX , adapting the installation optimistic " branding" to reflect better image of itself , could also hold that " Normalcy Bias " we talked about , used to San Juan de la Cruz to say that " never man would lose the peace if forget news and leave thoughts and depart from hearing, seeing and trying as best they can, " statement that can skillfully use the devil as tempted to use Scripture against the Lord , and thus likes of Bishop Fellay apostrophize against the "evil " that use the Internet . Some believe that peace comes with blindness and ignorance , but the peace is to recognize that despite the catastrophe - and recognize in suffering that she absolutely brings - that peace is given us confidence in our Lord Way, Truth and Life. Inner peace is not at odds with our own battle as Christians , rather, just assume life and faithfully combatant status that gives us true peace. But the New Fraternity began to weigh carry his own cross , and then diverted the road for one is the way and can not be taken if one is not simply loaded abaja of his cross . Far from it , restlessness and disturbance in the fraternity were introduced mainly by Bishop Fellay and his tousled diplomatic campaign , its twists and turns, its contradictions and ambiguous and treacherous statements expressed but not wanting to ingratiate himself with the enemies . If the image you want now is to give an inner peace that comes through in laughter and spring buds , this actually hides an inner turmoil that is not of God . For as St. Alphonsus Liguori says , "To live always united to Jesus Christ is necessary to act with confidence , no desazonarse by adversity to come . ' The Lord is not in the earthquake . " The Lord does not dwell in restless hearts . " And the sign of the concern is not typical of the militant Church, but the church of dialogue , reconciliation , liberal, acuerdista , you want at all costs to finish the battle quickly and reject thus the cross, the cross itself that humbles us but only if we love , we raised.

ggreg · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2014, 01:49:04 PM »

Matthew,

If we had another 20 years of the SSPX carrying on relatively successfully, many objectively positive fruits, while the resistance fragmented or never significantly grew past what it is today would you admit after 20 years that you made the wrong choice?

What is your criteria for judging the resistance to be a failure?

Could your one priest saying mass in your one area but rejecting meaningful communion with all other priests of the world, (not just mainstream but SSPX, FSSP, ICK, other Resistance splinter groups), ever really represent the remnant of Catholicism?

If he could, then Pope Michael has a valid argument.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2014, 02:11:36 PM »

Quote from: ggreg

Matthew,

Could your one priest saying mass in your one area but rejecting meaningful communion with all other priests of the world, (not just mainstream but SSPX, FSSP, ICK, other Resistance splinter groups), ever really represent the remnant of Catholicism?

If he could, then Pope Michael has a valid argument.

The remnant? I wouldn't say that. A remnant? Of course.

And quit bringing up Pope Michael. It's a red herring. Pope Michael is clearly not the pope, because he hasn't been accepted by more than a few Catholics, and he doesn't even have anything to do with the clergy of Rome. That is the biggest argument against his "pontificate". If he were at least trying to publish his encyclicals in Latin or made some effort to be accepted by the Roman clergy, it would be a good start.

Moving the Papal Seat to some other place is ridiculous, as long as Rome still stands intact physically. If Rome were nuked, it might be a different story (like in the book, Lord of the World)

David Bawden might indeed be part of the Catholic remnant as a lay Catholic (or maybe a priest, if he's been ordained), but his "papacy" is another matter.

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2014, 02:22:18 PM »

Quote from: ggreg

Matthew,

If we had another 20 years of the SSPX carrying on relatively successfully, many objectively positive fruits, while the resistance fragmented or never significantly grew past what it is today would you admit after 20 years that you made the wrong choice?

What is your criteria for judging the resistance to be a failure?

I don't go by the Resistance's "business outlook" or "prospectus" when I choose to support it -- that's the biggest point that divides the two of us, Greg.

I support the Resistance because they're in the right, full stop.

But I don't believe in worrying about hypotheticals like the one you gave. Likewise, I wouldn't entertain hypotheticals like, "What if your atheist neighbor had his 2 kids and materialistic lifestyle, and ended up happier at 60 years old than you are when you turn 60? Would you then admit that Catholicism is wrong and apostatize?"

The answer is NO. "Right" and "worldly success" are not synonymous, and I'm not going to hypothesize about "what if I'm wrong" because I happen to be right! I have ZERO doubts about my Catholic Faith. I, for one, will never "turn in my membership card" (to paraphrase an infamous post of yours).

Modernism, far from being mere Bad Catholicism, is actually ANTI-Catholicism. Like lust is to purity or pride is to humility. The two actually fight each other. So any truck with Modernism is MAJOR bad news.

Making nice with Vatican II is making nice with Modernism -- the kiss of death for the Faith. I have concrete proof that the current leadership of the SSPX is making nice with Vatican II. Ergo.

I'm not sure of the Resistance's success (far from it), but SOME group will always have to maintain the Catholic Faith until Christ comes a second time. And the SSPX selling out to the Jєωs, Modernists, etc. makes it look pretty bad for them in the long term.

Remember who gave us Vatican II. It's obvious by what Vatican II brought about: A Freemasonic man-centered religion (Jєωs created Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ) and a new religion wherein the Jєωs don't need to be converted, and are respected as our "elder brothers in the Faith". Everything post Vatican II reeks of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Judaizing.

There's no chance that the SSPX position (selling out to the modern world) can be correct. There's no way THAT position is going to bear fruit, long-term. You might have some residual good fruits, just like the Conciliar Church bore good fruits for decades, here and there sporadically, after the Freemasons and Modernists took over in the 60's.

It's called inertia.

But eventually a doomed branch WILL wither and die, just like the Conciliar Church has.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2014, 02:34:58 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

When I first read your list, Matthew, I thought, "that just about covers it."

Then on second thought, it occurred to me that number 3,

"...They start attending the Novus Ordo or Indult..." combined with 4 and 5, (or) "...they stop attending Mass anywhere (or) give up on Catholicism altogether...,"

is incomplete.

It seems to me that you've left out those who go sedevacantist, and you've also left out those who might attempt to start up their own religion anew, calling it "Catholic," but basing it on their own set of perceptions as to what Catholic is and is not. I'm thinking of something like the Old Catholics who broke away from Vatican I in 1864 or thereabouts.

Certainly we already have sedevacantists, but whether we have any viable examples of the second group is another matter. I'm saying it's a POSSIBILITY, based on the havoc that might be consequent to "a crystal-clear manifestation of a problem in the SSPX."

Furthermore, your number 1 could have multiple aspects:

Quote

So without further ado, here are the possible outcomes for those who resist the Resistance:

1. They acknowledge the truth after the Epiphany, and humbly admit they were wrong.

Those who humbly admit they were wrong might then join the Resistance, or, they might do something else. For they might admit they were wrong about the SSPX, but still profess that the Resistance was wrong as well, such that they group together with others who believe that THEY have the truth, and that the SSPX, AS WELL AS the Resistance, do not have the truth.

IOW, This could get REALLY messy.

.

I was going to comment very similar but have made it a point to read all the comments first. I was raised since a baby with the SSPX but later sided with the resistance and now reject Bergoglios claim to the papacy after being undecisive on the whole SSPX issue. I support the priests I know on both sides and refuse this nonsense view of "dogmatic" sedevacantism. These groups who say the SSPX has always been in error in matters of the faith because they never have been officially sede are foolish.

Let's hope it doesn't get as messy as Matthew predicts. After the fall of Campos many now are visiting both the novus ordo and the Latin Mass, which to me seems conpletely ridiculous but encouraged by Bishop Rifan.

Also, if the go eastern rite they are not leaving Catholicism as appears to be commented, well I guess that depends on the group in question, but generally speaking at least they will still be Catholic.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #11 on:** March 22, 2014, 03:20:01 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Frankly, Matthew, I think the same can be said for people who absolutely reject the sedevacantist thesis as well, though I don't think the declaration of sainthood on a public and pertinacious heretic will be the tipping point. Instead, I think the straw that breaks the camel's back will be the papal approval of women's ordination (which is probably still a few years away) or, perhaps something that may be right around the corner (in October), the official approval of sodomite relationships and/or serial bigamy.

I don't think women priests will have much of an effect on the dogmatic sedeplenist. Nor do I think legitimized sodomy or serial bigamy (great term!) will. If one can accept the Church as being capable of producing heretical doctrines, sacrilegious laws and impious worship under the pretense that doctrine, liturgy and discipline are somehow unconnected from any of the Church's four marks I hardly see how women priests would present any further difficulty to the dogmatic R&R position. In fact, it seems probably easier to deal with that than with the N.O.M. or the new priestly and episcopal rites of order.

TKGS · « **Reply #12 on:** March 22, 2014, 04:16:30 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: TKGS
Frankly, Matthew, I think the same can be said for people who absolutely reject the sedevacantist thesis as well, though I don't think the declaration of sainthood on a public and pertinacious heretic will be the tipping point. Instead, I think the straw that breaks the camel's back will be the papal approval of women's ordination (which is probably still a few years away) or, perhaps something that may be right around the corner (in October), the official approval of sodomite relationships and/or serial bigamy.

I don't think women priests will have much of an effect on the dogmatic sedeplenist. Nor do I think legitimized sodomy or serial bigamy (great term!) will. If one can accept the Church as being capable of producing heretical doctrines, sacrilegious laws and impious worship under the pretense that doctrine, liturgy and discipline are somehow unconnected from any of the Church's four marks I hardly see how women priests would present any further difficulty to the dogmatic R&R position. In fact, it seems probably easier to deal with that than with the N.O.M. or the new priestly and episcopal rites of order.

I fear you are correct. But, frankly, when (if?) either of these happen, I will be a dogmatic sedevacantist.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2014, 01:20:07 PM »

.

There has been a sneaky subversion going on, by which the Roman Pope of the Catholic Church has been practicing (since John XXIII) as both the head of the Church and also as the head of a false church, the Newchurch. This was prophesied in the Apocalypse, BTW. To add to the confusion, we are not told when he is acting as the true pope or as the false pope, but for many of us it is clear that quite often, even most of the time, he is acting as the false pope. Only very rarely do we see or hear something that is reminiscent of what the Holy Father should be saying, and practically never does he do what the Holy Father should be doing. This would probably be made clear in the Third Secret of Fatima, but we don't know what that says yet. Ever since 1960 (when Sr. Lucia testifies Our Lady said the Secret would be mas claro), God has removed his grace from the Church in the main, such that the bishops at Vat.II could no longer do anything good (for without God's grace we can do nothing truly good), nor could they notice how corruption was setting in. Of course, there were a very few who still had some grace, most conspicuously Archbishop Lefebvre, who BTW was the author of the original schemas that were discarded, by the subversives that John XXIII brought in, from the very start of the abominable council. ABL still had the grace to see what was going wrong, but unfortunately he had no power to stop it from happening. Imagine the horror he experienced at that time. Was he able to see that John XXIII was acting as a duplicitous, self-contradictory fulfillment of the Apocalypse? Perhaps he was, but also, perhaps he did not want to think that it was happening. For no one else was standing up to take notice, and it is most difficult to do such a thing when you are all alone. Still, he was alone, with only Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer as his sole friend. Archbishop Thuc was embroiled in difficulties with his homeland and the persecution of his brother, which he could hardly ignore. So the devil somehow made it impossible for him as well. In all of this there is only one thing that is the key to the papal defection, and that is that the popes have not been able to definitively pronounce error with the appearance of infallibility. We still have the definition of the Assumption in 1950 as the last time the pope invoked infallibility. The Newmass and the Newcode and the so-called council were not infallible. And now, with the Newcanonizations that have no means of discovering error because the Advocatus Diaboli has been removed from the process, we cannot be sure of their truth, either; add to that the mystery of iniquity that is the doctrinal duplicity of the papacy, most obviously pronounced by the hermeneutic of continuity of Benedict XVI (which obviously was not infallible, as well, and it constitutes the injection of literal insanity into the would-be teachings of the Church, something that again, is likely found in the unrevealed Third Secret). We don't have any doubts about Padre Pio being a real saint, and perhaps others of a somewhat similar caliber, but regarding the ilk of Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer, we have to make reservations.

And I don't mean, to 'make reservations' for four at Bridges Restaurant.

.