Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2023, 12:16:48 PM
-
In order to keep the Resistance writings compilation thread clean, could you please post comments/questions in this one, so that I can complete the other uninterrupted?
I intend to complete it this weekend (or by Monday evening at the latest, and I will explain in this thread later why I am doing this).
-
Will there be a hard copy available?
-
Will there be a hard copy available?
Yes (with an asterisk; see below soon)...
-
Apologies for some of the formatting imperfections (e.g., spacing; loss of footnote numbers, etc), which seem to be insurmountable in trying to copy/paste from Word into CI.
Hopefully it is not too distracting.
-
Sean, just let me know if anyone posts in the main book thread, so I can moderate (delete) such comments.
-
Sean, just let me know if anyone posts in the main book thread, so I can moderate (delete) such comments.
Thanks Matthew!
PS: Leaving town as we speak, so won’t be able to get back to this until tomorrow night.
-
This is some of the best part I've read so far -- I can't agree enough:
It is foreseeable that some will object to the inclusion of certain writings in the collection which follows, for a variety of reasons: Perhaps it will be argued that this or that priest was always a disciplinary problem, and that objecting to the ralliement policies of Bishop Fellay was merely a manifestation of this pre-existing condition. Perhaps it will be said that another was already on a trajectory toward independence, and opposition to a practical accord merely provided an “honorable exit” for the inevitable departure. Or perhaps it will be said that still others were resentful of reassignment (or had other internal political concerns), and these considerations were the true cause of their resistance.
Aside from questioning the motives of some of these priests, others might object that I should not have included the writings of priests or religious who ended up embracing sedevacantism, or the writings of those who ultimately returned to the SSPX (or never having left it, fell back into silent complicity), or the writings of those who would later fall into open conflict with the bishops of the Resistance.
Against all of these arguments, I reply that this book is neither hagiographical nor polemical, but historical. It is the internal strength or weakness of the docuмents themselves which is here held up to scrutiny (and praise), regardless of any ad hominem arguments which can be made against any of the various authors, with or without merit. Either their contents are well-founded, docuмented (or docuмentable), and/or corroborated by external evidence, or they are not. Let them be judged according to their own merits, and not along factional lines.
Yes, choosing to WORK WITH or ATTEND MASS with some priests is problematic. But when it comes to a common position on the SSPX -- we're talking abstract here -- it should be easy enough to "all just get along".
I'm waiting for anyone to tell me why the writings of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, for example, shouldn't be included. He's ONE MORE VOICE that thinks there's a problem in the SSPX. Sure, he has a whole volume of problems now, mostly thanks to the influence of a certain diabolical warlock. But is Fr. Pfeiffer correct about the SSPX post-2012? YOU BET. While we're at it, I'm sure he's 100% orthodox on devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary as well. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Let's put it this way -- the Resistance isn't big and united for various fundamental reasons. Much the same reasons as Tradition itself, I would argue! (The Resistance is just a microcosm of, or even a synonym for, the Traditional Movement). Priests/bishops have always disagreed and refused to work with each other in the Traditional Movement. Let's be realistic: being Trad means you're a leader, NOT a follower, you think for yourself, etc. So a random group of 100 Trads are going to have a harder time getting along than 100 random Americans. But when it comes time to rip the Novus Ordo a new one, I think most Trad priests/bishops writings should be brought to bear ALL AT ONCE, for full effect.
Likewise, when trying to convince the reader that there is "something rotten in Denmark" in the SSPX, why not produce writings of ALL Resistance priests, even those who went independent or who don't get along on various issues (Sedevacantism?) because let's face it -- on the SSPX, they're all 100% united.
-
Likewise, when trying to convince the reader that there is "something rotten in Denmark" in the SSPX, why not produce writings of ALL Resistance priests, even those who went independent or who don't get along on various issues (Sedevacantism?) because let's face it -- on the SSPX, they're all 100% united.
I too would like to see the writings of all Resistance priests, wherever they may be.
Though I do very much appreciate Seans's compilation of the letters written by the priests who left the SSPX because +Fellay and Co. want to reconcile with Modernist Rome.
Though to be fair, a majority of the forum members don't much care about the Resistance, and maybe that's why we don't hear much about the priests who left the SSPX, but didn't join the Resistance under +W. But those few of us who do care about the Resistance may benefit by seeing a wider range of views on the subject, especially the more independent priests not affiliated with the official Resistance.
-
Dear Meg,
What a great idea! You can be the one to fill in the gap and gather all the letters, docuмents, opinions of the independent priests. We all look forward to seeing what those priests will contribute. Carpe momentum!
-
Yes (with an asterisk; see below soon)...
Are you hoping we find typos and such errors first, or are you confident it is already free of grammatical errors?
-
These have all said at least one Mass at our chapel in Seguin:
1. Bishop Richard Williamson (England)
2. Fr. Gerardo Zendejas (USA)
4. Fr. Rene Trincado (Chile)
12. Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer (Philipines)
13. Fr. Francois Chazal (Philipines)
14. Fr. David Hewko (USA)
15. Fr. Giacomo Ballini (Ireland)
32. Fr. Edward MacDonald (USA)
38. Fr. Pierre Celestin Ondo Ndong (Gabon)
40. Fr. Adrian Garcia (Mexico)
-
I am presently compiling all the material, to be eventually be reformatted and converted into a PDF file.
The font size on some of the postings just went wild! :(
-
I am presently compiling all the material, to be eventually be reformatted and converted into a PDF file.
The font size on some of the postings just went wild! :(
Attached.
I'm reserving the copyright for the hardcopy edition, but the thread, and this PDF, can be freely circulated/disseminated and/or reposted.
Obviously, I have withheld several important parts (e.g., a lengthy Introduction, Table of Contents pagination; Index).
The Introduction may or may not become a book in its own right.
-
Attached.
I'm reserving the copyright for the hardcopy edition, but the thread, and this PDF, can be freely circulated/disseminated and/or reposted.
Obviously, I have withheld several important parts (e.g., a lengthy Introduction, Table of Contents pagination; Index).
The Introduction may or may not become a book in its own right.
Thank you. (I formatted my own reading copy a bit differently for easier ocular absorption. :smirk: )
-
Where can the Di Noia letter be found?
-
This is really good stuff, thanks. I've been skipping around: #8, 14, 20, 22, 24, 33 are all great and help make a clear picture of what's going on. One of the first open letters leading to expulsion is a good example of a priest who seems to feel backed into a corner, where he chooses to speak out rather than obey or respect authority. Another points out something along the lines of the responsibility of superiors. If the superiors were doing their job, subordinates would not be tempted to disobey. Is their disobedience justified? That question should not have to be asked, because the superiors should have been doing their job properly. It's a huge mess when disobedience risks one's soul, but could benefit many. Perhaps there still would have been a better way: no disobedience or open letters, but diligent focus on making the priests and faithful live and pray like saints that their prayers and works merit the conversion, guidance, and preservation of the hierarchy in truth and all goodness. I have heard at least one priest say recently that it is our fault that the world is the way it is. Not the pagan's fault or the masons', or the yew knew hew's, or the atheists', or politicians', or criminals' fault. Because if we had the faith we should have, and loved and served God as we should, he would surely cast away our enemies most swiftly, and provide an abundance of good things for society.
-
Where can the Di Noia letter be found?
https://gloria.tv/post/KvUhiRoKewZV1qiJ6eMbjPNdY
-
Congratulations, Sean, this will be very useful.
And hats off to your wife and family... I can't imagine how you found the time to do all this.
Sounds like you have been keeping Bishop Williamson busy too. Maybe I can blame you that he still hasn't found time to check my translation of Fr. Calderon's work :-)
-
Yes, choosing to WORK WITH or ATTEND MASS with some priests is problematic. But when it comes to a common position on the SSPX -- we're talking abstract here -- it should be easy enough to "all just get along".
I'm waiting for anyone to tell me why the writings of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, for example, shouldn't be included. He's ONE MORE VOICE that thinks there's a problem in the SSPX. Sure, he has a whole volume of problems now,...
It's a tricky one, he certainly is an embarrassment. Just the other day one of the SSPX priests in town started running down the Resistance with reference to Fr Pfeiffer. It certainly causes a little difficulty.
Perhaps we could liken the situation to the Church often putting before us the teachings of Origen and Tertullian, for example, even though they ended up losing the plot. However, one might argue that because they lived so long ago, the evil influence of their subsequent writings is not so relevant and likely to give scandal in the same way as quoting Fr Pfeiffer might today.
Perhaps there needs to be some sort of disclaimer in the book...?
-
It's a tricky one, he certainly is an embarrassment. Just the other day one of the SSPX priests in town started running down the Resistance with reference to Fr Pfeiffer. It certainly causes a little difficulty.
Perhaps we could liken the situation to the Church often putting before us the teachings of Origen and Tertullian, for example, even though they ended up losing the plot. However, one might argue that because they lived so long ago, the evil influence of their subsequent writings is not so relevant and likely to give scandal in the same way as quoting Fr Pfeiffer might today.
Perhaps there needs to be some sort of disclaimer in the book...?
And indeed there is.
From the Preface:
"It is foreseeable that some will object to the inclusion of certain writings in the collection which follows, for a variety of reasons: Perhaps it will be argued that this or that priest was always a disciplinary problem, and that objecting to the ralliement policies of Bishop Fellay was merely a manifestation of this pre-existing condition. Perhaps it will be said that another was already on a trajectory toward independence, and opposition to a practical accord merely provided an “honorable exit” for the inevitable departure. Or perhaps it will be said that still others were resentful of reassignment (or had other internal political concerns), and these considerations were the true cause of their resistance.
Aside from questioning the motives of some of these priests, others might object that I should not have included the writings of priests or religious who ended up embracing sedevacantism, or the writings of those who ultimately returned to the SSPX (or never having left it, fell back into silent complicity), or the writings of those who would later fall into open conflict with the bishops of the Resistance.
Against all of these arguments, I reply that this book is neither hagiographical nor polemical, but historical. It is the internal strength or weakness of the docuмents themselves which is here held up to scrutiny (and praise), regardless of any ad hominem arguments which can be made against any of the various authors, with or without merit. Either their contents are well-founded, docuмented (or docuмentable), and/or corroborated by external evidence, or they are not. Let them be judged according to their own merits, and not along factional lines."
-
Dear Sean,
Thank you so very much for all your work! It makes me cry but gives me hope.
-
Where can a copy of this docuмent Fr Hewko mentions in #14 be found?
"Two weeks before Assisi something also unheard of, in the history of the Council, but another step of degradation and apostasy, the docuмent that came out from Rome, calling for the one world religion, a one world government, a one world authority."
-
Where can a copy of this docuмent Fr Hewko mentions in #14 be found?
"Two weeks before Assisi something also unheard of, in the history of the Council, but another step of degradation and apostasy, the docuмent that came out from Rome, calling for the one world religion, a one world government, a one world authority."
Since Fr. Hewko's sermon was in the summer of 2012, he'd have been referring to this scandalous docuмent, released by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace under Benedict XVI, which called for a "global public authority," released in October, 2011:
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/docuмents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20111024_nota_en.html