[Matthew]

Luis said:

SSPX does not like the waybackmachine :

https://web.archive.org/web/20160914214004/https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/defeminization-women-continues-3687
https://web.archive.org/web/20170430145454/http://sspx.org/en/feminism-harmful-movement

[Nishant Xavier]

If I may, I have a few questions:

1: On "#85: Change (Divine Mercy Devotion Making Further Inroads)", everyone seems to assume Divine Mercy had no pre-conciliar approvals. But a detailed study shows it actually did, don't just take my word for it, Sede Catholic had many sources on this thread: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/divine-mercy-devotion-22058/ and the Wiki article on St. Faustina has more.

"On 24 June 1956, Pope Pius XII blessed an Image of the Divine Mercy in Rome, the only one blessed by a Pope before the Second Vatican Council.[37] In 1955, under Pope Pius XII, the Bishop of Gorzów founded a religious order called the Congregation of the Most Holy Lord Jesus Christ, Merciful Redeemer, to spread devotion to the Divine Mercy.[38][39]Under both Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, writings on devotion to the Divine Mercy were given imprimaturs by many bishops, making it an approved devotion.[40][41][42][43]Cardinals Adam Stefan Sapieha and August Hlond were among those who gave their approval.[44][45] During the papacy of Pope Pius XII, Vatican Radio broadcast several times about the Divine Mercy.[46]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustina_Kowalska 

So, if the SSPX takes things like this into account to pass a revised judgment on this devotion, is it necessarily wrong to do so?

2: A general question: why is a good rapport with Indult Traditional communities like the ICK etc or other Ecclesia Dei groups always presented as if it were unvaryingly a bad thing? Archbishop Lefebvre had a good rapport with Michael Davies (whom the same folk who were once "Extra SSPX Nulla Salus" now also criticize) throughout his life for example, and Davies was mostly Indult Catholic. Wiki: "From 1992 to 2004 he was the president of the international Traditionalist Catholic organisation Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce and was responsible for the unification of Una Voce America.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Davies_(Catholic_writer) I think that's a wrong attitude. The SSPX is a leading traditional group, yes, but it's not necessary imho to say no other traditional group or individual can possibly be doing good work for the Church also. Yes, there are complications if the other group is anti-SSPX, but I think some people end up possibly losing the bigger picture and looking at the common good of the whole of Catholic Tradition in the end.

I actually agree with the Resistance (at least with many Resistance posters here) on many things, e.g. that Evolution is wrong and a modernistic atheistic theory of monkeys. I think Fr. Robinson's book to the contrary should not have been published, or at least a solid book arguing in favor of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation ex nihilo by another Priest should have been published at the same time. Secondly, against worldliness and on modesty, e.g. that women should not wear pants, that Priests should comport themselves with dignity always, as was mentioned in one or two points on that thread. But I think the fundamental difference is ecclesiological, yes there is a counter-church in Rome beside the true Church. But also the true Church is still there, and Hierarchy is necessary in the Church.

[X]

Hello Xavier-

Thank you for your questions.

My primary function in the CCCC thread is to work as a compiler of apparent contradictions, changes, and compromises, and only incidentally and secondarily as an apologist.

Consequently, as regards your questions regarding the Divine Mercy Devotion, my only interest is to note that devotions to or by questionably canonized “saints” were traditionally absent and actively discouraged in the old SSPX.

Whether or not that should have been the case is another argument which I leave to the forum.

So too with regard to relations between ABL and the PCED communities: 

My primary interest is in comparing and contrasting the position of ABL (who condemned them for shaking hands with the enemy, betraying Tradition, and doing the work of the devil) with that of the current and recent regimes to demonstrate the change and contradiction.

The question as to whether ABL should have taken that position, or whether it should change is not one I am interested in delving into (at least not in the CCCC thread).

Pax tecuм,
-X

[Nishant Xavier]

Peace to you, X. Thanks for the pleasant explanation. I appreciate your perspective. 

God bless.

[Kazimierz]

Church Reasons to Condemn the
Divine Mercy Devotion

Msgr. Patrick Perez
 


 My dear faithful, today I want to say a few words about the Divine Mercy devotion. I receive many questions about this subject every year and now I want to address the topic. As a source reference I am using principally an issue of The Angelus magazine (June 2010). This research comes from Fr. Peter Scott. Since he provided most of what I needed for this talk, ‘birettas off’ to Fr. Scott.

 The Divine Mercy devotion was re-launched by John Paul II. During his long pontificate he established a feast day in honor of this devotion. During his homily at the canonization of Sr. Faustina on April 30, 2000, he declared that the Second Sunday of Easter would henceforth be called Divine Mercy Sunday.

 Consequently, every year on the Sunday following Easter, which is called Low Sunday - in Latin it is called Dominica in Albis, Sunday in White - I am asked this question, “Father, why don't we celebrate the Divine Mercy Sunday?”


A typical Divine Mercy image remindful of a whirling dervish
Now, the easy answer would be, “We don't do it because it's not in the traditional calendar.” But, then, the feast of Padre Pio also is not in the traditional calendar, but we celebrate it. We do it as prescribed in the Common of the Missal, which allows us to honor recently canonized saints. So, the question returns: Why don’t we celebrate the Divine Mercy Sunday?

 I have analyzed the prayers of the Divine Mercy devotion and found nothing wrong with them. But there is something wrong with what surrounds this new devotion.

 Let me acknowledge that there are persons, possibly even some persons here, who have received graces from doing the Divine Mercy devotion. That is not an indication that the devotion itself is necessarily from Heaven.

 Remember God always answers our prayers. You always receive some grace by your prayers. For example, let’s imagine you made a pilgrimage to visit the burial place of a saint. You made the pilgrimage and thought you were kneeling at the correct grave venerating that saint. In fact, however, he was not buried in that cemetery, but in a church nearby. Nonetheless, God gives you graces because of your effort and your desire to please Him and make reparation for your sins.

 You made that pilgrimage; you will not leave it without grace. God does not take a position like, “Well, you're at the wrong grave. Sorry, you travelled 6,000 miles for nothing and now you receive nothing.” No, God will always answer your prayers. So, please, remember when you hear people say, “Well, I have received graces from this devotion.” This in itself is not an indication that the devotion is from Heaven. Certainly the graces are always from Heaven. But the devotion may not be.

 Condemnations of this devotion

 What is wrong with the Divine Mercy devotion?

 First, when this devotion fell under the attention of Pius XII, he was concerned not with the prayers of the devotion, but with the circuмstances of the so-called apparitions to Sr. Faustina and their content. That is, he was concerned with what Our Lord supposedly told Sr. Faustina and what he told her to make public.

 Pius XII, then, placed this devotion, including the apparitions and the writings of Sr. Faustina on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books). That list no longer exists, since it was formally abolished on June 14, 1966, by Paul VI. On the one hand, it is unfortunate that it no longer exists. But, on the other hand, if that list were to exist today it would be so vast that it would fill this room. Practically everything that is written today has something objectionable to the Catholic Faith.


JPII supported the thrice-condemned devotion
So, Pius XII put the writings of Sr. Faustina on the Index of Prohibited Books. That meant that he considered that their content would lead Catholics astray or in the wrong direction.

 Next, came other prohibitions made by Pope John XXIII. Twice in his pontificate, the Holy Office issued condemnations of the Divine Mercy writings.

 Today the Holy Office is called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But before it was called the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Its name has changed over several years.

 This Office - placed under the direct control of the Pope - is responsible for maintaining the purity of the doctrine and, therefore, it watches over the dissemination of different docuмents in the Church.

 If the Pope wants to correct the faithful on a particular topic, he usually does this through the Holy Office. So, the proclamations, declarations and docuмents issued by the Holy Office may be seen as coming from the Pope himself.

 Not once, but twice under Pope John XXIII, this particular devotion was condemned through the Holy Office. The first condemnation was in a plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958. The declaration from the Holy Office issued these three statements about this devotion:

 1. There is no evidence of the supernatural origin of these revelations. This means that the members of the Holy Office examined the content and decided that there was nothing there to indicate the apparitions were supernatural. In an authentic apparition - Our Lady of Lourdes or Our Lady of Fatima, for example - you can look at the content and affirm it can not be definitively said they are of divine origin, but there is enough evidence to say that it is possibly so. On the other hand, in the Divine Mercy apparitions, they said definitively that there is no evidence whatsoever that they are supernatural. This translates, “We do not think that these apparitions come from God.”

 2. No feast of Divine Mercy should be instituted. Why? Because if it is based on apparitions that are not clearly coming from God, then it would be rash and temerarious to institute a feast in the Church based on something that is a false apparition.

 3. It is forbidden to disseminate writings propagating this devotion under the form received by Sr. Faustina, as well as the image typical of it. So, it was forbidden to even publish the image of Our Lord as Divine Mercy.

 Now, you have all seen this image, even if in passing, and you would know and recognize it. It shows a strange picture of Jesus that makes me uneasy. I cannot really tell you why. I do not like it. I don't like the face, I don't like the gesture, I don't like the posture, I don't like anything. This was my first impression of this image. I don't want it around because it is, for lack of a better term, creepy to me when I look at it.

 The image shows multicolored rays, I think they are red, white and blue, coming from His chest region - no heart, just these rays. You have all seen this. Well, that was the image that was forbidden to be published or spread.

 On March 6, 1959, the Holy Office issued a second decree on the order of Pope John XXIII. It forbade, once again, spreading the images of Divine Mercy and the writings of Sr. Faustina propagating this devotion. It also stated that it was up to the bishops to decide how they were going to remove the images that had already been displayed for public honor.

 I do not need to say much more about these declarations. Two Popes strongly warned the faithful of a danger in this devotion. Pius XII put it on the Index; John XXIII issued two condemnations through the Holy Office about the spiritual danger this devotion presented to the faithful. Not much more needs to be said on that.

 Principal error: It presents an unconditional mercy

 Let me present you with a parallel thought.


Above, a majestic Jesus with the halo of divinity and a well-defined Sacred Heart gives a clear blessing; below, a worker-like Jesus without the proper halo or a heart makes a gesture more like a "hello" than a blessing

Consider the true image of Christ Our Savior. Probably the most symbolically rich and accurate representation of Him, besides the Crucifix, is the image of the Sacred Heart, because the image of Our Lord with the Sacred Heart summarizes the whole theology of Redemption.

 They pierced His Hands, His Feet and His Sacred Heart; the crown of thorns encircles the Heart, which burns with love for man. This was the price He paid, the sacrifice He made for our redemption. He offered Himself because of His burning love for us despite the fact we are ungrateful creatures who rebelled against our Creator. Think about it. He created us and then we nailed Him to a cross even though He was God and completely innocent of any guilt. So, the Sacred Heart encapsulates all this.

 In the images of the Sacred Heart, He points to this symbolic font of love and mercy for us. The devotions to the Sacred Heart always suppose reparation for our sins. We are sinners, we must make reparation. Despite the promises from Our Lord and the fact that He paid an infinite price for our Redemption, we must make reparation. We should always do penance for our sins and make various kinds of reparation.

 Now, consider the image of Our Lord representing the Divine Mercy. It is an imitation of the Sacred Heart without the heart. When you pay attention, you notice that in the image there is no heart. There are simply rays coming out of a point above His waist. This symbolizes the error of the Divine Mercy devotion. It preaches that we can expect an unconditional mercy with no price to be paid whatsoever, with no obligations whatsoever. This is not the message of Christ.

 Christ is merciful. Time and time again, His mercy pardons our repeated sins in the Sacrament of Penance, always taking us back no matter how bad our sins are. And what happens in the Sacrament of Penance? The very name of the Sacrament tells us exactly what happens: to be effective the Sacrament supposes penance. Not only are you there at the Sacrament recognizing your full submission to the Church and your dependence on the Sacraments for forgiveness, but you walk out of the confessional with an imposed penance.

 You are also often reminded from this pulpit that you must not only fulfill that penance, but you must continually do penance, your own penance. You don't just say a decade of the Rosary and say, “Well, I've done my penance. Now, I can go merrily on my way.” You must always have the spirit of penance for your past sins; you must live with it.

 The central error of the Divine Mercy is that it promises lots of spiritual rewards with no requirement of penance, no mention of reparation, no mention of any condition.

 Unfortunately, this corresponds very much with what Pope John Paul II wrote in the Encyclical Dives in misericordia. I do not recommend reading it to any of you, except the most prepared, because it has many misleading things. It re-echoes this mercy with no price, gifts from heaven with no requirements, God's mercy with no mention of penance or reparation for sin whatsoever.

 Anticipating that encyclical Pope John Paul II already in 1978, the very first year of his pontificate, set in motion the canonization of Sr. Faustina and the institution of a Divine Mercy Sunday feast. As I said before, both Sr. Faustina’s writings and the very idea of having a Divine Mercy feast day had been prohibited and condemned by two previous Popes.

 Presumption in Sr. Faustina’s writings

 The writings of the Polish Sr. Faustina herself, published in English in 2007, pose cause for concern. The work has 640 pages and transcribes frequent supposed apparitions and messages from Our Lord.


A new "save-yourself-without-effort" devotion
This long thread of statements supposedly from Our Lord to Sr. Faustina has some things that would make a correct-thinking Catholic very uneasy, to say the least. I will exemplify by taking a few quotes from her writings.

 On October 2, 1936, she states that the “Lord Jesus” appeared to her and said, “Now, I know that it is not for the graces or gifts that you love Me, but because My Will is dearer to you than life. That is why I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.” (Divine Mercy in My Soul, The Diary of Sr. Faustina, Stockbridge, MA: Marian Press, 1987, p. 288)

 How can we believe that Our Lord has united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with the Blessed Virgin Mary? At first, we might read this and think, “Oh, that's beautiful.“ But later it may hit you, “Wait a minute, Our Lord united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with any other creature? Our Lady was the Immaculate Conception, but she was also His creature, she was created by Him as the rest of us were, albeit with the greatest exalted position free from original sin from the very beginning.”

 And now are we expected to believe that Our Lord told Sr. Faustina that He is more united to her than anybody else, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other Saints? This affirmation smacks of pride in itself, let alone the assertion that it came from Heaven.

 This type of presumption is present in many other cases.

 Our Lord supposedly addressed Sr. Faustina on May 23, 1937, with these words: “Beloved pearl of My Heart.” What bothers me about this is that it is pure saccharin. Look how Our Lady speaks to Sr. Lucia or to St. Bernadette. It is not as “beloved pearl of My Heart.” It is impossible to imagine Our Lord stooping to saccharin language. Our Lord is Christ the King, Creator of the universe, and ruler of all that is. He does not say things like “beloved pearl of My Heart.”

 Let me continue. Then, He said: “I see your love so pure; purer than that of the angels, and all the more so because you keep fighting. For your sake, I bless the world.” (ibid., p. 400) First of all, except for the Blessed Virgin Mary, we are not free from original sin and, therefore, we are not capable of a love purer than the angels.


nαzι soldiers invaded Poland after Sr. Faustina announced a blessed world - above, they are marching on Warsaw
As for blessing the world, that might be fine. If we had one real saint in the world, then the Lord will give us blessings for that one real saint. This is not my objection.

 My objection is that this revelation was in 1937; the world was on the verge of World War II, which Sr. Lucy had already been forewarned of by Our Lady at Fatima: if Russia is not consecrated, and man does not convert, then this big disaster will befall mankind for their evil ways and their sins.

 At that moment, we were about to see that disaster descend from Heaven, yet Our Lord tells Sr. Faustina, “For your sake, I am going to bless the world.” Was World War II a blessing on the world? Since her native Poland did not go unscathed by the German invasion, it does not seem likely that He actually blessed the world.

 Another example: Sr. Faustina claimed that Our Lord told her that she was exempt from judgment, every judgment - particular judgment and the general judgment. On February 4, 1935, she already claimed to hear this voice in her soul, “From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” (ibid., p. 168)

 Now, nobody but the Blessed Virgin, as far as I know, is free from the general and particular judgment. St. Thomas Aquinas, according to the pious story, had to genuflect in Purgatory before going to Heaven. I don’t know if this is fact, but it is a lesson for us that nobody is exempt from any kind of judgment.

 And add to these examples the preposterous affirmation that the Host jumped out of the Tabernacle three times and placed itself in her hands, so that she had to open up the Tabernacle and place it back herself: “And the host came out of the Tabernacle and came to rest in my hands and I, with joy, placed it back in the Tabernacle. This was repeated a second time, and I did the same thing. Despite this, it happened a third time.” (ibid., p. 23) It makes it sound like a hamster that has gotten out of its cage. “Oh, no, here it is again. I have to go put this back now.”

 How many times has the Church declared that the hands of a priest are consecrated to handle the Sacred Species, and what kind of lesson would you be giving to the world by this example of the Host leaping into her hands so that she had to place it back in the Tabernacle herself?

 Our Lord does not contradict His Church by word or by gesture. And this would be a little bit by both. She related what happened, but the gesture itself would be Our Lord contradicting the Real Presence and everything it represents.

 A lack of Catholic spirit

 In short, the whole Divine Mercy devotion does not represent a Catholic spirit. The Catholic spirit is one of making constant reparation in penance for our sins, of praying for the graces of God, for the mercy of God in this life.

 Let me close by saying that it is the background of this devotion that is questionable. You do not just institute a particular devotion with its own feast day based on something that has been condemned for very good reasons in the recent past.

 When you look at the prayers of the Divine Mercy devotions, they are perfectly orthodox. There is nothing heretical or presumptuous in these prayers. But just remember the reason why it has been condemned and why we do not recognize Divine Mercy Sunday is because of its past, not because of the content of the prayers.

 It is very important to know this, because it is one of many things that were brought back in modern times that were condemned in the past. And this is not a case of the Church changing her mind. It is a case of a representative of the Church doing something he should not be doing.

[X]

Though I was initially content to let the CCCC thread rest as a sufficient (albeit incomplete) proof of the transformation of the SSPX in furtherance of its pursuit of a practical accord with modernist Rome, the brisk pace of compromises unleashed since the thread’s completion (eg., the change in policy regarding perpetual engagements; the joint Pagliarani-Huonder statement; etc.) inspired within me the fear that these changes would fade from memory as ever-new changes followed in quick succession.

For posterity, I decided to catalog these, as well as some others which in retrospect served to demonstrate the changed thinking in the new-SSPX.

And while fully realizing many CI readers are long since burnt out on the subject, perhaps frequent additions will still be useful to send to those people who do not perceive the changes, and/or who are not CI members or lurkers.

[AveCorMariae]

X,
Your work is greatly appreciated and has served well many of our souls trying to understand this crisis. Many of us do not have the time to put all the pieces of the puzzle together, so finding your compilation has helped immensely the finding of answers to our questions, and understanding. Please, persevere. Your work is fruitful! May God bless you and Our Lady protect you!

[X]

X,
Your work is greatly appreciated and has served well many of our souls trying to understand this crisis. Many of us do not have the time to put all the pieces of the puzzle together, so finding your compilation has helped immensely the finding of answers to our questions, and understanding. Please, persevere. Your work is fruitful! May God bless you and Our Lady protect you!

Thank you for your kind and encouraging words, Ave!

[Pax Vobis]

SSPX website Q&A change  (Deleting language which condemned the FSSP/indult):

Here's a change that was pointed out on the sspx's facebook page.  I'll leave the author as anonymous, since it doesn't matter (the author actually sounds like a sneaky, resistance supporter, so good for them).  --I added bold to highlight the changes--.

---Facebook post below---

I’m sorry if I barrage this group with questions but my mind sees things and I know many here are knowledgeable. I just made a post that denounces the so called sspx “resistance” and how whether they know it or not is a ploy basically to divide us.

However I have noticed something that alarms me slightly. There is an archived version of the society’s website from before 2013 and that website has the same questions and answers as the new website but takes a much stronger stance.

Look at these two versions of what they have to say on the FSSP.

http://archives.sspx.org/SSP…/q13_fraternity_of_st_peter.htm

https://sspx.org/en/faq-page/what-about-the-fssp-faq13

They’ve entirely removed the language that says:

“they seek to ingratiate themselves with the local bishops, praising them for the least sign of Catholic spirit and keeping quiet on their modernist deviations (unless perhaps it is a question of a diocese where they have no hopes of starting up), even though by doing so they end up encouraging them along their wrong path”

“They are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics.”

“That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses.”

This all concerns me very much because I know some who are considering the SSPX priesthood and they want to be sure that modernism and relativism isn’t creeping into the society. This isn’t the only time omissions like these have been made in the new version of the society’s website.

The above post had a few facebook comments attached to it.  I thought you might find the comments both sad and amusing (in a tragic way).  Gives you an insight into the mind of the new-sspx'er.  All comments will be anonymized.  

Comment 1:
Perhaps a blanket condemnation was unfair in the first place? At least in those tones? All you need is one not doing this for it to be a lie. They also point to intent which again is not necessarily fair.

Comment 2:
They changed.

Comment 3:
I think you're trying to divide.

Comment 4:  (from the starter of the thread):
Nope I’m genuinely asking as someone confused and concerned.

Comment 5:
Cleaning up past mistakes, using more precise language, and removing imprudent writings are good signs of healthy growth.

Comment 6:
Prayers for the Bishop Williamson group!

Comment 7:
is this prayers for them in support of their mission?

Comment 8:
For their conversion....

Comment 9:
Ralliès still ralliès but if you stand really stubbornly against then, only pointing fingers à la sedevacantists (a temptation very strong among the "resistence") where is the place for charity? Some are in ecclesia dei groups just for ignorance and not malice. SSpx just offered the hand for those who want the truth while standing in the ground of tradition, and not just pointing fingers.

Comment 10:
I think it’s normal to fear the infiltration of modernism and/or relativism, they both slowly seeped in over many years into mother church and hardly anyone noticed until it was too late, and then VOILA! The oath against modernism was removed and look where we are now...we should always be wary of trickles of modernism and relativism creeping in stealthily or by way of a Trojan horse

Comment 11:
If you know some who are considering the SSPX priesthood, they will not get a better formation anywhere! Seven years of very carefully chosen instruction is what they will receive. I have a son who spent seven years in Winona and I marvel at the formation provided there.

Comment 12:
Many things have changed in the last 30 years, including many more priests saying the TLM and many more people attending. The fight is different than when the SSPX was standing all alone. Harshness will not win converts .

Comment 13:  (responding to comment 12):
Exactly right!

Comment 14:
I found a past Q&A from the past The Angelus magazine where I believe it was Fr Peter Scott who answered a question about attending the NO Mass.

In it he correctly advised not attending but said that the NO mass was invalid.

I found a later QA in The Angelus answered by someone else who answered a similar question but avoided that language of invalidity.

Did the SSPX cave in to modernity on this question? No.

The first answer was incorrect. The SSPX’s position since the founding has never been that the NO is invalid. As critical as it has rightly been of it Archbishop Lefebvre was always careful to avoid saying it was invalid. As long as the core canon is there with proper intention it can be valid.

The point is that there is nothing disturbing if the SSPX goes back and adjusts answers it gave in the past. It’s a sign that maybe things have changed or just maybe it was incorrect.

Modernism doesn’t have to be a part of it. Besides the entire core of the answer is there. It appears that what they left out was the charge that the FSSP are not traditionalists which may have been a little over the top.

Tell your acquaintance that they should enter the Priesthood in the SSPX with full confidence. There is zero modernism in it.

[X]

The point is that there is nothing disturbing if the SSPX goes back and adjusts answers it gave in the past. It’s a sign that maybe things have changed or just maybe it was incorrect.

"Adjustments" of a good many things, indeed!

A "sign" that the Society believes "just maybe it was incorrect?"

Indeed!

A belief it was encouraging invalid confessions.

A belief it encouraged concubinage and fornication in its invalid marriages.

A belief "Archbishop Lefebvre never would have done what he did" had he attended the same reverent Novus Ordo Bishop Fellay attended in Italy.

A belief Lefebvre died an excommunicate, severed from the Church, and burns in hell to this day, and forevermore.

A belief that it must undo all the "errors of Archbishop Lefebvre" which it formerly encouraged, as penance, and necessary for their own salvation.

This is the 800lb gorilla which stands behind every maneuver toward ralliement of the last 20 years.

The SSPX believes it was all wrong (but it can't say so, or you might leave, and they would be responsible for your damnation).

[homeschoolmom]

Well some things never change. That person is doing his homework. That's how people always found and chose to attend the SSPX, and it will still be how people find and choose to attend the Old SSPX. 

[Nishant Xavier]

An Indult TLM is still the TLM. Regarding the Indult: The 1984 Indult was in fact too restrictive, as even Rome realized later on, and therefore it was right to question it and ask something better. That's why His Excellency Bishop Fellay asked and obtained something much better from Rome, namely Summorum Pontificuм in 2007 and Universae Ecclesiae, in 2011, under H.H. Pope Benedict XVI.

"The commission met in December 1986. Eight of nine cardinals answered that the New Mass had not abrogated the Old Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priest from celebrating Mass according to the Missal of St Pius V. The commission judged the conditions for the 1984 indult too restrictive and proposed their relaxation. These conclusions served as functional guidelines for the Commission Ecclesia Dei, but they were never promulgated.

In this context, it should be noted that the Holy See does recognize the right of the priest to celebrate the traditional Mass; this is borne out by the fact that whenever priests are unjustly suspended for celebrating the Old Mass against the will of their bishops, the Roman Curia always nullifies the penalty whenever the cases are appealed. It is the present jurisprudence of the Church that, upon appeal, any suspension that an Ordinary attempts to inflict on a priest for celebrating the Old Mass against the will of the bishop is automatically nullified." https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7729 If someone was unjustly suspended for offering the Tridentine Mass, that sentence is now automatically nullified. In this sense, SP in 2007 and UE in 2011 have partially corrected the situation.

Even Rome now admits every Priest has the right to freely offer the Tridentine Mass without fearing anything unjust from his Bishop. Do you think all that has had no fruits in just 8-12 years? Fr. Kloster: "This past year, I have been doing a National Study on the TLM only parishes in the USA. Currently, there are around 70 of these but they are exploding in numbers with each passing year because the TLM priestly vocations are outpacing Novus Ordo priestly vocations by more than 7 to 1. My preliminary numbers are exceeding my initial expectations." https://liturgyguy.com/2018/10/08/vocations-foundations/ Those are the abundant fruits of the work of the Society's Bishops and Priests evangelizing among the Authorities in Rome, for the benefit of the wider Church. So all those vocations and all those TLM only parishes that have benefited are worth nothing, just if they are not SSPX? Even the SSPX doesn't say that. "Outside my trad group there is no salvation/no Tradition" is not true and is not a good position for any Traditional Fraternity to take.

What else? On the Indult/Motu, the Resistance will claim even SP is not absolutely perfect by itself. So what? Perfect is not the opposite of good. We'll take what we can, and work with that. Something even better than SP may be on the horizon in the future. Fr. Pagliariani has critiqued SP as well, admitted some good, and wants better.

"First of all the docuмent states precisely that the restoration of the 1962 liturgy is a universal law for the Church; in the second place the Instruction clearly makes an effort to defend, primarily in a strictly juridical context, the priests who have been prevented from using the Tridentine Missal by their ordinaries." http://archives.sspx.org/news/2011_archive/fr_davide_pagliarani-marco_bongi_interview_7-2011/fr_davide_pagliarani-marco_bongo_interview_part2.htm Fr. Pagliarani took the Anti-Modernist Oath on being elected Superior General. The SSPX is still staunchly anti-Modernist, pro-Tradition, and for the reign of Christ the King. There is no need for anyone to leave the SSPX, much less to "red light" it. There is no need even to "red light" Indult TLM's in every case. One ought to "red light" the stay-at-home-alone idea, even when abundant Traditional Priests saying Traditional Masses are available.

[Nishant Xavier]

If St. Peter's Fraternity, and the Institute of Christ the King, will defend Catholic Faith and Tradition, and not be anti-SSPX, the SSPX will work with them. Put together, the three Fraternities have around 1000 Priests. In France, over 20% of newly ordained Priests are from traditional Orders: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/over-20-of-newly-ordained-priests-in-france-belong-to-traditional-orthodox

If the FSSP is anti SSPX, and is against Tradition's spread in new areas, the SSPX won't work with it. But otherwise if not, then it can. Recently, a parish was saved from closure through the good work of St. Peter's Fraternity, and through the Traditional Latin Mass: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/traditional-latin-mass-saves-u.s.-parish-from-closure

One has to be a die-hard partisan for one to say, "Better there was no TLM." Where is concern for the salvation of souls in that?

And attitudes like that will sooner or later lead to something like home-aloneism. "Unless my ideal Priest offers Mass, I will stay home."

If you do stay at home, at least practice making Spiritual Communions every day after a good preparation. Otherwise, your soul is in danger. To think one can go to heaven and obtain the Grace of Final Perseverance without regularly receiving the Bread of Life is like trying to fly without wings. So say the Doctors and Saints of the Church, and the Lord Himself in the Gospel of St. John Chapter 6, where Our Lord links receiving Eternal Life to frequently and reverently receiving the Bread of Life, which is the Eucharist.

An Indult TLM is still the TLM. To say otherwise is a stretch. Assisting at Mass doesn't imply you agree with the Priest on everything, just that the Mass and the Priest are Catholic and Traditional. Anyway, there's plainly no need for any such thing as an Indult anymore, after the Motu Proprio of 2007 has cleared the matter: Any Priest could always freely offer the TLM, and, especially now, if only all Priests realized the ramificiations of this, the Mass and the Faith would soon be universally restored. Every one of the world's Priests could begin offering the TLM, and no Bishop can rightly stop them, according to what Rome itself has now admitted.

The allegation of the Resistance that "+ABL is under excommunication according to the Society", or some variant of that, is not the case at all. First, Rome's own canonists reluctantly admitted and had to admit, in light of clear proofs presented by the Society and experts who agree with the Society's position, that a Consecration of a Bishop without conferring Jurisdiction, just like +ABL said and did, does not even create a schism from the Pope. There has to be some kind of attempt to confer jurisdiction for there to be schism, and there was clearly none in 1988. So next. Second, if anyone would read Rome's 2009 decree clearly, it is clearly said the statement of July 1988 is deprived of all juridical effect. And, the SSPX had asked for even more, but this is what was granted. And we'll take it for now.

"The Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris, Fr. Patrick Valdrini, confirmed that “it is not the consecration of a bishop that creates a schism; what consummates the schism is to confer upon that bishop an apostolic mission [i.e. jurisdiction] ...Finally, on January 21, 2009, a decree of the Congregation for Bishops, signed by its Prefect, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, based on the faculties expressly granted by Pope Benedict XVI, declared the decree of July 1, 1988, to be deprived of any juridical effect." https://fsspx.org/en/sspx%E2%80%99s-bishops

[Pax Vobis]

An Indult TLM is still the TLM.

But an indult catholic is not a Traditional Catholic....Because an indult catholic's FAITH is not 100% Traditional.  The Faith > the Mass.

[josefamenendez]

Is an Indult Priest always a priest? That is the question