Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on February 25, 2019, 07:25:32 AM

Title: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Matthew on February 25, 2019, 07:25:32 AM
I have to move some posts here, because I'm only allowing "items" to be posted in that thread. No comments allowed in the thread itself. If you want to post on the CCCC thread, please post here.

Hollingsworth:


Quote
Thank you, X. I have copied all 10 points you made, with the links you provide attached. Subsequently I created a file entitled “Lefebvre vs Fellay,” just for easy rerference. I appreciate your research efforts, and acknowledge the many hours you must have devoted to compiling this data. As time permits, we will go back and try to digest it all, along with the material supplied in the links. 


Members like you make significant contributions to a forum, in which, alas, too many topics, though they may start off legitimately, soon meander off aimlessly in every direction, often going off topic abruptly, and filling cyberspace with seemingly endless stream-of-consciousness drivel and opinionated, emotion-laden nonsense.


Not being a trained scholar or researcher myself, I am dependent upon folks like you who seem to be gifted in this way. So thank you again.


MODERATOR EDIT:

I'm glad you like it, Hollingsworth. I realize the great value of this project as well, which is why I'm collaborating on it. I can't promise I'll leave this post up for more than a day or two, but I did cut & paste your thanks into an e-mail, to make sure X sees it. 

To everyone else: everyone doesn't need to post in this thread with a clapping hands or "way to go" post. Simply thumbs-up the posts if you want to see more like them. Thumbs-up are like CathInfo currency.

UPDATE:
X wrote back to me; he said to "pass on his gratitude for your kind words".



Pax Vobis:


Quote
Excellent points and research, X!  This explains the U-turn in every way.  Unfortunately, the new-sspx commits the fallacy of extremes, instead of the prudent middle.  In battling the errors of V2, you can never have the fight, fight, fight attitude but must balance it with love, love, love.  You must always explain what you are fighting, in the context of what you love, or else your fight is aimless. 

In other words, to get to heaven we must do good and avoid evil.  If you only preach “avoid evil” you are missing the “do good” aspect. The new-sspx is now flip flopped to the other side: they are now preaching the “doing good” but forgetting the “avoid evil”.  Truth is in the middle; its both. 

Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Matthew on March 03, 2019, 03:07:51 PM
I would like to reply in advanced to an objection a fool might bring forward:


Quote
"I see you have no evidence for #44. Just a broken link on a German website, which might have never existed. How convenient that The Recusant, a 100% pro-Resistance periodical, is hosting this material which tends to make the SSPX look bad."

1. First of all, I'm glad this is a fictional objection, because I seriously hope no one is actually that stupid!

2. Who would suggest that The Recusant can just make up paragraphs of text, which sound like the authors and which are IN LINE WITH their recent positions and other statements, which we DO have paper and electronic evidence (live website links) for.

3. The Recusant even made up a 4-word German "SEO title" for the article?

4. But the most important rebuttal: no one in the SSPX has ever accused the Resistance of making up actual fake articles or "fake news". There might be a few low-end, uneducated SSPX parishioners who like to throw out buzzwords like "fake news" which is popular today (2019), but no real, serious, credible accusations have ever been made.

5. Related to #4, the SSPX has taken down many articles (or had such articles taken down), but it's always done silently and un-officially. Thus far, the SSPX has never gone further and attacked any websites quoting those "memory holed" articles as fabricators, fake news agents, authors of fiction, etc. That would be a new level of chutzpah, even for them!

6. My conclusion: The SSPX would never try to be so bold, because they know the article existed, and they also know that someone COULD HAVE made a screenshot or PDF of it before it was taken down. If they EVER came out claiming "fake news" against a website or person linking to a memory holed article, and a screenshot comes out proving the article existed -- what would they look like? They'd look like complete liars and frauds. They don't want to risk this.

7. Two words: Internet Archive. Or, "Wayback Machine". Or "Google Cache". Archive services keeps many a website owner honest...
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on March 03, 2019, 03:33:23 PM
Matthew,

Thank you for digging the link to the original DGW article out of the cache, and supplying in the post.

Not sure how you found it, but much appreciated.

-X
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: hollingsworth on March 04, 2019, 12:44:20 PM
X: #46
Quote
But the SSPX realizes Judaism has a tight grip over the Vatican, and the latter cannot accept to "regularize" a group perceived as anti-semitic.  So Fr. Fahey had to go. 
I'm still not sure that this is the right thread in which to comment on the Catalog of Compromise.  But here goes anyway:
Yes, X, obviously Judaism has a tight grip over the Vatican.  But I would contend that Judaism has just as tight a grip over SSPX.  In fact, the influence of incipient Judaism was probably the main reason that SSPX has fallen so quickly over the last two decades.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Matthew on March 04, 2019, 12:50:47 PM
X: #46I'm still not sure that this is the right thread in which to comment on the Catalog of Compromise.  But here goes anyway:
Yes, X, obviously Judaism has a tight grip over the Vatican.  But I would contend that Judaism has just as tight a grip over SSPX.  In fact, the influence of incipient Judaism was probably the main reason that SSPX has fallen so quickly over the last two decades.
1. Yes, this is precisely the thread for commentary. Comment away!
2. Agreed. The Conciliar Church's soft position on the Jews, Freemasonry, Communism, etc. shows who was behind it. Likewise, the SSPX's new stance on the Jewish question, Fr. Fahey, +Williamson, shows who is behind the move. All the moves are in the same direction!
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: hollingsworth on March 04, 2019, 01:59:20 PM
Another author, who used to be found on the shelves of SSPX bookstores, is Solange Hertz. I think her books have become a bit scarce, as well. Hertz wrote extensively about the Americanist church, built upon Freemasonic ideas and principles. She severely attacks America’s first bishop and a few other Americanist bishops, who ruled the church in this new republic at its very inception. She does not have kind words, either, for eminent early statesmen like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. She accuses them of helping to spearhead the French Revolution. I doubt that her writings made Fellay & Co. very happy. But you can’t sue a dead woman, who never belonged to SSPX anyway.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Ladislaus on March 04, 2019, 06:09:14 PM
In fact, the influence of incipient Judaism was probably the main reason that SSPX has fallen so quickly over the last two decades.

Yes, that's very likely the case.  +Williamson was railroaded for his anti-Semitism, and then there's always the ominous figure of one Maximilian Krah.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on March 04, 2019, 09:14:54 PM
Do my eyes deceive me, or did the CNS interview of Bishop Fellay on religious liberty in post #22 just get "memory holed?"

If so, the timing of it could indicate we are being watched.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on March 04, 2019, 10:01:15 PM
The link to the SSPX mercedes Benz giveaway has been memory holed:

http://stas.org/en/giveaway
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: klasG4e on March 05, 2019, 05:41:09 PM
Just a general comment regarding the whereabouts of da nile.  It ain't just a river in Egypt.  It seems to permeate the mindset of many of the SSPX priests while at the same time often serving as a part of their ever ready defensive mechanism.

It certainly makes it especially hard for the layman to get anywhere in conversations with them concerning all the changes in the SSPX.  Your attempts at discussion -- and you as the layman will almost always have to initiate the discussion -- will often be met with quick responses such as, "You don't understand the real situation," "You are mischaracterizing things," "You can't believe everything on the Internet" "Nothing of the faith has changed; you should not be so alarmed and negative in your judgments," etc., etc., etc. It is rather hard, if not impossible, to discuss things with an SSPX priest if any of your attempts at constructive criticism or even questioning are met with such generalized assertions.  The effect of those repeated assertions seem to have the desired effect of quickly bringing to an end any meaningful conversation.

It certainly can be a very sad situation for some.  You don't want to risk alienating the very priest that you confess to and whom you may want to rely on for spiritual counsel!
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Matthew on March 11, 2019, 04:35:49 PM
Meg said:


Quote
Bp. Fellay went to great lengths to show that the SSPX should participate in Francis' Jubilee of Mercy, so that they can make use of the indulgences granted from it. Thanks for posting all of the information.

I think you're right about the concession that was made. The SSPX received ordinary jurisdiction in exchange for going along with the Jubilee. What bothers me is that Bp. Fellay tries to make a case that it's fine to participate in the Year of Mercy Jubilee for indulgences, because the SSPX participated in the Jubilees for the years 1975 and 2000. In reference to the 1975 Jubliee. Bp. Fellay says:

"The 10th anniversary of the Council did not prevent Archbishop Lefebvre and the seminary of Econe from travelling to the great pilgrimage organized in Rome that year, May 25-25, 1975."

However, the Dominicans of Avrille, in their article that you linked to regarding the Jubilee, states that the Jubliees of 1975 and 2000 were ordinary Jubilees, as those regularly held to celebrate the anniversaries of the incarnation, and that they were not tied per se to the anniversary of the Council or to a false conception of Mercy. 

Pope Francis Jubliee was an extraordinary Jubilee, which was definitely tied to his false conception of mercy. And yet the SSPX went along with the indulgences aspect of it anyway. 

There's another issue that I have regarding Bp. Fellay's reference to the SSPX pilgrimage to Rome in 1975, but I'll explain it in another post. 
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Meg on March 11, 2019, 04:50:07 PM

It looks like we're supposed to put our comments, reactions, etc., about the CCC thread on this thread instead. That makes sense. 
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Matthew on March 11, 2019, 05:49:49 PM
It looks like we're supposed to put our comments, reactions, etc., about the CCC thread on this thread instead. That makes sense.
You got it. :)
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: hollingsworth on March 13, 2019, 06:49:43 PM
#65 in the Catalogue of Compromise is one the most important, to date, IMO.  It was compiled not by X, but by a guy with user name 'William of Norwich' on the old defunct Ignis Ardens site.
I can accept as gospel almost 100% of it, except, perhaps, for one assertion by WON, that "Maximilian Krah is Jewish."
Did 'William' really know that at the time?  Krah has affirmed on several occasions that he's not Jewish, but Catholic.  He looks like a jew.  He certainly seems to act and behave like one, and his zionist sympathies are indisputable.  However, Is he an ethnic Jew, i.e. Khazar or Ashkenazi?  That we can not be sure of even to this day.  If X has some information in this regard, I would certainly appreciate receiving it.
Krah is a despicable character, IMO. But there are despicable Catholic goy, as well.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on March 14, 2019, 06:02:54 AM
Regarding Mr. Paul Chaussee (whose 42 page critique of Fr. Celier's 2007 book "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists") is attached to the CCCC thread (#69):

It may add to the credibility of his critique that Mr. Chaussee is a known and respected writer in the French-speaking world, and a noted expert on the Shroud of Turin.

I mistakenly noted that he was a Frenchman, whereas he was apparently born in Belgium.

He has written the following books:

http://www.chire.fr/article-2419.aspx (http://www.chire.fr/article-2419.aspx)

A little blurb about him from the same website:

"Paul Chaussée was born on November 20, 1932 in Walloon Belgium. He has had a long career as a self-taught engineer designing, building, selling and developing papermaking machines and systems. Educated in the Catholic religion, he lost his faith in the 1950s by believing in the generalized evolution and the theses of Teilhard de Chardin. The necessities of the profession made him travel extensively, especially in North America and the Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East where, from 1975 to 1983, he discovered Judaism, Islam and Christianity of the first centuries at the same time. A comparative reading of the New Testament and the Koran convinced him of the exclusive truth of the Catholic religion and brought him back to the Church. In 1981, the history and enigma of the Holy Shroud of Turin aroused his scientific curiosity. What he gradually discovered made him return, around 1985, to traditional Catholicism faithfully maintained by [Arch]Bishop Marcel Lefebvre.
In 1989, he participated in the founding of the International Centre for Shroud Studies in Turin (CIELT), whose symposiums in Paris (1989) and Rome (1993) established with certainty the authenticity of the Holy Shroud."
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: klasG4e on March 14, 2019, 11:10:25 AM
In 1981, the history and enigma of the Holy Shroud of Turin aroused his scientific curiosity. What he gradually discovered made him return, around 1985, to traditional Catholicism faithfully maintained by [Arch]Bishop Marcel Lefebvre.
In 1989, he participated in the founding of the International Centre for Shroud Studies in Turin (CIELT), whose symposiums in Paris (1989) and Rome (1993) established with certainty the authenticity of the Holy Shroud."


The SSPX has changed!

Not only is the SSPX heading for a full merger with the Modernist Rome of Vatican II, but countless changes have already occurred - past tense. The SSPX has already contradicted its former self, and compromised on its former position in many ways. This isn't about what the SSPX might do; it's about what THE SSPX HAS DONE over the past 7 years. Here is a book (almost 400 pages) detailing the evidence to prove this assertion. Relying mostly on official and trusted sources, if this book doesn't convince you that the SSPX has taken a hard U-turn back to Conciliar Modernist Rome, then nothing will!

https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/As-We-Are-101-Compromises-Changes-Contradictions-of-an-SSPX


The incredibly amazing Shroud of Turin is without a doubt the most studied artifact in the history of the world.  It is said to be -- and with perfect reason -- the most holy relic due to its actual blood stains in existence!

In the year 2004 four full body size authentic photographic images of the Shroud were donated to the SSPX.  They were specifically and expressly donated to and for St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary (STAS) in Winona, Minnesota.  The images consisted of two professional photographs taken one of the back and one of the front as well as two professional negatives, one of the front and one of the back.  (The individual who took and developed the photographs was none other than Barrie M. Schwortz (his bio is found here: https://www.shroud.com/speakers.htm (https://www.shroud.com/speakers.htm) ), the editor and founder of the internationally recognized Shroud of Turin Website (www.shroud.com), the oldest, largest and most extensive Shroud resource on the Internet.   Mr. Schwortz personally had them shipped to STAS.  

At the same time the aforesaid donation was made a sizeable monetary donation was made by the same donor to STAS for the cost of frames for all four of the images.  The God gifted/talented artistic Br. Marcel, SSPX was placed in charge of making the frames and he subsequently produced four beautiful frames for them.

Eventually two of the framed images were placed on the wall of a large classroom at STAS while the other two were placed on the wall of one of the corridors at STAS.  As far as I know the SSPX has never given any official publicity to the existence of their four framed images of the Shroud.

What I do know is that when STAS moved to Virginia the four beautifully  framed images of the Shroud of Turin were all left behind.  One is simply left to wonder why.  
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Meg on March 15, 2019, 10:13:52 AM
I would like to ask for a clarification or explanation of part of Paul Chausee's Appendix ll, as translated by Sean Johnson, and posted to the CCCC thread on March 12. I'm not understanding what the 2003 part of the appendix contains, where it describes Paul Cernine's (Fr. Celier) quote from Etienne Couverts' book as saying..."In any error, there is a key, and it is gnosis," which Paul Cernine/Fr. Celier says is in the book by Etienne Couvert.

However, Paul Chaussee points out that Paul Cernine/Fr. Celier changed the quote, and that book by Etienne Couvert doesn't mention "In any error..." It just says: "There is a key, and it is gnosis." The "in any error" isn't mentioned at all. Paul Chausse rightly points that this falsification is enough to disqualify it's author (Paul Cernine/Fr. Celier), but I'm not understanding what the quote means at all, in either form.

It isn't explained what "There is a key, and it is gnosis" means at all. Or what it means to say that "In any error, there is a key and it is gnosis."
Certainly, Etienne Couvert is trying to refute Gnosticism, but I don't understand what he's trying to say in the quote or the paragraph that explains the quote, or what Paul Cernine/Fr. Celier is trying to say in his falsification of the quote.

Can Sean Johnson or X figure it out? If not, that's okay. There may not be enough info to do so.

I have a basic understanding of Gnosticism, in the "gnosis" means knowledge to the gnostics, but I don't get the greater context of the quote at all.

Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Matthew on March 15, 2019, 09:40:29 PM

Quote
Seraphina said:

Ugh!  Just when I started to feel better from a stomach virus, I see a photo of Max Krah in a tub!   
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/barf.gif)
I do have a suggestion for him of a kindred spirit---a fellow named Anthony Weiner in New York.  
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: hollingsworth on March 16, 2019, 06:43:27 PM
I stopped copying at item #66.  The whole affair is beginning to weary me, and claim less of my attention.  Others may still be focused like laser beams on X's summaries.  But I'm swiftly losing interest.  Hey, X, why don't you just pull all this stuff together and write a book?
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Matthew on March 16, 2019, 07:17:10 PM
I stopped copying at item #66.  The whole affair is beginning to weary me, and claim less of my attention.  Others may still be focused like laser beams on X's summaries.  But I'm swiftly losing interest.  Hey, X, why don't you just pull all this stuff together and write a book?

Hollingsworth, you use the word bore/bored way too frequently. I'm noticing a pattern. Do you think we're all here to entertain you, or what?

One of my favorite sayings: only boring people get bored. (Did I mention that I'm personally never bored?)

If you want to be entertained, go to the circus, a magic show, or watch a movie (if that's your thing).

CathInfo is for discussion of all manner of topics touching on Traditional Catholics, the Crisis in the Church, and the modern world. There are topics both light and deep. But overall, CathInfo tends to focus on serious, deep, economic, political, philosophical, and theological topics. There are topics to suit everyone's interest, but each individual topic is NOT going to be for everyone.

But complaining about a specific thread is silly. If you're no longer interested, then just ignore it! It's simple. There are plenty of others still interested in it.

And as for the thread in question, it gets clicked on about 200-300 times a day. (Note: unlike the old CathInfo software, hitting <F5> repeatedly to reload the page will NOT increase the hit count.)
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Matthew on March 16, 2019, 07:27:47 PM
I would like to add:

If I switched places with you, and just about doubled my age, I might feel the same way about the Resistance, the future, etc. -- namely, weary. However, I'm considerably younger than you, and I still have young children to raise Catholic. So I have no choice but to get aggressively involved in this controversy and fight, especially by doing everything I can to:

promote the Resistance
coordinate a chapel
help "confirm my Resistant brethren in the Faith" by showing them that yes, they're not crazy even if they're outnumbered and isolated
show SSPX supporters that there's indeed a real problem -- as many as will listen/read

So naturally I'm going to be excited about something like the CCCC. I've scarcely ever seen such a concise and easy to follow list of precisely what is wrong with the modern SSPX. Not personal anecdotes, not hearsay, but actual evidence with quote A right next to quote B showing the change, contradiction, and/or compromise.

"X" has put a lot of work into this resource and I realize just how valuable it is. So I am very grateful for the service he is doing for the Traditional Catholic world. Who am I kidding -- the service he is doing for God and His Church.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: hollingsworth on March 17, 2019, 12:47:01 PM
Matthew:
Quote
Hollingsworth, you use the word bore/bored way too frequently. I'm noticing a pattern. Do you think we're all here to entertain you, or what?
Uh-oh.  I must have irritated you, sir.  Acting bored, and a noticeable "pattern" of being bored by some CI commentary, could be grounds for banishment, I suppose.  After all, Matthew, you banned one member, Wessex, for being too "negative."  I'm not sure why Telesphorus and others were banned, but it must have been for things equally serious.  :D ( Anyway, since you follow the patterns of forum member so closely, you must have realized long ago that I could care less about banishment.) 
By the way, who is "X" anyway?  For someone as prolific as he has become, he must be accompanied by a pretty impressive set of credentials.
As for Poche, I seldom read him.  He has not said anything I'm aware of, though, that would qualify him as a  raging blasphemer.  At worst probably, he is little more than a jew-loving NO twit.  But he may not even be that.  If he says 15 decades of the Rosary a day, he's OK with me.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Matthew on March 17, 2019, 01:13:01 PM
Matthew:Uh-oh.  I must have irritated you, sir.  Acting bored, and a noticeable "pattern" of being bored by some CI commentary, could be grounds for banishment, I suppose.  After all, Matthew, you banned one member, Wessex, for being too "negative."  I'm not sure why Telesphorus and others were banned, but it must have been for things equally serious.  :D ( Anyway, since you follow the patterns of forum member so closely, you must have realized long ago that I could care less about banishment.)  
By the way, who is "X" anyway?  For someone as prolific as he has become, he must be accompanied by a pretty impressive set of credentials.
As for Poche, I seldom read him.  He has not said anything I'm aware of, though, that would qualify him as a  raging blasphemer.  At worst probably, he is little more than a jew-loving NO twit.  But he may not even be that.  If he says 15 decades of the Rosary a day, he's OK with me.


1. I can be mildly irritated or annoyed at someone without resorting to the last-ditch punishment of banning them. What kind of tin pot dictator do you think I am? You think I can't handle a disagreement? You think my skin is razor thin? You've been a CathInfo member for how long? You must not have read many of my posts. You couldn't be more wrong on this heading.

By the way, no one mentioned banning. Why do you bring it up? I hate it when members do that - when they react preemptively to the as-yet-nonexistent threat of being banned. Usually with an "I don't care if I'm banned" or "You can't ban me; it would show you're a dictator running an echo chamber!" and they think they got me.

When it's time to escalate the situation to bringing up the B word, I'll make sure to do that. I'm not that shy. In effect you've proven yourself wrong. If I were a tin pot dictator as you insinuate (your sarcastic "it must have been for things equally serious..."), I should have threatened you with banning or actually banned you by now. But YOU brought up the word, not me. It wasn't even on my radar yet.

2. I'll have you know that with few exceptions, I was practically forced to ban each and every person currently banned from CI. And yes, I had very good reasons. The idea that banning members can be avoided is a pipe dream indulged in only by small-time, wanna-be Admins with a small membership of 100 members or less. Once a forum grows out of the "infant" phase, especially a forum full of Traditional Catholics, a certain amount of banning becomes a necessity -- regardless of how much "variety" you would ideally like to have on the forum.

I'll give you a hint: I don't get called "trad-cumenical" by my enemies for running an echo chamber or "Matthew's best friends' club".

But as I've said on the occasion of many bannings, I'm still waiting for someone to show me ONE, JUST ONE forum with a membership greater than 150 that allows insubordination and attacks against the forum itself and/or the owner and moderators. Banning members for insulting the owner/moderator seems to be standard practice -- not the realm of tin pot dictators. When you attack the owner, you basically flaunt all the rules at once by disdaining every shred of authority on the forum and attempting to destroy all order. That can't be allowed on any forum.

3. Regarding X, that's X's business. I actually think it's good to keep the focus on the message, rather than the messenger. Kind of like Q. How can you ad-hominem when the source is a mystery and a completely clean slate with no history or baggage?

4. We seem to be in agreement about Poche. I don't know why you brought him up in this post.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: hollingsworth on March 17, 2019, 02:47:10 PM
Matthew:3.
Quote
Regarding X, that's X's business. I actually think it's good to keep the focus on the message, rather than the messenger. Kind of like Q. How can you ad-hominem when the source is a mystery and a completely clean slate with no history or baggage?

4. We seem to be in agreement about Poche. I don't know why you brought him up in this post.

You're right.  I should not have brought up Poche or banishment on this topic thread.  I guess I've been conditioned over the years to feel that one can get off topic at a whim on CI, and go in any which direction or deviate at will from the original OP.  My fault, and I apologize.
As for any ad hominem against X:  I didn't say a thing against him.  I did not treat his material disparagingly at all.  I simply indicated that I had grown weary of reading it, not that X has not been probably very accurate about most everything he says.  It would help me, though, and maybe others, to focus on the message, if I knew a bit more about the messenger.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Matthew on March 17, 2019, 02:57:49 PM
It would help me, though, and maybe others, to focus on the message, if I knew a bit more about the messenger.

I never suggested you had any desire past, present or future to throw ad-hominems at X. I was just stating the fact that it becomes possible for the public at large to attack him personally (rather than his ideas or message), once there's a face behind the name.

But your quote above leaves me scratching my head. So if the messenger were a convert Jew, or used to run a pornography magazine, would that change the message at all -- would it become more worthy of rejection, or become any more false? What if he was a highly respected layman or cleric? Would the message suddenly grow more true?

I fail to see how the particulars of X's identity have ANY BEARING on the content he writes.

Who cares how old he is, his state of life, where he goes to Mass, his number of children (if applicable), his ecclesiastical rank (if applicable), or what Traditional group(s) he has supported in the past. A collection of data regarding changes, contradictions, and compromises in the SSPX is an objective thing. If it's based on true documents, and doesn't violate rules of logic, then it's true whether we like it, X, or none of the above.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 17, 2019, 02:58:01 PM
Quote
Anyway, since you follow the patterns of forum member so closely, you must have realized long ago that I could care less about banishment.) 
Hollingsworth, as of late, most of your posts are critical or complain about something.  This was not your former personality, which was insightful and interesting, so it’s easy to see a pattern of change in your behavior.  I hope you stop being bored and get back your old mojo.  

Second, if you don’t like a thread just don’t read it. 

Third, posts of the kind from X, which are factually based, would only be impaired and distracted by knowing the personality of the poster.  Facts stand alone as proof...or at least they should.  
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: klasG4e on March 20, 2019, 01:39:01 PM
As regard #s 1 (Christian Warfare, published by the SSPX) and 51 (Divine Mercy), I noticed that in my 2009 Christian Warfare "New Deluxe Edition" in Chapter IV (Devotion to the Sacred Heart) on p. 122 one finds printed out the Chaplet of Divine Mercy!



Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on March 20, 2019, 02:13:57 PM
As regard #s 1 (Christian Warfare, published by the SSPX) and 51 (Divine Mercy), I noticed that in my 2009 Christian Warfare "New Deluxe Edition" in Chapter IV (Devotion to the Sacred Heart) on p. 122 one finds printed out the Chaplet of Divine Mercy!


Thank you for this contribution, Klas!
I just went and checked my 2006 edition, and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy is definitely NOT in there.
So this is a change that will certainly make the list.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on March 21, 2019, 06:14:08 AM
Interesting prophecy in Sean Johnson's article (i.e., the latest post in the CCCC thread):

"When the day comes that you see the indultarian and SSPX Chartres Pilgrimages for Tradition marching in the same direction, understand that there is much more symbolism there than meets the eye."

Today in France, it is being reported that SSPXers participated in a pilgrimage (where among other things, they venerated the "Saint" who "excommunicated" their founder!):

Traitors. 


http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t877-Jubile-et-saintete-conciliaires-a-Cotignac.htm (http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t877-Jubile-et-saintete-conciliaires-a-Cotignac.htm)

"We will consult with interest the report of FSSPX-News on the pilgrimage of March 10 to Cotignac (Var) for the 500th anniversary of these apparitions:

https://fsspx.news/fr/jour-de-graces-a-cotignac-46148

The process of discreet rallying, in small steps, is therefore continuing before our eyes.

A thousand pilgrims of the Fraternity came "to seek the plenary indulgence attached this year to the sanctuary".

To obtain it, we made the "jubilee journey" approved by the "good" Bishop of Toulon, Mgr Dominique Rey. And seven pergolas were piously recollected "presenting the life and spirituality of saints of the 19th and 20th centuries, illustrating three by three the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: Padre Pio, Maximilien Kolbe, Elisabeth of the Trinity, Louis and Zélie Martin..." These are certainly excellent examples, but... with the exception of St Gemma Galgani and St Maria Goretti, all beatified or canonized by the Council Popes according to the new procedures in force, those that have also made it possible to "canonize" John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II without difficulty, not to mention Bishop Oscar Romero!

To make matters worse, the FSSPX-News report "forgets" to specify that the false "Saint John Paul II" also appears in the seventh pergola of the journey, as "artisan of peace through his travels" and illustration of the gift of Wisdom of the Spirit !

This can be checked at: http://www.nd-de-graces.com/les-saints-du-jubile/

One can imagine the painful surprise of the pilgrims still attached to Bishop Lefebvre, to see themselves dragged by their pastors along such a "path" of adulterated holiness, and to have to publicly venerate the memory of the one who excommunicated the Founder of the Fraternity!

As we can see, the subtle "traditional-conciliar" mixture led by the General House is now working perfectly: after Bishop Huonder, who will soon be welcomed in Switzerland for his retirement, and the visit of the Bishop of Portsmouth, Bishop Egan, to a FSSPX school in England, we will have had the consensual and "peaceful" pilgrimage of the FSSPX to Cotignac.

The Council Church and its representatives must no longer be "angry", such is the instruction inherited from the betrayal of the 2012 Chapter, such is the line inaugurated by Bishop Fellay, conscientiously followed by his successor Pagliarani and the leaders of the current neo-Fraternity.

Thus, day after day, the spirit of resistance to the new religion of Vatican II is blunted; thus, little by little, in general indifference, the precious heritage of Bishop Lefebvre is being squandered.

To this miserable manoeuvre, the abbot of Jorna lent his authority as Superior of the District of France, ... he who was considered a strict, doctrinal, and courageous priest!

But only those who are willing to do so are deceived..."

PS: did I also see a suggestion regarding consolidating indult/SSPX pilgrimages in the recent Michael Matt/Taylor Marshall threads that aired here last week (Remnant TV?)?
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on March 21, 2019, 10:00:58 PM
Interesting prophecy in Sean Johnson's article (i.e., the latest post in the CCCC thread):

"When the day comes that you see the indultarian and SSPX Chartres Pilgrimages for Tradition marching in the same direction, understand that there is much more symbolism there than meets the eye."

Today in France, it is being reported that SSPXers participated in a pilgrimage (where among other things, they venerated the "Saint" who "excommunicated" their founder!):

Traitors.


http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t877-Jubile-et-saintete-conciliaires-a-Cotignac.htm (http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t877-Jubile-et-saintete-conciliaires-a-Cotignac.htm)

"We will consult with interest the report of FSSPX-News on the pilgrimage of March 10 to Cotignac (Var) for the 500th anniversary of these apparitions:

https://fsspx.news/fr/jour-de-graces-a-cotignac-46148

The process of discreet rallying, in small steps, is therefore continuing before our eyes.

A thousand pilgrims of the Fraternity came "to seek the plenary indulgence attached this year to the sanctuary".

To obtain it, we made the "jubilee journey" approved by the "good" Bishop of Toulon, Mgr Dominique Rey. And seven pergolas were piously recollected "presenting the life and spirituality of saints of the 19th and 20th centuries, illustrating three by three the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: Padre Pio, Maximilien Kolbe, Elisabeth of the Trinity, Louis and Zélie Martin..." These are certainly excellent examples, but... with the exception of St Gemma Galgani and St Maria Goretti, all beatified or canonized by the Council Popes according to the new procedures in force, those that have also made it possible to "canonize" John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II without difficulty, not to mention Bishop Oscar Romero!

To make matters worse, the FSSPX-News report "forgets" to specify that the false "Saint John Paul II" also appears in the seventh pergola of the journey, as "artisan of peace through his travels" and illustration of the gift of Wisdom of the Spirit !

This can be checked at: http://www.nd-de-graces.com/les-saints-du-jubile/

One can imagine the painful surprise of the pilgrims still attached to Bishop Lefebvre, to see themselves dragged by their pastors along such a "path" of adulterated holiness, and to have to publicly venerate the memory of the one who excommunicated the Founder of the Fraternity!

As we can see, the subtle "traditional-conciliar" mixture led by the General House is now working perfectly: after Bishop Huonder, who will soon be welcomed in Switzerland for his retirement, and the visit of the Bishop of Portsmouth, Bishop Egan, to a FSSPX school in England, we will have had the consensual and "peaceful" pilgrimage of the FSSPX to Cotignac.

The Council Church and its representatives must no longer be "angry", such is the instruction inherited from the betrayal of the 2012 Chapter, such is the line inaugurated by Bishop Fellay, conscientiously followed by his successor Pagliarani and the leaders of the current neo-Fraternity.

Thus, day after day, the spirit of resistance to the new religion of Vatican II is blunted; thus, little by little, in general indifference, the precious heritage of Bishop Lefebvre is being squandered.

To this miserable manoeuvre, the abbot of Jorna lent his authority as Superior of the District of France, ... he who was considered a strict, doctrinal, and courageous priest!

But only those who are willing to do so are deceived..."

PS: did I also see a suggestion regarding consolidating indult/SSPX pilgrimages in the recent Michael Matt/Taylor Marshall threads that aired here last week (Remnant TV?)?

When FSSPX-News uses the old "..." trick, you had better look and see what is missing!

In the article above, doing so would add to this paragraph:

"To obtain it, we made the "jubilee journey" approved by the "good" Bishop of Toulon, Mgr Dominique Rey. And seven pergolas were piously recollected "presenting the life and spirituality of saints of the 19th and 20th centuries, illustrating three by three the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: Padre Pio, Maximilien Kolbe, Elisabeth of the Trinity, Louis and Zélie Martin..."

This: 

...St. Teresa of Calcutta, St. Faustina, St. John Paul II, and Bl. Chiara Luce Badano (Focolare movement)!

http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t877-Jubile-et-saintete-conciliaires-a-Cotignac.htm (http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t877-Jubile-et-saintete-conciliaires-a-Cotignac.htm)
But Rome must take us "as we are!"  We're not going to change!
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Matthew on March 26, 2019, 07:44:40 AM
Luis said:


Quote
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/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 (https://web.archive.org/web/20170430145454/http://sspx.org/en/feminism-harmful-movement)
(https://web.archive.org/web/20170430145454/http://sspx.org/en/feminism-harmful-movement)
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: XavierSem on April 01, 2019, 08:01:14 AM
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/ (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 (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) (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.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on April 01, 2019, 08:40:03 AM
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 tecum,
-X
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: XavierSem on April 01, 2019, 08:43:31 AM
Peace to you, X. Thanks for the pleasant explanation. I appreciate your perspective. 

God bless.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Kazimierz on April 01, 2019, 09:41:26 AM
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?”


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F072_Mercy.jpg)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 circumstances 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.


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F072_JPII.jpg)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 documents 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 documents 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.


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F072_Heart.jpg)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
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F072_Rays.jpg)
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.


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F072_Trio.jpg)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.


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F072_Warsaw.jpg)Nazi 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.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on May 28, 2019, 07:07:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: AveCorMariae on May 28, 2019, 12:31:43 PM
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!
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on May 28, 2019, 02:08:28 PM
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!
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 29, 2019, 10:40:27 PM
Quote
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 (http://archives.sspx.org/SSP)…/q13_fraternity_of_st_peter.htm

https://sspx.org/en/faq-page/what-about-the-fssp-faq13 (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.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on May 30, 2019, 05:39:38 AM

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).
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: homeschoolmom on May 30, 2019, 06:07:11 AM

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. 
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: XavierSem on May 30, 2019, 08:24:31 AM
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 Pontificum 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 (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/ (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 document 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 (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.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: XavierSem on May 30, 2019, 08:36:15 AM
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
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 30, 2019, 08:58:10 AM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: josefamenendez on May 30, 2019, 09:32:17 AM
Is an Indult Priest always a priest? That is the question
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: songbird on May 30, 2019, 09:39:22 AM
Was he ordained before 1968?  After, there is no ordination, just installed.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Ladislaus on May 30, 2019, 09:44:32 AM
An Indult TLM is still the TLM. To say otherwise is a stretch.

As I have said before, you are not a Traditional Catholic.  Otherwise, you would know that Traditional Catholicism isn't merely (or even primarily) about the Mass.  It's about the FAITH.  Certainly TLM is TLM, taken in isolation (and assuming a valid priest).  But, then you have Orthodox Liturgies that are also perfectly Traditional, taken in isolation.  But the context is incredibly important.  Unfortunately, a TLM celebrated under the auspices of and within the doctrinal/ecclesiastical framework of the Conciliar Church serves to "legitimize" the Vatican II revolution by hiding the doctrinal problems with the Conciliar establishment from the lay people who attend it.  God in fact allowed the liturgical abberations of the Novus Ordo to wake people up to the bad doctrine behind the Conciliar Church.  I know that I myself would have remained blind to all this were it not for the Novus Ordo liturgical innovations I experienced as a child and which inspired me to dig deeper into what was going on.  And allowing the TLM to be placed alongside the NOM as an "extraordinary" form is to tacitly grant legitimacy to the NOM.  It's like having a statue of Christ put up in a pagan pantheon.  Nothing wrong with a statue of Christ, taken in isolation.  But, in context, you're tacitly admitting that Christ is just our preference among the various other deities that one might be free to choose from.  And the symbolism of this is even more striking when you attend a TLM in a church that still has the Luther Table set out in front of the main altar.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Kazimierz on May 30, 2019, 09:53:05 AM
But an indult catholic is not a Traditional Catholic....Because an indult catholic's FAITH is not 100% Traditional.  The Faith > the Mass.
Indeed indeed!
Better the have the Faith without the Mass, then the Mass without the Faith. Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine!
Acceptance of Vatican II, and all that flows from that Stygian cesspit; dubious episcopal ordinations....Maybe FSSP and other indultery clerics are not priests at all?......
Isnt that enough to stay away? Why play Polish roulette with your salvation? (Polish roulette has all chambers filled save one, and that cartridge is only slightly less damaging than the other five. Ok, I just made this up  ;D but the analogy is sound.)
The neoSSPX is already seriously infected. It too will be quarantined permanently. 
:pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: for discernment
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 30, 2019, 11:10:02 AM

Quote
(Polish roulette has all chambers filled save one, and that cartridge is only slightly less damaging than the other five. Ok, I just made this up  (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/grin.gif) but the analogy is sound.)
I approve!
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on May 30, 2019, 11:39:07 AM
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
“They are doing the devil’s work.”
-Archbishop Lefebvre 
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Kazimierz on May 30, 2019, 12:02:51 PM
“They are doing the devil’s work.”
-Archbishop Lefebvre
Clear, concise, correct. 
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: XavierSem on May 31, 2019, 01:07:33 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
As I have said before ...
Oh, ok, then. Since you have cited the Infallible Authority of Pope Ladislaus the First, Causa Finita Est, I guess. I never said the Faith is not important, but it is Holy Mass that also forms us in the Faith and gives us the Grace to persevere in Catholic Faith and Unity until the end.  Pope St. Pius X gave us an Infallible Oath against Modernism to help us preserve the Faith inviolate. I advise you to make it and believe it if you are worried of falling into Modernism. The Superior General of the SSPX took it again upon being elected, and we firmly believe every word in it. Can you prove that the SSPX denies or doubts even one article of Faith?

If you believe a 61 year interregnum is possible, then it's you who may deny or "doubt" the Catholic Faith. The Papacy is not an optional afterthought that God gave His Church, but something absolutely foundational to the divine constitution of the Church; because, among other things, only the Power of the Papacy can appoint Bishops to Office, and these appointments are necessary for the Church to be continued. The Society understands all these things very well, and much better than the resistance does, because it has a much stronger Faith. Faith is not the only bond in the Church, and we are not saved by Faith alone. Charity is the second bond, the Bond of Unity and of Communion with the Shepherds of the Church, which must be preserved also, for Faith to be sustained and to be increased.

You mention the Orthodox, but you fail to mention Orthodox Masses are illicit because they are schismatic and not in communion with the Church. Eastern Catholic Masses, which are the same Masses as those of the Orthodox, except in Catholic communion, are licit.

Fr. Jean Michel Gleize, Seminary Professor of Ecclesiology: "that the Church should be habitually deprived of her head is an absurdity and contrary to the promises of indefectibility. One of the reasons the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X could rely on to reject the sedevacantist hypothesis was that “the matter of the visibility of the Church is too essential to its existence for God to be able to do without it for decades; the reasoning of those who assert the non-existence of the pope places the Church in an insoluble situation.” ... it is an old error that was already condemned by the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X. Pardon me if I disappoint you, but I will not run the risk of trying to be wiser than Solomon! The 40 years of Archbishop Lefebvre’s episcopate matter, if not in the sight of men, at least in the sight of God. Archbishop Lefebvre was a great man, a great bishop, because he was a man of the Church." http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3501 (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3501)

All I can say to you is, Staying away from the Sacraments will make it very difficult to grow spiritually. Do you know the effects of staying away from Holy Communion for a long time? Read what Doctors of the Church like St. Alphonsus and Popes like St. Pius X taught about the importance and the salutary effects of daily and frequent Communion. I never said the Indult situation is ideal. Here's the thing - if parishes become Indult today, they may become TLM only tomorrow. A TLM parish becoming Novus Ordo is not good. A Novus Ordo parish on the path to becoming Traditional is very good.

Also, many Priests still say the Novus Ordo only because they believe, wrongly, that the Roman Catholic Church wants them to say it - that intention means they are in good faith. The SSPX tries to help that good faith become True Faith by instructing them on the True Mass. If tomorrow the Church explicitly said they should offer the True Mass only, then they would do that. The SSPX is working for that to happen.

What of TLM only parishes? Do you condemn that also? You can't correctly condemn those who swear by the Oath against Modernism as allegedly denying the Faith. That great Oath teaches us many immutable dogmatic Truths, including that "Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in Sacred Tradition ... I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way."  Who denies this? Not us. Please see: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm)

X, Archbishop Lefebvre was on good terms with Michael Davies throughout his life, and Davies was head of an Indult Latin Mass Society. What do you make of that? The situation has changed after Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae have been promulgated. Tradition can now make inroads into many dioceses and to the extent St. Peter's Fraternity or the Institute of Christ the King can help in that, the SSPX feels no need to condemn them totally. The SSPX's end goal remains that parishes and dioceses should become TLM-only, swear the Oath against Modernism, and believe the whole Catholic Faith, preserving Catholic Communion.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: richard on May 31, 2019, 04:22:04 AM
As I have said before, you are not a Traditional Catholic.  Otherwise, you would know that Traditional Catholicism isn't merely (or even primarily) about the Mass.  It's about the FAITH.  Certainly TLM is TLM, taken in isolation (and assuming a valid priest).  But, then you have Orthodox Liturgies that are also perfectly Traditional, taken in isolation.  But the context is incredibly important.  Unfortunately, a TLM celebrated under the auspices of and within the doctrinal/ecclesiastical framework of the Conciliar Church serves to "legitimize" the Vatican II revolution by hiding the doctrinal problems with the Conciliar establishment from the lay people who attend it.  God in fact allowed the liturgical abberations of the Novus Ordo to wake people up to the bad doctrine behind the Conciliar Church.  I know that I myself would have remained blind to all this were it not for the Novus Ordo liturgical innovations I experienced as a child and which inspired me to dig deeper into what was going on.  And allowing the TLM to be placed alongside the NOM as an "extraordinary" form is to tacitly grant legitimacy to the NOM.  It's like having a statue of Christ put up in a pagan pantheon.  Nothing wrong with a statue of Christ, taken in isolation.  But, in context, you're tacitly admitting that Christ is just our preference among the various other deities that one might be free to choose from.  And the symbolism of this is even more striking when you attend a TLM in a church that still has the Luther Table set out in front of the main altar.
:applause: :applause: :applause:
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on May 31, 2019, 06:03:05 AM
X, Archbishop Lefebvre was on good terms with Michael Davies throughout his life, and Davies was head of an Indult Latin Mass Society. What do you make of that? The situation has changed after Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae have been promulgated. Tradition can now make inroads into many dioceses and to the extent St. Peter's Fraternity or the Institute of Christ the King can help in that, the SSPX feels no need to condemn them totally. The SSPX's end goal remains that parishes and dioceses should become TLM-only, swear the Oath against Modernism, and believe the whole Catholic Faith, preserving Catholic Communion.

Young man, you are delusional:

Not only did Michael Davies abandon Archbishop Lefebvre at the 1988 consecrations -ending any collaboration between the two- but +Lefebvre condemned the indult movement roundly.

Here is Archbishop Lefebvre two years after the consecrations, telling you what he thinks of the indult.  It is almost as if the Archbishop is addressing you personally, Xavier:

"And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor's field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says"—but they are betraying us—betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.

Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.

Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that's the right kind of ecumenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?

This is what causes us a problem with certain layfolk, who are very nice, very good people, all for the Society, who accepted the Consecrations, but who have a kind of deep-down regret that they are no longer with the people they used to be with, people who did not accept the Consecrations and who are now against us. "It's a pity we are divided", they say, "why not meet up with them? Let's go and have a drink together, reach out a hand to them"—that's a betrayal! Those saying this give the impression that at the drop of a hat they would cross over and join those who left us. They must make up their minds."
http://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations (http://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations)

I understand it is embarrassing for you to see the neo-SSPX's so flagrantly contradict their founder, but perhaps you are one of those indulters diluting tradition and traditional resistance who only came to the SSPX precisely because of the recent contradictions?
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: XavierSem on May 31, 2019, 07:24:33 AM
Neither I nor the SSPX agrees with Davies on everything. Neither did Archbishop Lefebvre. But Davies wrote Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/ (http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/) SSPX District of Asia has had that book up for decades.

The two situations are not comparable at all. Some original FSSPers were anti-SSPXers trying to draw faithful away from the Society. That's why +ABL said that.

And also, you are ignoring the difference between:

Scenario I: Tradition established already - FSSP trying to lead faithful away from SSPX (as in 1988, and sometimes even after that) - everyone going back to the Novus Ordo and Tradition closing down. That is bad and the SSPX has always deplored it and still does.

Scenario II: Tradition not established in the diocese - FSSP enters this diocese and leads some Catholics to Tradition - some parishes later become TLM only, and some are even sold to the SSPX. That is something good and this scenario is entirely different from the first.

I showed you an article from the SSPX Site clearly defending the saintliness of Archbishop of Lefebvre and explaining the rationale for the episcopal consecrations; and also proving, from Rome's own canonists and theologians themselves, that there is no schism at all in creating an Auxiliary Bishop. Archbishop Lefebvre understood the theology here perfectly, and H.G said clearly it was not conferring jurisdiction. Some in Rome thought this is schism, but when their own canonists said differently, they had to correct themselves. There was no schism, no denial of Papal authority, no attempt to confer habitual jurisdiction. Only the Consecration of 4 Auxiliaries.

If a Bishop tries to confer Ordinary Jurisdiction on another Bishop, he is trying to do something only the Pope can do. Saintly Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly said H.G. was not doing that, and could not do that - since only the Pope could do it, only the Pope can confer Ordinary Jurisdiction - and said a Pope would confirm the Auxiliary Bishops he consecrated in future, and they would become Ordinaries. That prophetic statement came true in 2015, as Bishop Fellay has explained. https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/ordinary-jurisdiction-for-the-year-of-mercy-bishop-fellay-says/ (https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/ordinary-jurisdiction-for-the-year-of-mercy-bishop-fellay-says/)

You claimed earlier the SSPX has "A belief Lefebvre died an excommunicate". Do you stand by that claim in the light of this article? ""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. ordinary 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 (https://fsspx.org/en/sspx%E2%80%99s-bishops)

The situation has changed after Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. After 2011, there are many more instance of Scenario II than of I.

So the Society's approach is justified. This is a prudential matter, not a question of Faith, and it's up to the Superior General and General Chapter to decide what is the best course of action that prudence demands in any concrete situation. They have judged Indult need not be condemned in every case, but only in Scenario I above.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: X on May 31, 2019, 08:32:46 AM
Neither I nor the SSPX agrees with Davies on everything. Neither did Archbishop Lefebvre. But Davies wrote Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/ (http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/) SSPX District of Asia has had that book up for decades.

The two situations are not comparable at all. Some original FSSPers were anti-SSPXers trying to draw faithful away from the Society. That's why +ABL said that.

And also, you are ignoring the difference between:

Scenario I: Tradition established already - FSSP trying to lead faithful away from SSPX (as in 1988, and sometimes even after that) - everyone going back to the Novus Ordo and Tradition closing down. That is bad and the SSPX has always deplored it and still does.

Scenario II: Tradition not established in the diocese - FSSP enters this diocese and leads some Catholics to Tradition - some parishes later become TLM only, and some are even sold to the SSPX. That is something good and this scenario is entirely different from the first.

I showed you an article from the SSPX Site clearly defending the saintliness of Archbishop of Lefebvre and explaining the rationale for the episcopal consecrations; and also proving, from Rome's own canonists and theologians themselves, that there is no schism at all in creating an Auxiliary Bishop. Archbishop Lefebvre understood the theology here perfectly, and H.G said clearly it was not conferring jurisdiction. Some in Rome thought this is schism, but when their own canonists said differently, they had to correct themselves. There was no schism, no denial of Papal authority, no attempt to confer habitual jurisdiction. Only the Consecration of 4 Auxiliaries.

If a Bishop tries to confer Ordinary Jurisdiction on another Bishop, he is trying to do something only the Pope can do. Saintly Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly said H.G. was not doing that, and could not do that - since only the Pope could do it, only the Pope can confer Ordinary Jurisdiction - and said a Pope would confirm the Auxiliary Bishops he consecrated in future, and they would become Ordinaries. That prophetic statement came true in 2015, as Bishop Fellay has explained. https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/ordinary-jurisdiction-for-the-year-of-mercy-bishop-fellay-says/ (https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/ordinary-jurisdiction-for-the-year-of-mercy-bishop-fellay-says/)

You claimed earlier the SSPX has "A belief Lefebvre died an excommunicate". Do you stand by that claim in the light of this article? ""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. ordinary 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 (https://fsspx.org/en/sspx%E2%80%99s-bishops)

The situation has changed after Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. After 2011, there are many more instance of Scenario II than of I.

So the Society's approach is justified. This is a prudential matter, not a question of Faith, and it's up to the Superior General and General Chapter to decide what is the best course of action that prudence demands in any concrete situation. They have judged Indult need not be condemned in every case, but only in Scenario I above.

Son,

Will you be offended if I observe that between your meandering mind, historical ignorance, and ralliement indoctrination, that you are not in my class, and do yourself a better service by remaining quiet?

1) Apologia was written in the 1970s, and has no bearing on ABLF’s condemnation of the indult groups which arise 15 years later;

2) ABLF condemned the indult groups because they accepted and promoted conciliar doctrine, and because they abandoned the fight for the restoration of Tradition by seeking their own (misperceived) particular good over the general good of the Church.  You might want to read your former superior general’s Letter #63 before you continue embarrassing yourself;

3) Your paragraphs 5-7 are non-sequiturs, and I have no idea why you supplied them, though I would encourage you to reflect upon them;

4) As regards par. 8, again, why are you quoting this to me?  You should be quoting this to Menzingen, since it is they who seem to fear for their canonical status and being perceived as schismatic.

The only situation which has changed is the rejection of Archbishop Lefebvre’s posture towards apostate Rome.

Quite honestly, I am offended someone as inept as yourself would dare to engage me in these matters.

You are an enthusiastic but blinded child, and evince incredible incomprehension.

You are the perfect SSPX candidate for priesthood.

Please don’t bother me again.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 31, 2019, 09:25:19 AM
Quote
Scenario II: Tradition not established in the diocese - FSSP enters this diocese and leads some Catholics to the Traditional Mass but not the True Faith - some parishes later become TLM only, and some are even sold to the SSPX. That is something good and this scenario is entirely different from the first.
Fixed this scenario for you.  The problem that you fail to recognize is that both the FSSP and SSPX accept V2's errors, therefore they are NOT traditional in their Faith, but only in their liturgy.  Much like the early Anglicans under King Henry VIII who had the same liturgy as true catholics but yet were heretics by rejecting the pope, the FSSP and the SSPX appear traditional in their liturgy, but are heretics for accepting the heresies of V2 and the new mass.  The Liturgy /=/ The Faith.  The Faith > Liturgy.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Stanley N on May 31, 2019, 09:49:13 AM
The problem that you fail to recognize is that both the FSSP and SSPX accept V2's errors, therefore they are NOT traditional in their Faith, but only in their liturgy.  
The SSPX was compromised more than 20 years ago, but nevertheless, I' wasn't aware it is now teaching religious liberty, ecumenism, indifferentism, or collegiality. When did they start doing that?

The FFSP has even more problems, but even in their weak position, I'm not sure that even they teach those things.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 31, 2019, 10:38:23 AM
St Thomas More said:  "Silence gives consent."  Silence is one of the 9 ways you are an accessory to a sin.  Both the SSPX and FSSP silently accept V2 because they do not preach against it.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: hollingsworth on May 31, 2019, 11:06:36 AM
PV:
Quote
St Thomas More said:  "Silence gives consent."  Silence is one of the 9 ways you are an accessory to a sin.  Both the SSPX and FSSP silently accept V2 because they do not preach against it.

Exactly!
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Stanley N on May 31, 2019, 04:12:06 PM
St Thomas More said:  "Silence gives consent."  Silence is one of the 9 ways you are an accessory to a sin.  Both the SSPX and FSSP silently accept V2 because they do not preach against it.
I'll take your word for it that neither of them ever preach against V2 errors. You probably know better than I do.

But I haven't said anything against some heresies in a long while. Doesn't mean I accept them.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: claudel on May 31, 2019, 05:08:30 PM
St Thomas More said: "Silence gives consent." …

The quoted sentence is a sorry example of what results when someone gets his knowledge, what little there is of it, from movies.

The plain fact is that "silence gives consent" is a principle in English common law,* not in morals, theology, or any other category remotely relevant to the present discussion. From Pax Vobis's distasteful assumption otherwise, it would necessarily follow that everyone here who does not repeatedly assert his disapproval of murder, rape, or poor personal hygiene is suspect of being at least sympathetic to it.
___________
*Or at least it was in St. Thomas's time, although then, as it still does now, principle yielded to power with tedious regularity.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 31, 2019, 07:13:15 PM
Silence is one of the 9 ways of being an accessory to sin, and is part of the moral law.  You can ignore the St Thomas quote; doesn’t change anything. 
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: claudel on May 31, 2019, 10:34:21 PM
Silence is one of the 9 ways of being an accessory to sin, and is part of the moral law.  You can ignore the St Thomas quote; doesn’t change anything.

If the quote can be ignored, as indeed it can, what is your excuse for using it to cudgel other commenters?

Moreover, your implication that silence's sole or primary function is as "an accessory to sin" is disingenuous—that being the politest thing to be said for it. Should we look forward to seeing you declare that you have renounced using a knife to cut your food because knives are used to kill?
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 31, 2019, 11:48:02 PM
Not all silence is bad; never said it was.  Silence in denouncing error is bad.  The new-sspx practices this type of silence.  The FSSP has always practiced it.  
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: XavierSem on June 03, 2019, 07:01:48 AM
No, Mr. X, I am not offended by any honest but mistaken claims. But given the haughty tone you adopt, you may want to reread Proverbs 16:18 in your Bible, and meditate on why Sacred Scripture says, "Pride goeth before destruction: and the spirit is lifted up before a fall." and why the Mother of God says, "He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble." (Luk 1:52)

Here's a simple one line challenge to any Resistance person: Prove that the SSPX denies even one doctrine or dogma of Faith. If you could do this, you would not need 101 non sequiturs. It is incredible that some of you, absurdly, have gone so far as to attack the SSPX as heretics, and in light of "silence is consent", presumably those who were "silent" after Pax Vobis posted that "consent".

This challenge is especially to you, Pax Vobis, since you have no scruple in making an accusation that is calumny and slander: that SSPX Traditional Catholic Priests are allegedly heretics. Name the Dogma of Faith that they allegedly deny.

Pax claimed, "Much like the early Anglicans under King Henry VIII who had the same liturgy as true catholics but yet were heretics by rejecting the pope, the FSSP and the SSPX appear traditional in their liturgy, but are heretics for accepting the heresies of V2 and the new mass."

First: If someone becomes a heretic for rejecting the Pope (why didn't you say, Anglicans were heretics for denying the dogmas of (1) Transubstantiation, (2) the Real Presence, (3) the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass, (4) Purgatory etc - maybe you meant (5) dogma of the Papacy?), then sedes are in greatest danger of becoming heretics. Yet you have fallen for that danger yourself, rejecting 6 Popes for 60+ years as having no authority.

Second, name the Dogma of Faith that is allegedly being denied by the Society. When someone denies a Dogma, it will be very clear. Arians denied the Dogma of the Divinity of Christ. Orthodox deny the Dogma of the Filioque. Name the Dogma.

To say a Society that swears by and would die for the Oath against Modernism has gone Modernist is a false accusation. It is like saying those who are would be ready to die to keep the Dogma defined at Nicaea even unto death have allegedly gone Arian.

I debated whether or not to respond to X's Haughty Post; I do so only for the sake of completion. Lest "silence be consent".

Quote from: X
1) Apologia was written in the 1970s, and has no bearing on ABLF’s condemnation of the indult groups which arise 15 years later;
15 years later? Do you want to advertise the fact that you have neither read the book nor done due diligence on your claims? Even a cursory flip through the book in the SSPX Asia link I gave you would reveal for e.g. a Chapter, like Chapter 11, The Ordinations of 29 June 1976. In fact, the foreword to Volume 1 was written and the book was published by Angelus Press in the year 1979. Volume 2 was published by Angelus Press in 1983. 15 years later? You may want to check your math, Mr. X.

Quote
4) As regards par. 8, again, why are you quoting this to me?  You should be quoting this to Menzingen, since it is they who seem to fear for their canonical status and being perceived as schismatic.
Go back and reread your post which is reply #39 on this thread. Among many other absurdities, you claimed the SSPX now has "A belief Lefebvre died an excommunicate". That's why I showed you an article from the SSPX's own website that proved otherwise.

Your statement that I should "be quoting this to Menzingen" is just transparent debate rhetoric. SSPX Authorities obviously approved the article, seeing that it was on the SSPX site. The authorities quoted there explained the theology that I alluded to.

I have no interest in debating for the sake of debating. I don't intend to and won't dedicate the rest of my life to a fraternity I believe is not doing God's Will, let alone allegedly actively opposing it for some human motive. The SSPX is not like what is alleged here at all. I see signal graces and obvious divine fruits in the Society every other week. I could tell some from my own experience. But what Bp. Fellay has publicly said - of the Catholic praying to Our Lady of Gaudalupe led to the SSPX - should be enough. You are obviously committed to your Resistance cause. I bear you no grudge and I wish you well. This will be my last post on CI for a while.

Fare well, X. I will pray for you, and all here on CI. Time will tell who is right. I'll leave this post for posterity. In 10 years, here's what I expect: (1) the SSPX will have over 1000 Priests, (2) every elected Superior General of the Society will take the Oath against Modernism (3) and despite some of you minimizing the importance of the TLM in keeping the Faith, lex orandi,lex credendi, the SSPX will continue offering the TLM exclusively.

Thus, all dangers will be removed; the danger of falling into (i) doctrinal or (ii) liturgical modernism; and (iii) that of not taking the duty of Catholic Restoration seriously. Writing continuous polemics against the Society's Work, I should remind some of you, really does nothing to further the goal of Catholic Restoration, either in Rome or the wider Church. This kind of "Tradition" risks becoming an exercise in self-justification rather than an apostolate undertaken for love of God and for souls.

Instead, the SSPX will continue to serve God faithfully, and by the Grace of God, we hope, will help millions more souls go to Heaven. If I am mistaken on (1) or (2) or (3), I will make it a point to return here and retract. Can any Resistance person make a similar prediction? Some have claimed Priests of the SSPX will begin to offer the New Mass soon. Those who rebelled against +ABL to start the SSPV claimed this in 1983 (+ABL mentioned it in a sermon that year), it was wrong then and 36 years have proved it to be still wrong to claim that. Some Resistants claimed it after 2012, it still has not come to pass.

Will it ever? No, by the Grace of God, we pray it will not. The SSPX is true to the Faith, to the Mass, and to the Church. We know Saintly Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society were chosen by God from the beginning and hope, by His Grace, to persevere till the end.
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Mega-fin on June 03, 2019, 11:14:01 AM
XavierSam, I’m not sure that you see the Resistance for what it is. The FSSP teaches St Thomas Aquinas in their seminaries and says the Latin Mass. And yet, the SSPX of old and Archbishop Lefebvre denounced them as traitors, because they are. They want the conciliar bishops, as the SSPX now does, they think that they need the bishops approval, the approval of the conciliar popes. They have put themselves under the bishops and they have their hands tied. How much better would it fair for the Society? Do we really expect the bishops to leave them alone? In the acts of the General chapter, it mentioned freedom from the bishops as far as possible, whatever does THAT mean? As far as possible? So the bishop wants to say Mass at a Society church, could they, would they say no? Would they allow the bishop that they have achieved “full Communion” with the say Mass? In England, they just had the heretic bishop who prays with Muslims to say the Rosary with the children who in turn thanked him for his visit with a spiritual bouquet, not for his conversion! And the priest tells the children, he’s a nice man, not a bad bishop. He says the new Mass gives Communion in the hand, preaches V2! This is the problem, not that they say anything heretical, but as they no longer denounce error, that is the real danger.
These are documented changes that have happened, and whether or not it’s heresy isn’t the point here. The Society has turned its back on their founder who gave them the clear and concise view: no practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement. But that isn’t necessary, we don’t need to wait for Rome to convert, they will recognize us! But will we recognize Rome? Rome is irregular, not tradition. The only agreement that needs to happen is for Rome to return to the faith, NOT the Society. But tell a man he’s irregular and he has to sort out the irregularity. The SSPX has been gas lighted and fallen hook line and sinker. We’re irregular because the Pope doesn’t formally recognize us! Oh my! No the problem is the Pope doesn’t recognize the Catholic faith which we are bound by God under pain of loosing our immortal soul to keep. 
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Mega-fin on June 03, 2019, 04:57:55 PM
But, if you want to talk doctrine, let’s talk doctrine. What makes us Catholic? Three things:

1. The Catholic Faith
2. The Catholic Sacraments
3. The Catholic Hierarchy

Yes. The hierarchy is in the list, but it’s number three. And number three doesn’t have number one, and only doubtfully number two, so can those who occupy the places of number three really be Catholic?

We remove ourselves from the Catholic Faith three ways:

1. Heresy
2. Schism 
3. Apostasy

Where is conciliar Rome innocent in this list? They’re not.

“Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987)

Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: hollingsworth on June 03, 2019, 05:50:19 PM


Quote
Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987)

Tough words from the SSPX founder over thirty years ago. So has anything changed in those 30 years? Because doubtlessly, SSPX seeks rapprochement with Rome. That’s what the ‘re-branding’ was all about. That’s what GREC was all about. Obviously, SSPX is still in serious negotiations with Rome, even as we write. Clearly, the Hounder affair indicates SSPX willingness to make a Roman bishop part of their establishment. Indisputably, SSPX has allowed diocesan bishops to approve and participate in the sacramental life of the Society. +Fellay’s opposition to the publication of 219 of ++Lefebvre’s early sermons proves to my satisfaction that Fellay & Co. do not want those sermons to in any way influence the present Rome-ward course which the Society has set.

Don’t blame me and others for growing a bit impatient over the endless diatribes of the likes of Xavier Sem and X, though both seem to occupy opposite ends on the discussion spectrum. The fact is, ++Lefebvre summarized the situation in a few pithy sentences in 1987. We don’t need reams and reams of additional written material in order to somehow adjust our thinking about the real situation. We know what it is already. ++Lefebvre explained unequivocally what it was years ago. Nothing has changed. (And besides the quote above, one can easily find several others from ABL which match it.)

Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: Mega-fin on June 03, 2019, 06:09:51 PM

Tough words from the SSPX founder over thirty years ago. So has anything changed in those 30 years? Because doubtlessly, SSPX seeks rapprochement with Rome. That’s what the ‘re-branding’ was all about. That’s what GREC was all about. Obviously, SSPX is still in serious negotiations with Rome, even as we write. Clearly, the Hounder affair indicates SSPX willingness to make a Roman bishop part of their establishment. Indisputably, SSPX has allowed diocesan bishops to approve and participate in the sacramental life of the Society. +Fellay’s opposition to the publication of 219 of ++Lefebvre’s early sermons proves to my satisfaction that Fellay & Co. do not want those sermons to in any way influence the present Rome-ward course which the Society has set.

Don’t blame me and others for growing a bit impatient over the endless diatribes of the likes of Xavier Sem and X, though both seem to occupy opposite ends on the discussion spectrum. The fact is, ++Lefebvre summarized the situation in a few pithy sentences in 1987. We don’t need reams and reams of additional written material in order to somehow adjust our thinking about the real situation. We know what it is already. ++Lefebvre explained unequivocally what it was years ago. Nothing has changed. (And besides the quote above, one can easily find several others from ABL which match it.)
theres quite a few, especially the one year after the consecrations, two years after the consecrations and his last interview in Fidelitier. 
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: hollingsworth on June 03, 2019, 07:12:05 PM

Quote
Mega: (There are quite a few,) especially the one year after the consecrations, two years after the consecrations and his last interview in Fidelitier.
Yeah, we know.  So why do we allow ourselves to be drawn into endless discussions about it?
This is not the SSPX, which was under the leadership of its founder, Marcel Lefebvre?  We all know what it was, and why the Society was established in the beginning?  We should all know this, and should simply admit and acknowledge that the Society today is not what it was yesterday.  The original mission has been all but abandoned.  SSPX is a pretty wealthy, religious corporation, with lots of physical and financial assets, whose real allegiance is not to the Catholic faithful, but in all likelihood, to the Rothchilds.  This to me is just basic Neo-SSPX 101.  
Title: Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 03, 2019, 07:20:09 PM
Yeah, we know.  So why do we allow ourselves to be drawn into endless discussions about it?
This is not the SSPX, which was under the leadership of its founder, Marcel Lefebvre?  We all know what it was, and why the Society was established in the beginning?  We should all know this, and should simply admit and acknowledge that the Society today is not what it was yesterday.  The original mission has been all but abandoned.  SSPX is a pretty wealthy, religious corporation, with lots of physical and financial assets, whose real allegiance is not to the Catholic faithful, but in all likelihood, to the Rothchilds.  This to me is just basic Neo-SSPX 101.  

Howlingsworth-

Please stifle these long diatribes.  I could only make it 1/3 of the way through it.  We all know about the Jews.  We don't need endless discussion of it.  Someone get me a glass of water.

:baby: