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".
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.
"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."
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:
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:1. Yes, this is precisely the thread for commentary. Comment away!
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.
In fact, the influence of incipient Judaism was probably the main reason that SSPX has fallen so quickly over the last two decades.
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.
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. :)
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."
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.
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?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.)
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 Jєω-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.
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.
It would help me, though, and maybe others, to focus on the message, if I knew a bit more about the messenger.
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.
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!
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-46148The 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?)?
SSPX does not like the waybackmachine :(https://web.archive.org/web/20170430145454/http://sspx.org/en/feminism-harmful-movement)
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)
X,Thank you for your kind and encouraging words, Ave!
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!
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 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.
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.
An Indult TLM is still the TLM. To say otherwise is a stretch.
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!
(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!
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“They are doing the devil’s work.”
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.”Clear, concise, correct.
-Archbishop Lefebvre
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?
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:
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 Pontificuм 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.
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/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/ (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/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 Pontificuм 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.
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.
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, ecuмenism, indifferentism, or collegiality. When did they start doing that?
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.
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.
St Thomas More said: "Silence gives consent." …
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.
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.
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.
“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)
theres quite a few, especially the one year after the consecrations, two years after the consecrations and his last interview in Fidelitier.
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.)
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?
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.