I must admit, I've been  to the Diocessan Latin Mass about three times in the past year.  The priest gave a fiery sermon about Vatican I and papal infallibility.  He said that no matter how much the Pope desires it, he does not have the authority to allow those from broken marriages to receive hHoly Communion.  He said that AL was not to be listened to and that Catholics needed to be cautious about what this Pope says and teaches...and why.  In three years I have not heard the SSPX priest say a single word warning Catholics about this pope or about AL.  Seems like the Diocesan priest is giving more "meat and potatoes " than the SSPX

I must admit, I've been  to the Diocessan Latin Mass about three times in the past year.  The priest gave a fiery sermon about Vatican I and papal infallibility.  He said that no matter how much the Pope desires it, he does not have the authority to allow those from broken marriages to receive hHoly Communion.  He said that AL was not to be listened to and that Catholics needed to be cautious about what this Pope says and teaches...and why.  In three years I have not heard the SSPX priest say a single word warning Catholics about this pope or about AL.  Seems like the Diocesan priest is giving more "meat and potatoes " than the SSPX

With the coming sell-out of the SSPX, I think we are going to see a re-alignment of Traditional Catholic groups and persons. That is, those who still have the faith in the Indult/FSSP* or even the Novus Ordo*, are either going to end up in the Resistance (or what it becomes), or Sedevacantism. The latter, at the present time is better organized and can sense the torch of Tradition is being passed to them.


*There's a real possibility however, that many will many will be lost to Protestantism, "Orthodoxy," or something else.

Songbird. What are you talking about?  The point is that priests from "indult  groups" are sounding more "Traditional " than SSPX priests.

Very good critique, Arsenius! I would say you hit the nail on the head.

If there is only one reason I can give for personal support of the "Resistance," is that we are forbidden to attend Mass at a schismatic church. Without going deep into details, it should be obvious that as long as the Pope wants to head the Conciliar church and not the Catholic Church he is schismatic and anyone in league/bending to his immoral directives is also schismatic. Therefore, as the SSPX no longer actively is opposing VII as an institution, and is even trying to join the structure of the Conciliarists, they also are schismatics, whether the priests and laity want it or not! I would also level this accusation against the FSSP and other such groups.

It seems the best way around that problem is to leave the structure altogether but, at the same time, it is not good to work ouside the official Church structure since the Conciliarists are still the Roman Hierarchy, even if they are to be considered as schismatics.

It is taught in the Baltimore Catechism that if your superiors (i.e. proper authorities) are telling you to do something contrairy to morals, it is then proper to ignore or even separate one's self from them. It is even in the 83 Code of Canon Law, no? Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

It is not something I am not supposed to repeat but, Fr. Zendejas was himself being told not to preach against a certain problem as it was upsetting some people. Supposedly he was given the boot because he could/would  not comply. A religious still with the SSPX said that sometimes when priests get kicked out of the Society, the higher-ups ask them to turn in a written resignation. He told me the reason Fr. says he resigned and not ousted might be to save everyone on both end some trouble... and it would be true too.

What do these priests do who can no longer follow their superiors orders and no other Bishop wants them in the diocese? I once asked an SSPX priest what he thought about a priest who was kicked out of his parish and could not get incardination in another diocese. What if the Bishop does not want him and the SSPX does not want him? The reply was that he must have done something wrong.

I can't see that being true of priests like Fr. Zendejas ond others like him. Presuming the Resistance did not exist, what would you suggest they do? I personally think that the situations would still turn out the way they have no matter what.

No matter what position I look at they all have pros and cons. They all have some point that seems to have a hole in it, whether they be Resistance, SSPX, FSSP etc. I don't think the Resistance will save the world like some seem to but, I'm sure these outcast clerics can, do and will do the right thing to the best they are capable. Only God can save the Church, not some team of bishops scattered across the Earth. The problems with tradition (and obviously the Resistance) amnd the Church as a whole probably shall not be regulated until the Consecrasion of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Mary said it shall happen, but it will be late...

All these problems are a real headache! We mist pray for a good Pope who shall straighten things out.

Arsenius, you are wrong about the "sentimentalism". I'm not for giving everyone (winner and loser) a medal. That's liberal nonsense.

I got that idea about God from Cardinal Pie -- or perhaps you're superior to (and judgmental of) him as well?

Even though you haven't even reached your 30th year.

I repeat with Sean Johnson -- who are you to say that Fr. Zendejas has "little Thomism under his belt"? Have you quizzed him, or what? And what makes you qualified to be the professor, to judge Fr. Zendejas as a student? Do you have a PhD in Thomistic philosophy or something? I seriously doubt it.

You only graduated from college a couple years ago, and your degree was in Music was it not?

And how can you claim to be any kind of voice or expert in things Ecclesiastical, when you haven't even spent time at a Traditional seminary? Much less graduated from one as a priest...

One's involvement can only escape the level of "superficial" by a few millimeters unless one gives up his whole secular life and dedicates one or more years to dedicated prayer and study -- as a religious or seminarian.


There is no substitute for such complete dedication. That is why the Council of Trent ordered that from now on, priests would have to be formed in special foundations called "seminaries".

It really bothers me when newbies to Tradition presume to criticize (and place themselves, and their judgment, above) those who have fought in the trenches for decades.

All things being equal, a 30 year veteran is going to be superior to a 1-year newbie. There are exceptions to this, but the exception proves the rule.

Student of Qi, thank you for the thoughtful response.

Here are some problems I see within it:

(1) Vatican 2, as a Council, is not something that can/must/should be rejected or accepted in its totality. If one actually reads through the Council Docuмents, one will find that even the Conciliarists don't "accept" Vatican 2 in its totality. If they actually followed what the Council Docuмents recommends the Novus Ordo wouldn't look anything like the way it did in the 70s. Archbishop Lefebvre himself didn't see any problems with entire sections of the Council Docuмents. The concept of Vatican 2 as a homogeneous, heretical Colossus that must either be rejected or accepted "as is" isn't traditional. Unless a dogma is being defined, there's nothing that one *must* believe. The people we call Conciliarists themselves only cling to whichever ambiguous parts of the Council allegedly support their positions. Now, does that mean Vatican 2, or rather that which is called the "Spirit of Vatican 2" *shouldn't* be resisted? Not at all. Resist away, but there's no point in exaggerating the situation. Someone could say, "I agree with  70% of Vatican 2" and be an orthodox Catholic (i.e. because he agrees with the majority of the Council Docuмents which are boring and exasperatingly orthodox); someone could say "I reject 90% of Vatican 2" and be a raving Modernist.

(2) If the pope and everyone that recognizes his authority is *de jure* schismatic, the Church will have completely failed. That doesn't exclude the possibility that many bishops and, possibly even this pope, either flirt dangerously close to schism or even fall into it. However, it's likely that most cases are matters of "de facto" schism, i.e. non-official. it's the same issue with manifest vs. implicit heresy. These are complex legal issues, which I certainly don't comprehend fully. I don't that either you or I can honestly say with 100% certainty who and who isn't schismatic. If it you premise was totally true in its entirety, over 90% of Catholics would never have access to licit sacraments. Bishop Williamson recommended attending the Novus Ordo if that was all that one had. I'm not sure if he's since recanted that statement, but it *was* made. That would go directly against the view that you can't attend masses which recognize the pope's authority. You would essentially be negating even the Resistance's own principles because they still offer mass "una cuм".  

(3) I prefer to "ignore" and "separate" from the idiocy simply by not going out of my way to indulge it. I don't run into any of these problems at the FSSP and have hardly ever encountered them at Diocesan TLM. I'm rather cosmopolitan when it comes to where I attend Mass. Convenience is usually the deciding factor. If there is daily mass available at a solid FSSP parish with good priests, I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to attend mass occasionally at a Resistance chapel hours away - that is assuming there is even one available. Hopping on board the Resistance-only train is consigning yourself to a life of Sacramental desiccation. You see the total disintegration of the liturgical life which completely permeated life during the Middle Ages; you cut yourself off from the motions of liturgical seasons which the Church in her infinite wisdom has ordained to silently and slowly transform the souls, bodies, and minds of the faithful to become like unto Christ. You *need* smells and bells. Anyone who says otherwise is a Puritan. It's not merely an aesthetic or symbolic preference. The externals not only make manifest the interior, they also help to form it. Who has a better understanding of the spirit of Catholic liturgy? Resistance folk raised on low mass or understaffed high masses with electric keyboard and bad/out of tune singing or the faithful of Westminster Cathedral (Novus Ordo) who hear their all male choir sing through 1,000 years of Catholic musical-cultural heritage every Sunday? When/if the day comes for the Resistance to "restore" the Church, I'm afraid they will be like cavemen crawling out from their subterranean catacombs, blinded by the magnificence of the sun. I'm afraid *they* will be the ones that need to accustom themselves to the way things ought to be done. Now, all that was a bit tangential, but you get the point. Let's put music aside. What about basic and ancient devotions like First Friday, First Saturday? Important feasts that fall during the week - Ash Wednesday. Even Holy Week - Holy Thursday at Night, Good Friday at 3pm, the Easter Vigil at midnight? You start chipping away at those things and you rob your children of a Catholic formation. Personally, I see no need to live like the Catholics of early modern Japan, cowering in fear and slowly slipping into heresy for want of the sacraments.

(4) Issues involving individual priests need to be taken case by case. I can't judge hearts, and I'm certainly not privy to all the information necessary to make a wise decision. That being said, I know multiple "outcast" priests who are just kinda floating around here and there. Some of them have done nothing wrong, but are merely in weird positions due to a stroke of bad luck (I know one priest who was kicked out of his order after his identity was stolen and the thieves used up quite a bit of funds in his name - he's just living in retirement now). Other priests I'm not so sure. I realize that the SSPX doesn't require a vow of obedience, but I would be very inclined to put the blame on lack of prudence in the case of clerics like Bishop Williamson and Fr. Zendejas. I'll give an example: Williamson *was not wrong* to state his opinion, or rather the historical fact, that six million Jєωs did not die via gas chambers. That doesn't make it prudent to do so on public television with the full knowledge that one's words will be twisted. It certainly doesn't make it prudent to adamantly beat this dead horse year after year and make into something of almost dogmatic significance. I honestly don't care. It has no bearing on my salvation and doesn't make me holier. On top of that, historical records are so convoluted, it wouldn't be possible for laymen like you and I to be absolutely certain on what happened and what didn't. There very well be a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Conspiracy to overthrow the Church. Um....ok? There very well may be multiple communities of Bigfoot living throughout the state of California, seeing that reported sightings of Bigfoot are more common than mountain lion sightings, but what does that have to do with me saving my soul?

(5) I certainly don't say that I have all the answers. Frankly,  I think anyone who says he does needs 10 more years of experience trying to live holy life of rigorous intellectual study and spiritual development. My concern with the Resistance, based on my close interactions with many of the faithful who identify with it, is that it tends towards a solipsistic worldview and spirituality which will ultimately lead to de facto schism. Why do I emphasis the need for a rigorous and broad intellectual foundation? It's not because I'm elitist or look down on the virtues of humility and simplicity. It's because supporters of the Resistance are throwing around some pretty serious views - "them's fightin' words" and you really, really, really, really, really need to be able to back up these assertions with solid arguments based on ecclesiastical history, Sacred Tradition, magisterial docuмents, Patristics, Canon Law, Thomism, etc. On top of that, one should also display a superior level of spiritual progress to show for the superiority of the Resistance position. If you're still flopping around in and out of mortal sin like dying fish, I think there are much more pressing issues you need to take care of before tackling the Crisis in the Church. You can't even begin to comprehend the Crisis in the Church until you've mastered the Crisis within yourself. Here's one example of solipsistic spirituality: I can't count the number of times I've heard people on this forum complain about Fr. So and So's sermon and how this or that sermon, or the lack of this or that sermon, was proof that he was a spiritual danger to the family, comprised with Rome, etc. I call bull. First of all, the sermon is not even a part of the mass (hence the priest removes the maniple, and formerly the chasuble as well). Developing on that point, the sermon wasn't even *included* during mass for many centuries (they either delivered it before or after mass). Second (or is it third?), you cannot simply write off a priest because you didn't like his sermon. People on this forum complain about priests when their sermon doesn't mention Joos and Vatican 2 in every paragraph. You have serious spiritual issues if you aren't content with a sermon that "merely" explicates the Sunday Gospel and offers guidance in the spiritual life. Serious, serious issues. You basically foster the vice of curiosity and the restless spirit of the world when you feel a constant need to hear these rumors and arguments, even when you are in the physical presence of God in the Eucharist. I love controversy. I love history. I love all these juicy conspiracy theories. Let's save it for our free time, chatting with some bud's over dinner and alcohol.

More later, thank you for the thoughtful responses. I will try to continue this friendly dialogue - between Catholic men, brothers in Christ mind you - so long as I have time, and so long as discussion remains productive.

I have attended a major SSPX mass centre on and off for five years - in addition to that, I've also occasionally attended Resistance masses and conferences put on by Bishop Williamson and Fr. Zendejas in the same general area. During those same five years, I also attended the 1962 at diocesan and FSSP locations within the same diocese; I also attended Byzantine Divine Liturgy and passively attended the most reverent Novus Ordo masses available (the NO I attended passively for merely observational purposes). In other words, I immersed myself in the liturgical life of this particular diocese in order to make an objective assessment of the Crisis as contained within this small area of the Church. I found, with almost invariable results, the most educated and well-formed faithful attended FSSP, followed by diocesan TLM/conservative Novus Ordo, followed by SSPX, followed by Resistance. Educated and well-formed refer to the cultivation of a Catholic understanding and spirit both comprehensive and relevant on a daily basis which permeates the life, spiritual, personal, and social of the individual. It can't be explained away as a matter of numbers, but because the Resistance faithful merely broke off from the SSPX community which would have been the bottom of the intellectual totem pole had the Resistance not broken off. The SSPX and FSSP communities are essentially of equal size.

Why is this even important? One has to wonder - what is the Traditionalist movement ultimately for if not the complete Restoration, liturgical, cultural, and intellectual, of Catholicism in the modern world? The Resistance can't justify itself on the grounds of preserving the Latin Mass because that is already done by priests and entire religious orders around the world. The Institute of Christ the King (Indult) even goes as far as to use the pre-Pian Holy Week. The liturgy offered at the Resistance chapel pales in comparison to that of the SSPX, which in turn pales in comparison to the "smells and bells" of the Diocesan TLM. The Resistance, to hold any water, must stand for something greater. Ideally, it ought to represent a battlefront of Catholic culture. Does it do so? Not by a long shot. I wouldn't even call it the front-lines. Hardly anyone is aware or cares about the Resistance outside the relatively small circle of Resistance faithful and paranoid SSPX priests. I might be wrong on this, but I'm not even sure if Rome has bothered to publicly excommunicate against Williamson, Faure, and Tomas Aquinas like it did with Lefebvre and the original four. The Resistance has become a backwater group of puffed up rustics thinking they are the Remnant of Western Christendom. On a practical and fundamental level, the Resistance can't possibly even contribute significantly to the Catholic Restoration based solely on numbers. Restoration implies the rejuvenation of entire swaths of Christendoms on the level of countries and dioceses. In a sense, as Sire argues, the seeds of Restoration have already sprouted within the ranks of the approved traditionalist groups (which, contrary to biases promoted here, are often very vocal in their criticisms of the Conciliar establishment).

You hold too high a view of the FSSP/ICKSP/Ecclesia Dei. For one, you are used to the American FSSP and not the European FSSP which has openly defended Vatican II and Assisi Ecuмenism. The ICKSP on the other hand does not keep its young people as many go back the the Novus Ordo. That's the logical conclusion of Summorum Pontificuм too; if the Tridentine Mass (& Faith) and the Novus Ordo are equal, and equality implies equivalence, then who wouldn't take the golden escalator to heaven that is the NO? Why go through with all this extra traditional Catholic stuff when the conciliarist tells me I don't have to bother or worry. I'm ok, you're ok.

The are other issues the Indult as well such as the lack validity due to the NREC, the mentality it creates, and that it appears to be an Anglo-Germanic-Frankish phenomena, with almost no presence outside of those areas.

You should also keep in mind the Resistance is still young and may produce an intellectual powerhouse at some point in the future. It is also why it would be a good idea to consecrate Fr. Chazal at some point.

Quote from: Matthew

Being an ivory-tower intellectual isn't everything.

I'm sure Steven Hawking has a high IQ. So did Carl Sagan. And today there are plenty of other atheists and modern idiots who can boast a high IQ and/or high education.

But that doesn't equal wisdom, much less mastery of the Science of the Saints. We need down-to-earth men; men with their feet on the ground, firmly rooted in reality. We need REALITY in today's unreal world. We need wisdom, not more men with their heads in the clouds.

The issue is not a matter of holding a university degree or worldly recognition of one's intellectual prowess. The fact of the matter is, how can even define "REALITY" without a grounding in Thomistic principles? The Church has always emphasized the need to preserve and transmit Classical Philosophy, the need to dialogue with the ancients. This complete disregard for intellectual cultivation reeks of American anti-intellectualism grown in the barren soil of Puritanism.

How about pointing out how lack of Thomism was one of the reasons that led the SSPX on the path to New Rome? Yet, for some who says "Thomism" you don't seem to be aware of this. Only Bishop Williamson from what I have read, understands the nature-grace natura pura issue(s). The other SSPX Bishops either haven't mention it or do not appear too. In fact, I have read and seen Neo-SSPX priests articulate a view of nature and grace that is far closer to the Nouvelle Théologie.

On top of that, one should also display a superior level of spiritual progress to show for the superiority of the Resistance position. If you're still flopping around in and out of mortal sin like dying fish, I think there are much more pressing issues you need to take care of before tackling the Crisis in the Church.

Arsenius, you were not on this forum between 2009 and 2012 when the proto-resistance was pointing out the growing laxity and errors within the SSPX and how this would undermine Tradition. The Slonkier case must also be seen in this larger context. The SSPX's road to Rome went through many sacrilegious communions.