Author Topic: Response to an SSPX Priest - by Sean Johnson (Read 15803 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** November 21, 2015, 12:16:00 AM »

It's too bad Sean Johnson doesn't post on CathInfo anymore, because it was a livelier discussion when he was here. Perhaps he found he was spending too much time defending what he said or something like that. I remember he had opposition.

But this OP is an example of his fine memory and solid defense of the Resistance, and it's well worth it for all CathInfo members to read it. We all have to answer questions from naysayers, not too different from this unnamed priest S.J. is answering above, and we would do well to keep a few of his points in mind just for reference.

Thank you, Matthew for posting this.

Ekim · « **Reply #6 on:** November 21, 2015, 06:53:20 AM »

Man! So concise, spot on, laser pinpoint accuracy! I especially like that it was mentioned that Fr. Pfeiffer is not the Resistance. I have heard people say that the leader of the Resistance is a loose cannon, referring to Fr. Pfeiffer. It is important that it be known that his flavor of Resistance only attracts a small number. The Resistance is much larger than just Fr. Pfeiffer (although it must be recognized that he was the first to boldly sound the alarm, for which we all owe a certain gratitude).

Rest assured that Mr. Johnson's reply will be mailed and forwarded to many SSPX Priests for sure. Thank you Sean and Matthew for making this available. Also, if Fr. XXXX ever replies, please post here if possible. His answers will give insight into the mindset of current SSPX priests as well as a key on how to respond if we should get the same answers from other SSPX priests.

Thanks again and God Bless you both.

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** November 21, 2015, 11:01:57 AM »

I've never heard that one about the frog and the scorpion, but it sure fits!

MariaCatherine · « **Reply #8 on:** November 21, 2015, 11:11:10 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

I've never heard that one about the frog and the scorpion, but it sure fits!

That analogy was used by Fr. Damien Fox, SSPX, in a sermon in 2012. He was immediately sent to St. Cesaire for 're-education'...

Wessex · « **Reply #9 on:** November 21, 2015, 11:18:40 AM »

The feeling I get is that Society members and laity were not and are not resisters in the main. There was plenty of rhetoric but identifying the Church with modern Rome produced that general desire to go only so far in terms of disobedience. Once the Mass was freed and excommunications lifted, this desire would be followed by relief.

The letter is an excellent account of the hardliners' cause but it now must be realised it represents a minority of opinion within the Society and a silent one at that. If the majority is preparing itself for integration, it must surely mean it considers itself to be outside the Church. The righteousness of the argument with Rome has been lost because only a practical agreement is awaited. And the impetus is to get one to avoid accusations of schism. The Society may seem to have turned full circle but was it ever at war with Rome or just an expression of opposition which would fade after a generation?

The Society has mostly been devoured; only its tail is wriggling a bit. Is there anything to resist apart from the modern Roman entity that is swallowing it? I look forward to the day when tradition is freed from its principal distraction and that a real resistance will emerge in its wake.