CathInfo.com

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Wessex

For some time now we have been splitting the SSPX into two camps. We might say the younger generation is now instructing the older generation, or, better, the liberal wing (always in today's leadership positions!) is instructing the conservative wing. Although Rome blocked a well-planned liberal initiative, the Society is still stuck with a liberal management hawking its liberal manifesto, a manifesto that was actually improved from something more horrible at the chapter meeting.

How do district superiors who one by one came out and supported the proposed deal respond a year later with one leg firmly planted inside the conciliar world? If they are true to themselves, they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition. The past tells us that those that have embarked on such a process are more likely to push on rather than backtrack. In this weak state, the leadership of the Society cannot but succuмb to a clever approach from Rome at some future date. But if this happens, with Fr. Cekada's practical eye, the devil will be in the detail of an agreement and unhappy priests could leave along with their congregations. Maybe Rome has anticipated this and does not want the trouble and adverse publicity. Traditionalists are a difficult lot, thankfully!    

Wessex said:

"...they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition."

 :surprised:

There is a manual?

Is it public?

Has it been posted on the internet anywhere?

I was speculating on the existence of one; at the bare minimum the district superiors must have been briefed beforehand when an agreement was on the cards and told to prepare their parishes for the changes anticipated.

Quote from: Wessex

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Wessex

For some time now we have been splitting the SSPX into two camps. We might say the younger generation is now instructing the older generation, or, better, the liberal wing (always in today's leadership positions!) is instructing the conservative wing. Although Rome blocked a well-planned liberal initiative, the Society is still stuck with a liberal management hawking its liberal manifesto, a manifesto that was actually improved from something more horrible at the chapter meeting.

How do district superiors who one by one came out and supported the proposed deal respond a year later with one leg firmly planted inside the conciliar world? If they are true to themselves, they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition. The past tells us that those that have embarked on such a process are more likely to push on rather than backtrack. In this weak state, the leadership of the Society cannot but succuмb to a clever approach from Rome at some future date. But if this happens, with Fr. Cekada's practical eye, the devil will be in the detail of an agreement and unhappy priests could leave along with their congregations. Maybe Rome has anticipated this and does not want the trouble and adverse publicity. Traditionalists are a difficult lot, thankfully!    

Wessex said:

"...they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition."

 :surprised:

There is a manual?

Is it public?

Has it been posted on the internet anywhere?

I was speculating on the existence of one; at the bare minimum the district superiors must have been briefed beforehand when an agreement was on the cards and told to prepare their parishes for the changes anticipated.

Ahh....yes....

Blushing...

Yes, there was a speech by a visiting priest at my parish last year who made a speech about how we musn't talk too much about Jews and Freemasons when all the new people start attending after the deal.