Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on March 28, 2021, 09:46:59 AM
-
It appears that the current pastor of the SSPX chapel in St. Paul, MN will continue the tradcuмenical and conciliar integration process in Minnesota of his last three predecessors:
This morning at the Low Mass, it was announced from the pulpit that there would be a musical performance given by SSPX faithful...at the FSSP chapel in Minneapolis. The bulletin made no mention of this, but one can find a reference to it on the FSSP website, though it makes no mention of the SSPX (https://fsspminneapolis.org/uncategorized/holy-week-2021/).
It is heartbreaking to know that such an announcement could be given without the least fear of backlash. The old-timers apparently have no problem with this, and the young are oblivious to the fact that +Lefebvre had warned against such collaboration with compromised trads thusly:
"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 ecuмenism! 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?"
http://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations
The problem here, of course, is not a mere departure from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, which would be wrong for its own sake. The problem is in the implications and impact of such collaboration:
From the vantage point of the FSSP, such collaboration inculcates within the minds of their faithful that they are really traditional: "Look, even the SSPX does not object to collaborating with us!" Of course, prior to the SSPX ralliement, FSSP pastors never would have allowed an Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Mallerais, or the local SSPX pastor to set foot in their chapels. It is only because of all the compromises and concessions of the SSPX over the last 10+ years that makes such collaboration possible. Moreover, any local SSPX pastor would have scoffed at the mere idea of bringing his faithful to a musical performance at an FSSP chapel.
From the vantage point of the SSPX, these conciliar outreach initiatives prepare the terrain (and minds) for the slow-motion trainwreck of Tradition entering the conciliar church, by eliminating psychological obstacles and barriers to conciliar integration: If the various SSPX and indult chapels have been collaborating for years by visiting each others' chapels, using diocesan retreat houses, and even in some districts, having conciliar priests give sacraments and perform rites for SSPX faithful (e.g., African District), etc., then a legal recognition presents no difficulties at the practical level, and the division between conciliar and traditional clergy and faithful is really, in a certain sense, almost academic.
Perhaps this is why the local chapel in St. Paul can announce in its website in the FAQ's section that: "We are a Catholic chapel in union with Rome that maintains the traditions proper to the Roman Rite of the Church."
https://fsspx.today/chapel/mn-st-paul/fsspx-faqs/
When Bishop Fellay suppressed Fr. Pivert's book ("Our Relations with Rome"), he gave as one of his reasons that the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and his stern opposition to the PCED groups was "counterproductive." Bishop Fellay was departing from the position of his founder, and he did not want the faithful to read the words of +Lefebvre on this point. But what did +Lefebvre say about such initiatives and collaborations?
"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
What is different today, is that this mindset which +Lefebvre called a betrayal not only pertains to the layfolk, but to the SSPX clergy and leadership itself (i.e., It is THEY who are arranging these "betrayals").
No doubt, I would be told that after all, attending a musical performance with the FSSP faithful at their chapel is not as bad as attending their Masses. But I would simply reply that the SSPX clergy themselves attend FSSP/indult Masses (Contrary to several articles still up on their websites), and even invite them to dispense sacraments to their faithful.
But beside that, we have this additional objection from +Lefebvre (speaking of frequenting other venues offering the traditional Mass):
"Yes, there is the Mass. That’s fine, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, contacts before and after, which make you little by little change your ideas. It is therefore a danger and that’s why in general, I think it constitutes part of a whole. One does not merely go to Mass, one frequents a milieu.
There are obviously some people who are attracted by the beautiful ceremonies, who also go to Fontgombault, where they have taken up the old mass again. They are in a climate of ambiguity which to my mind is dangerous. Once one finds oneself in this atmosphere, submitted to the Vatican, subject ultimately to the Council, one ends up by becoming ecuмenical."
http://www.drbo.org/lefebvre.htm
In other words, it doesn't matter that the SSPX "faithful" will not be attending the indult Mass (a practice no longer opposed by the neo-SSPX anyway). They are by this collaboration made to frequent a compromised milieu, designed to further integrate them into conciliar liberalism.
-
I’m confused as to why this is happening.
Doesn’t the SSPX view post conciliar ordinations as being doubtful?
I read an article by Fr. Scott on the SSPX website a while back that espoused this view. There is furthermore another article that has a negative opinion of the FSSP on the SSPX website.
So why would they partake in activities with a group that they are actively hostile to, at least in theory?
Makes no sense.
Really sad to hear either way. Things like this will only drive people to more radical approaches such as Home Aloner Sedevacantism because at some point or another people will perceive compromise in the faith everywhere. If you have the SSPX believing in the usefulness of the above and other such post Lefebvre developments that are nonsense, and Sedevacantist clergy (SSPX & Resistance believe this as well) believing in an implicit BoD that leads to a loophole where practically everyone is saved then where does that leave us? It’s a slippery slope that leads to despair and mistrust of everyone and it’s very depressing.
-
Excellent article you wrote there, Sean! More people need to read this.
I especially liked the words of +ABL. We need to place them before our eyes once in a while, or we're liable to forget. After all, it's not like +ABL is going to come to each one of us anymore. It's not like he's going to say Mass at our local chapel, or offer Confirmations any time soon.
If we don't seek out his writings, we'll eventually forget the words and wisdom of this providential, saintly prelate, sent by God to help preserve a remnant of Catholic Tradition.
-
Really sad to hear either way. Things like this will only drive people to more radical approaches such as Home Aloner Sedevacantism because at some point or another people will perceive compromise in the faith everywhere. If you have the SSPX believing in the usefulness of the above and other such post Lefebvre developments that are nonsense, and Sedevacantist clergy (SSPX & Resistance believe this as well) believing in an implicit BoD that leads to a loophole where practically everyone is saved then where does that leave us? It’s a slippery slope that leads to despair and mistrust of everyone and it’s very depressing.
*YOU* are slipping into despair, and extreme positions like Home Aloner Sedevacantism, and I don't appreciate you promoting your errors and dark clouds here on CathInfo.
It is YOU that have a problem with the Resistance and Bishop Williamson. You better measure your words; this is a pro-Resistance forum, not a Home Aloner or Sedevacantist one. You are a guest here. I'm being "trad-cuмenical" by allowing you to stay.
And you are the one spending way too much time in the Feeneyite subforum. That is on you. You are the picky one who is finding fault and compromise everywhere.
Nice that you see the problem -- too bad you don't apply it to yourself! You need to watch out; you're about a hair's breadth away from losing the Faith altogether. Be warned.
-
*YOU* are slipping into despair, and extreme positions like Home Aloner Sedevacantism, and I don't appreciate you promoting your errors and dark clouds here on CathInfo.
It is YOU that have a problem with the Resistance and Bishop Williamson. You better measure your words; this is a pro-Resistance forum, not a Home Aloner or Sedevacantist one. You are a guest here. I'm being "trad-cuмenical" by allowing you to stay.
And you are the one spending way too much time in the Feeneyite subforum. That is on you. You are the picky one who is finding fault and compromise everywhere.
Nice that you see the problem -- too bad you don't apply it to yourself! You need to watch out; you're about a hair's breadth away from losing the Faith altogether. Be warned.
Home Alonism and Sedevacantism in general are fatal errors. I don’t want to derail the thread with my reasoning for this view, but that is my view just to be clear.
I don’t have a problem with the Resistance or with Bishop Williamson. I am only making an observation that if we are to be fair then when we say the SSPX compromises with certain things because of an action or inaction that has taken place then we must do the same when it comes to other groups. No more no less. No one is perfect.
I appreciate your charity in allowing me to stay even though you perceived that I held to views that are against your own and the forum.
Yes. The EENS issue is something that I have recently been concerned with and maybe it isn’t for the best.
Lastly, it’s not just a perception of compromise, but an equitable judging of the same principles being used to judge the SSPX that I apply to the Resistance and others as well. That is to be charitable, no?
Perhaps I am at fault for being too hasty in viewing things negatively when they ought to be viewed in a more pragmatic way.
I sure hope I never lose the Faith. It’s everything to me. Please keep me in your prayers.
-
Home Alonism and Sedevacantism in general are fatal errors. I don’t want to derail the thread with my reasoning for this view, but that is my view just to be clear.
I don’t have a problem with the Resistance or with Bishop Williamson. I am only making an observation that if we are to be fair then when we say the SSPX compromises with certain things because of an action or inaction that has taken place then we must do the same when it comes to other groups. No more no less. No one is perfect.
I appreciate your charity in allowing me to stay even though you perceived that I held to views that are against your own and the forum.
Yes. The EENS issue is something that I have recently been concerned with and maybe it isn’t for the best.
Lastly, it’s not just a perception of compromise, but an equitable judging of the same principles being used to judge the SSPX that I apply to the Resistance and others as well. That is to be charitable, no?
Perhaps I am at fault for being too hasty in viewing things negatively when they ought to be viewed in a more pragmatic way.
I sure hope I never lose the Faith. It’s everything to me. Please keep me in your prayers.
Hi Louis-
Nobody with good judgment will ever come to the conclusion that there are no faithful priests or groups left, as this would contradict the Church being a visible and indefectible society.
But some may incorrectly reach this conclusion, against their will, if they do not have sound judgment.
Check this out and see what you think:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sean-johnson-pfeifferites-lack-the-virtue-of-euboulia/msg544470/#msg544470 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sean-johnson-pfeifferites-lack-the-virtue-of-euboulia/msg544470/#msg544470)
An example which might imply that judgment is a bit off was your equation of +Williamson’s promotion of Valtorta and the SSPX changes, compromises, and contradictions.
A sound judgment would reason something along these lines:
There is no proportion between the scope, magnitude, and comprehensiveness in the changes/compromises between the two, and therefore my reaction might be different between the two.
Most unbiased reasonable people would not shun a whole group of priests because of a single objectively minor flaw of a single member who has stated many times he does not believe himself to have the authority to bind anyone to his teachings (eg., Many priests might also recommend reading Canterbury Tales, likewise once on the Index, but one who would flee the group of such a priest as being necessary to save him from compromise would not generally be said to be exhibiting sound judgment).
One with sound judgment might also recall Archbishop Lefebvre being aware of Fr. Barrielle promoting this book, and Lefebvre warning against the dangers of these “too human” depictions of Our Lord, while recalling Lefebvre never forced him to recant, much less expelling him.
I could go on in this fashion, but you get the point:
Any time you feel/fear you are being led into a home alone/ecclesiavacantist direction, it is a sign you have not judged the matter correctly.
Anyway, I just wanted to provide you (and others) the link above.
Hope you have a blessed Holy Week.
Sean
-
Even if Bishop Williamson personally was in error about something like Maria Valtorta (which I will not concede, but let's pass over it for now), it wouldn't mean I have to stop supporting him. Especially since he does NOT require his "followers" to agree with him on that controversial book. It is his personal opinion, which he is welcome to.
Furthermore, it MOST CERTAINLY does not mean I have to extend that "anathema" from Bp. Williamson himself to the movement he supports (the Resistance) and other bishops and priests in that movement. Nothing Bp Williamson did, said, or believed would mean I can/should stop going to Stella Maris Chapel outside Houston or St. Dominic's Chapel in Seguin, TX -- both are associated with the Resistance and Bp. Zendejas in particular.
But that is PRECISELY how all-too-many picky, foolish trads think. They get into a Quixotic quest for perfection, and when they find the slightest imperfection, it spreads like cooties to other priests in the group, the whole group, and the Faithful who support that group. And that is why I jumped right on this. I've seen it too many times. I've seen home aloners convince daughters with young children to stop going to perfectly-good Resistance chapels because they were full of propaganda from the likes of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, and/or their own opinions and ideas after reading old Papal Bulls. It's complete insanity, completely devoid of Catholic common sense or sanity checks.
-
Hi Louis-
Nobody with good judgment will ever come to the conclusion that there are no faithful priests or groups left, as this would contradict the Church being a visible and indefectible society.
But some may incorrectly reach this conclusion, against their will, if they do not have sound judgment.
Check this out and see what you think:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sean-johnson-pfeifferites-lack-the-virtue-of-euboulia/msg544470/#msg544470 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sean-johnson-pfeifferites-lack-the-virtue-of-euboulia/msg544470/#msg544470)
An example which might imply that judgment is a bit off was your equation of +Williamson’s promotion of Valtorta and the SSPX changes, compromises, and contradictions.
A sound judgment would reason something along these lines:
There is no proportion between the scope, magnitude, and comprehensiveness in the changes/compromises between the two, and therefore my reaction might be different between the two.
Most unbiased reasonable people would not shun a whole group of priests because of a single objectively minor flaw of a single member who has stated many times he does not believe himself to have the authority to bind anyone to his teachings (eg., Many priests might also recommend reading Canterbury Tales, likewise once on the Index, but one who would flee the group of such a priest as being necessary to save him from compromise would not generally be said to be exhibiting sound judgment).
One with sound judgment might also recall Archbishop Lefebvre being aware of Fr. Barrielle promoting this book, and Lefebvre warning against the dangers of these “too human” depictions of Our Lord, while recalling Lefebvre never forced him to recant, much less expelling him.
I could go on in this fashion, but you get the point:
Any time you feel/fear you are being led into a home alone/ecclesiavacantist direction, it is a sign you have not judged the matter correctly.
Anyway, I just wanted to provide you (and others) the link above.
Hope you have a blessed Holy Week.
Sean
Hi Sean.
Indeed my judgement was unsound in equating one man’s opinions which he does not bind others to with the entirety of the group he belongs to and furthermore comparing it to another group which has as a whole been increasingly falling into more and more errors.
As a human sometimes it’s too easy to give in to despair. I tend to think in the natural rather than the supernatural. A massive error on my part.
Thank you for your kind and fraternal correction.
I hope you have a blessed Holy Week as well.
God Bless
-
Even if Bishop Williamson personally was in error about something like Maria Valtorta (which I will not concede, but let's pass over it for now), it wouldn't mean I have to stop supporting him. Especially since he does NOT require his "followers" to agree with him on that controversial book. It is his personal opinion, which he is welcome to.
Furthermore, it MOST CERTAINLY does not mean I have to extend that "anathema" from Bp. Williamson himself to the movement he supports (the Resistance) and other bishops and priests in that movement. Nothing Bp Williamson did, said, or believed would mean I can/should stop going to Stella Maris Chapel outside Houston or St. Dominic's Chapel in Seguin, TX -- both are associated with the Resistance and Bp. Zendejas in particular.
But that is PRECISELY how all-too-many picky, foolish trads think. They get into a Quixotic quest for perfection, and when they find the slightest imperfection, it spreads like cooties to other priests in the group, the whole group, and the Faithful who support that group. And that is why I jumped right on this. I've seen it too many times. I've seen home aloners convince daughters with young children to stop going to perfectly-good Resistance chapels because they were full of propaganda from the likes of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, and/or their own opinions and ideas after reading old Papal Bulls. It's complete insanity, completely devoid of Catholic common sense or sanity checks.
I understand. It was a hasty, rash, and all too human way of thinking on my part which desires perfection in a fallen world.
I appreciate your zeal and respect for the Faith and your pragmatic approach.
God Bless you for this forum as it is a gift.
I have learned much already from what little time I have spent here.
Have a blessed Holy Week as well.
-
Is there anyone willing to wager that on Good Friday during the Solemn Prayers, the SSPX/FSSP will not genuflect for the Jєωs?
The current neo-Trad bookie odds are 48,739/1 that they will genuflect. :popcorn:
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billfrymire.com%2Fgallery%2Fweblarge%2FJesus-crown-thorns-suffering.jpg&f=1)
Within and restricted to the Good Friday liturgy are the "Solemn Prayers or supplications for all conditions of men".
It is a collection of prayers for the Pope, the clergy, the faithful, catechumens, heretics, Jєωs, pagans, idolators...etc.
For each group, the celebrant, using the ferial tone of a Collect, prays a Bidding prayer, preceded by a genuflection "Flectamus genua & Levate". However, when it came to the prayers for the perfidious Jєωs, the genuflection was purposefully omitted.
Why? Because the Jєωs had specifically employed genuflections to mock Our Lord during His Passion.
Therefore, our Church Fathers eliminated such a reverence for them. Obviously, part of the price of their Deicide.
But... genuflections for the Jєωs were added to the 1962 liturgy? Did the Jєωs get better somehow? Of course not!
Since no genuflection was a traditional practice in the Good Friday Liturgy (and we do hope to hold fast to Catholic traditions), which priests are still genuflecting for the Jєωs... and why?
-
It appears that the current pastor of the SSPX chapel in St. Paul, MN will continue the tradcuмenical and conciliar integration process in Minnesota of his last three predecessors:
This morning at the Low Mass, it was announced from the pulpit that there would be a musical performance given by SSPX faithful...at the FSSP chapel in Minneapolis. The bulletin made no mention of this, but one can find a reference to it on the FSSP website, though it makes no mention of the SSPX (https://fsspminneapolis.org/uncategorized/holy-week-2021/).
It is heartbreaking to know that such an announcement could be given without the least fear of backlash. The old-timers apparently have no problem with this, and the young are oblivious to the fact that +Lefebvre had warned against such collaboration with compromised trads thusly:
"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 ecuмenism! 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?"
http://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations
The problem here, of course, is not a mere departure from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, which would be wrong for its own sake. The problem is in the implications and impact of such collaboration:
From the vantage point of the FSSP, such collaboration inculcates within the minds of their faithful that they are really traditional: "Look, even the SSPX does not object to collaborating with us!" Of course, prior to the SSPX ralliement, FSSP pastors never would have allowed an Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Mallerais, or the local SSPX pastor to set foot in their chapels. It is only because of all the compromises and concessions of the SSPX over the last 10+ years that makes such collaboration possible. Moreover, any local SSPX pastor would have scoffed at the mere idea of bringing his faithful to a musical performance at an FSSP chapel.
From the vantage point of the SSPX, these conciliar outreach initiatives prepare the terrain (and minds) for the slow-motion trainwreck of Tradition entering the conciliar church, by eliminating psychological obstacles and barriers to conciliar integration: If the various SSPX and indult chapels have been collaborating for years by visiting each others' chapels, using diocesan retreat houses, and even in some districts, having conciliar priests give sacraments and perform rites for SSPX faithful (e.g., African District), etc., then a legal recognition presents no difficulties at the practical level, and the division between conciliar and traditional clergy and faithful is really, in a certain sense, almost academic.
Perhaps this is why the local chapel in St. Paul can announce in its website in the FAQ's section that: "We are a Catholic chapel in union with Rome that maintains the traditions proper to the Roman Rite of the Church."
https://fsspx.today/chapel/mn-st-paul/fsspx-faqs/
When Bishop Fellay suppressed Fr. Pivert's book ("Our Relations with Rome"), he gave as one of his reasons that the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and his stern opposition to the PCED groups was "counterproductive." Bishop Fellay was departing from the position of his founder, and he did not want the faithful to read the words of +Lefebvre on this point. But what did +Lefebvre say about such initiatives and collaborations?
"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
What is different today, is that this mindset which +Lefebvre called a betrayal not only pertains to the layfolk, but to the SSPX clergy and leadership itself (i.e., It is THEY who are arranging these "betrayals").
No doubt, I would be told that after all, attending a musical performance with the FSSP faithful at their chapel is not as bad as attending their Masses. But I would simply reply that the SSPX clergy themselves attend FSSP/indult Masses (Contrary to several articles still up on their websites), and even invite them to dispense sacraments to their faithful.
But beside that, we have this additional objection from +Lefebvre (speaking of frequenting other venues offering the traditional Mass):
"Yes, there is the Mass. That’s fine, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, contacts before and after, which make you little by little change your ideas. It is therefore a danger and that’s why in general, I think it constitutes part of a whole. One does not merely go to Mass, one frequents a milieu.
There are obviously some people who are attracted by the beautiful ceremonies, who also go to Fontgombault, where they have taken up the old mass again. They are in a climate of ambiguity which to my mind is dangerous. Once one finds oneself in this atmosphere, submitted to the Vatican, subject ultimately to the Council, one ends up by becoming ecuмenical."
http://www.drbo.org/lefebvre.htm
In other words, it doesn't matter that the SSPX "faithful" will not be attending the indult Mass (a practice no longer opposed by the neo-SSPX anyway). They are by this collaboration made to frequent a compromised milieu, designed to further integrate them into conciliar liberalism.
I see this OP got 3 down votes in 5 minutes, at a time when no known indulters were logged in.
It almost makes one suspect someone with an interest in defending the SSPX sellout activated several of his sleeper accounts (knowing any post he made would be quickly deleted).
🤔
-
Is there anyone willing to wager that on Good Friday during the Solemn Prayers, the SSPX/FSSP will not genuflect for the Jєωs?
The current neo-Trad bookie odds are 48,739/1 that they will genuflect. :popcorn:
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billfrymire.com%2Fgallery%2Fweblarge%2FJesus-crown-thorns-suffering.jpg&f=1)
Within and restricted to the Good Friday liturgy are the "Solemn Prayers or supplications for all conditions of men".
It is a collection of prayers for the Pope, the clergy, the faithful, catechumens, heretics, Jєωs, pagans, idolators...etc.
For each group, the celebrant, using the ferial tone of a Collect, prays a Bidding prayer, preceded by a genuflection "Flectamus genua & Levate". However, when it came to the prayers for the perfidious Jєωs, the genuflection was purposefully omitted.
Why? Because the Jєωs had specifically employed genuflections to mock Our Lord during His Passion.
Therefore, our Church Fathers eliminated such a reverence for them. Obviously, part of the price of their Deicide.
But... genuflections for the Jєωs were added to the 1962 liturgy? Did the Jєωs get better somehow? Of course not!
Since no genuflection was a traditional practice in the Good Friday Liturgy (and we do hope to hold fast to Catholic traditions), which priests are still genuflecting for the Jєωs... and why?
It’s a beautiful prayer
https://youtu.be/Us6tjMaPaGs (https://youtu.be/Us6tjMaPaGs)
-
I see this OP got 3 down votes in 5 minutes, at a time when no known indulters were logged in.
It almost makes one suspect someone with an interest in defending the SSPX sellout activated several of his sleeper accounts (knowing any post he made would be quickly deleted).
🤔
Embarrassingly one of those downvotes was mine. I use a mobile phone to access the site to post and things don’t always load correctly on the page. I was trying to view your profile and accidentally gave you a thumbs down. I tried changing it but I got a message “you already voted on this post.” I can’t even remove it.
I’m not a big fan of this up/down vote functionality. Seems like it can be easily abused.
-
It is my experience that there is far more piety and better preaching on Faith and morals in the FSSP than the SSPX.
-
It is my experience that there is far more piety and better preaching on Faith and morals in the FSSP than the SSPX.
Yeah, but for the sake of expediency, they accepted the Novus ordo missae...
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.traditionalcatholicpriest.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FProtestantized-Mass.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Which is fundamental, baseline error that gravely contradicts their preaching on Faith & Morals.
-
Yeah, but for the sake of expediency, they accepted the Novus ordo missae...
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.traditionalcatholicpriest.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FProtestantized-Mass.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Which is fundamental, baseline error that gravely contradicts their preaching on Faith & Morals.
+Lefebvre accepted it, too. So what? NOM exists and is exclusive of ability for one to be holy.
-
+Lefebvre accepted it, too. So what? NOM exists and is exclusive of ability for one to be holy.
No, not in the same way.
Just because +Lefebvre said that the NOM could be valid, doesn't mean he signed anything approving it, Vatican II, or the Conciliar Church.
The FSSP was born from a Judas-like act of betrayal, and I (for one) will always hold that against them.
Several priests (and Faithful) walked away from +Lefebvre after the 1988 Consecrations, like the disciples who walked away from Our Lord in John chapter 6, and accepted a deal from Rome in which they accepted the New Mass and Vatican II.
You can tell me about great priests in the FSSP today, but the organization was born of a Judas betrayal and I'll never forgive the organization for that. I must oppose them for that perfidy. +ABL deserved fidelity and support at that juncture, and FSSP denied it to him.
-
No, not in the same way.
Just because +Lefebvre said that the NOM could be valid, doesn't mean he signed anything approving it, Vatican II, or the Conciliar Church.
The FSSP was born from a Judas-like act of betrayal, and I (for one) will always hold that against them.
Several priests (and Faithful) walked away from +Lefebvre after the 1988 Consecrations, like the disciples who walked away from Our Lord in John chapter 6, and accepted a deal from Rome in which they accepted the New Mass and Vatican II.
You can tell me about great priests in the FSSP today, but the organization was born of a Judas betrayal and I'll never forgive the organization for that. I must oppose them for that perfidy. +ABL deserved fidelity and support at that juncture, and FSSP denied it to him.
Yep, go along to get along. They even caved on their charter for Tridentine Mass exclusivity.
-
I agree that the modern SSPX has no reason not to cooperate with FSSP.
But there used to be a difference. SSPX USED to believe it WRONG to allow Tradition to be intermingled with the Conciliar movement, to accept that the Traditional Mass and NOM are just two different expressions of the Catholic Mass, to pretend that NOM is not a non-Catholic Protestant-ized bastard rite. It was considered wrong to accept that the Conciliar errors are just a matter of some Modernists exploiting ambiguities in Vatican II.
Sean Johnson wrote an entire book on the shift from +Lefebvre SSP to neo-SSP, so I need not go into all of it.
In fact, given the new direction of SSPX, they should just go ahead and merge already. There's not a lick of difference between the two groups.
I believe that Xavier's mindset is in fact quite representative of the neo-SSPX ... which tells me all I need to know about them.
-
I agree that the modern SSPX has no reason not to cooperate with FSSP.
But there used to be a difference. SSPX USED to believe it WRONG to allow Tradition to be intermingled with the Conciliar movement, to accept that the Traditional Mass and NOM are just two different expressions of the Catholic Mass, to pretend that NOM is not a non-Catholic Protestant-ized bastard rite. It was considered wrong to accept that the Conciliar errors are just a matter of some Modernists exploiting ambiguities in Vatican II.
Sean Johnson wrote an entire book on the shift from +Lefebvre SSP to neo-SSP, so I need not go into all of it.
In fact, given the new direction of SSPX, they should just go ahead and merge already. There's not a lick of difference between the two groups.
I believe that Xavier's mindset is in fact quite representative of the neo-SSPX ... which tells me all I need to know about them.
I haven't read Sean's book, so take this with a grain of salt, but I feel like the issue here is that "Old SSPX" is based on Lefebvre 1988, while "New SSPX" is based on Lefebvre 1982 (or so.)
I feel like its hard to really blame one side or the other when both are basically arguing over "which side of their founder." And to be clear I say that with the highest respect for Lefebvre. These are rough times. But he wasn't fully consistent, and I know you know that.
I think the "Neo SSPX" would still say there's errors in V2, and that the NO is objectively wrong, even if they don't extend that "guilt by association" to the Motu masses, and I think that's a meaningful distinction from FSSP. I've also seen people who have met Bishop Fellay apparently say he expressed a willingness to consecrate new bishops without Roman approval, again, if he had to, something you wouldn't see from FSSP.
So I'm not convinced these organizations really are just identical just because they might work together in some ways.
-
I haven't read Sean's book, so take this with a grain of salt, but I feel like the issue here is that "Old SSPX" is based on Lefebvre 1988, while "New SSPX" is based on Lefebvre 1982 (or so.)
I feel like its hard to really blame one side or the other when both are basically arguing over "which side of their founder." And to be clear I say that with the highest respect for Lefebvre. These are rough times. But he wasn't fully consistent, and I know you know that.
I think the "Neo SSPX" would still say there's errors in V2, and that the NO is objectively wrong, even if they don't extend that "guilt by association" to the Motu masses, and I think that's a meaningful distinction from FSSP. I've also seen people who have met Bishop Fellay apparently say he expressed a willingness to consecrate new bishops without Roman approval, again, if he had to, something you wouldn't see from FSSP.
So I'm not convinced these organizations really are just identical just because they might work together in some ways.
1. You admit you are completely ignorant and don't know what you're talking about. You realize, of course, that even if you're penniless you can essentially read the whole book online: https://www.cathinfo.com/c.htm
2. Your argument about "which side of their founder" is bizarre. Time flows in one direction. Generally speaking, one's naive, youthful, rash, foolish, or other mistakes happen EARLIER in one's life, and as one matures these flaws are rejected in favor of wiser and better decisions. How many people do you know whose "old self" is better than their "latest self"? I'm not talking about health or being in-shape (including being physically quick to learn things: one's brain declines with age too). I'm talking about wisdom and things spiritual. And with these things, you improve with age, generally speaking.
3. Believing that Bishop Fellay is willing to consecrate new bishops doesn't just require a leap of faith or trust in the man, it would require going AGAINST reason and the evidence of your own eyes. My proof? The SSPX (under +Fellay) coming out publicly against recent episcopal consecrations in the Resistance, including the consecrations of Bp. Faure, Bp. Thomas Aquinas, and Bp. Zendejas. How could the SSPX *ever* consecrate a bishop in the future without papal mandate, since they basically condemned both +Williamson and +Lefebvre for what they did? There were no fundamental differences, by the way, between the 1988 Consecrations and the recent consecrations by +Williamson. The only differences were trivial and accidental. All the fundamentals were IDENTICAL: done publicly, for the good of the Church, from a state of necessity*, without Papal mandate, with the consecrator not intending to confer any jurisdiction, etc.
4. If Bp. Fellay told anyone he was willing to consecrate more bishops in the future under *any* circuмstance, he was not being honest. He was probably trying to keep various parishioners content/happy, to keep the money flowing in.
*Fun fact: the consecrator being personally convinced of this "state of necessity" is sufficient to avoid any automatic excommunication. This was clearly the case for both +Lefebvre and +Williamson.
Another fun fact: In 1988, no one was actually excommunicated. If you read the text of John Paul II's "Ecclesia Dei Afflicta", you will note that he only says, in so many words, "Behold, they have incurred the automatic excommunication" which was obviously false. Besides, the Pope can't legitimately excommunicate someone without a fair trial. Cutting someone off from the church isn't like grounding your teenage daughter for getting a tattoo. It's not something that can be done in anger or on a whim. Even Luther got a trial. In short, there has to be a mortal sin involved. You can't cast out a friend of God from the Catholic Church. That's not how it works.
What Catholic dogma(s) did +Lefebvre deny? What heresy did he make up and teach others? That is what would be discussed in a trial. But he never got a trial. How convenient. It's because it would come out that he was just being a faithful Catholic, and that Vatican II was the true schism and heresy. Every saint, book, Doctor of the Church, and dogma would be on +Lefebvre's side, and the only thing(s) condemning him would be the New Religion of Conciliarism which was hatched by the devil at Vatican II.
As for +Lefebvre's "disobedience" or "problems" with the Pope, he had no such "problems" before the Popes went off the rails. Also, that's like αrrєѕтing a man for NOTHING, and if he puts up a fight for being αrrєѕтed innocent, the police charge him with "resisting αrrєѕт". Isn't that kind of circular? So an innocent man refuses to go quietly since the police fail to tell him what he's being αrrєѕтed for -- so he's αrrєѕтed for "resisting αrrєѕт".
-
It is both legitimate and imo prudent for all traditional Catholic fraternities to begin to collaborate much more than in the past.....
I'm personally in the trad-ecuмenist camp. I believe St. Peter's Fraternity, the Society of St. Pius X, and the Institute of Christ the King should collaborate and work together much more than they actually do....
Imo FSSP and ICK Priests should recognize the good Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X have done for Catholic Tradition on their side. And the SSPX likewise should recognize the good that the Fraternity of St. Peter has done, and continues to do, to help benefit many Catholics...
I have no idea why you think that the trad apostolates, as well as the smaller trad movements within certain Orders, as well as some formerly diocesan priests who have been forced to become independent (kicked out of their dioceses and marginalized, forced to fend for themselves because they dared to convert to Tradition) -- do not cooperate with, support, and love each other. They've been doing so since each was formed and another came along. They all recognize how difficult it is to be such a minority within the Church at large. They simply don't announce that collaboration or formalize it, even though they communicate with each other often. They are not required to inform lay people of everything they do.
OTOH, there is no need for them to band together operationally. Each has a separate seminary, internal structure, and network of parishes. I am not terribly knowledgeable about the modern SSPX except to note that some of the recently ordained of the SSPX seem strangely friendly to the diocesan church and its coziness to the secular world and to "conservative Catholicism." (They'll promote mask-wearing; they can be very weak on commitment to Traditional teaching vs. modernist, etc., not with that deep commitment to and exclusive profession of Tradition.) But I know that previous SSPX priests have been well-respected by the ICKSP. When I say "previous" I mean dating back to the Lefebvre era.
I myself prefer that they remain separate, for a variety of reasons, but I know that the ICK has no intention of folding its training and operations in with those of other apostolates. (I'm not sure what you mean by "collaboration" other than the existing collaboration that is hidden from your view.) The ICK remains predominantly European culturally and geographically, and they wish to keep it that way.
-
Somehow I thought that XavierSem was the OP because I had neglected to go back to Page One and see what had prompted this debate. My bad.
I think the problem -- my problem, perhaps -- is that I don't know what is meant by "collaboration." Maybe it means one thing to the OP (and many others here) but something else to our poster XavierSem. The three major trad apostolates have different ways of doing things. What they all SHOULD "band together" about, with respect to their individual and joint missions, is the exclusivity of the TLM. Once they start promoting modernism in liturgy or teaching or spirituality, they have ceased to represent Tradition, because Traddom is incompatible, at root, with New Church. "Promoting," in my view, would consist of publicly encouraging attendance at the NOM or the false modernizing of the TLM in any way, as well as (obviously) using the V2 docuмents as teaching sources.
I have no idea what the "musical performance" that the OP mentioned involves. As he said, and as I also read, the bulletin issued by the FSSP mentions only the pre-55 liturgy, missal usage with respect to it, etc. Musical performances outside of the liturgy and held within the church, as if these are integrated within that liturgy, are not in keeping with Tradition.
-
No to collaboration.
Thou shalt not commit indultery.
It is all about DOCTRINE. The True Mass flows from true doctrine,the true Faith. The perfidious indulterers have compromised the Faith.
-
1. You admit you are completely ignorant and don't know what you're talking about. You realize, of course, that even if you're penniless you can essentially read the whole book online: https://www.cathinfo.com/c.htm
2. Your argument about "which side of their founder" is bizarre. Time flows in one direction. Generally speaking, one's naive, youthful, rash, foolish, or other mistakes happen EARLIER in one's life, and as one matures these flaws are rejected in favor of wiser and better decisions. How many people do you know whose "old self" is better than their "latest self"? I'm not talking about health or being in-shape (including being physically quick to learn things: one's brain declines with age too). I'm talking about wisdom and things spiritual. And with these things, you improve with age, generally speaking.
3. Believing that Bishop Fellay is willing to consecrate new bishops doesn't just require a leap of faith or trust in the man, it would require going AGAINST reason and the evidence of your own eyes. My proof? The SSPX (under +Fellay) coming out publicly against recent episcopal consecrations in the Resistance, including the consecrations of Bp. Faure, Bp. Thomas Aquinas, and Bp. Zendejas. How could the SSPX *ever* consecrate a bishop in the future without papal mandate, since they basically condemned both +Williamson and +Lefebvre for what they did? There were no fundamental differences, by the way, between the 1988 Consecrations and the recent consecrations by +Williamson. The only differences were trivial and accidental. All the fundamentals were IDENTICAL: done publicly, for the good of the Church, from a state of necessity*, without Papal mandate, with the consecrator not intending to confer any jurisdiction, etc.
4. If Bp. Fellay told anyone he was willing to consecrate more bishops in the future under *any* circuмstance, he was not being honest. He was probably trying to keep various parishioners content/happy, to keep the money flowing in.
*Fun fact: the consecrator being personally convinced of this "state of necessity" is sufficient to avoid any automatic excommunication. This was clearly the case for both +Lefebvre and +Williamson.
Another fun fact: In 1988, no one was actually excommunicated. If you read the text of John Paul II's "Ecclesia Dei Afflicta", you will note that he only says, in so many words, "Behold, they have incurred the automatic excommunication" which was obviously false. Besides, the Pope can't legitimately excommunicate someone without a fair trial. Cutting someone off from the church isn't like grounding your teenage daughter for getting a tattoo. It's not something that can be done in anger or on a whim. Even Luther got a trial. In short, there has to be a mortal sin involved. You can't cast out a friend of God from the Catholic Church. That's not how it works.
What Catholic dogma(s) did +Lefebvre deny? What heresy did he make up and teach others? That is what would be discussed in a trial. But he never got a trial. How convenient. It's because it would come out that he was just being a faithful Catholic, and that Vatican II was the true schism and heresy. Every saint, book, Doctor of the Church, and dogma would be on +Lefebvre's side, and the only thing(s) condemning him would be the New Religion of Conciliarism which was hatched by the devil at Vatican II.
As for +Lefebvre's "disobedience" or "problems" with the Pope, he had no such "problems" before the Popes went off the rails. Also, that's like αrrєѕтing a man for NOTHING, and if he puts up a fight for being αrrєѕтed innocent, the police charge him with "resisting αrrєѕт". Isn't that kind of circular? So an innocent man refuses to go quietly since the police fail to tell him what he's being αrrєѕтed for -- so he's αrrєѕтed for "resisting αrrєѕт".
Points 1 and 2 are fair. I'll try to read through that thread at some point.
I am *not* arguing that the Lefebvre excommunication is valid, much the opposite. I'd also agree that Bishop Williamson's was probably invalid for the reason you state.
All that said I do think there's a difference between the Lefebvre consecrations and the Williamson ones, namely that Lefebvre was facing the iminent obliteration of the TLM, while there are still *three* bishops left in the SSPX as well as a pretty clearly established acceptance of the TLM by the Vatican now. I'm not arguing therefore that Williamson was wrong, I am not sure. I'm just saying it seems like a grayer area than the Lefebvre consecrations.
-
The SSPX (under +Fellay) coming out publicly against recent episcopal consecrations in the Resistance, including the consecrations of Bp. Faure, Bp. Thomas Aquinas, and Bp. Zendejas. How could the SSPX *ever* consecrate a bishop in the future without papal mandate, since they basically condemned both +Williamson and +Lefebvre for what they did?
That wouldn't be the first time they'd have applied a self-serving double- or even triple- standard. They'll just fabricate some "distinction" about how the circuмstances have changed. Don't you see how much closer the Vatican has come to Tradition under Bergoglio?
-
That wouldn't be the first time they'd have applied a self-serving double- or even triple- standard. They'll just fabricate some "distinction" about how the circuмstances have changed. Don't you see how much closer the Vatican has come to Tradition under Bergoglio?
Like this, Ladislaus?
All that said I do think there's a difference between the Lefebvre consecrations and the Williamson ones, namely that Lefebvre was facing the iminent obliteration of the TLM, while there are still *three* bishops left in the SSPX as well as a pretty clearly established acceptance of the TLM by the Vatican now. I'm not arguing therefore that Williamson was wrong, I am not sure. I'm just saying it seems like a grayer area than the Lefebvre consecrations.
-
Like this, Ladislaus?
Notice that right or wrong, my argument did not in any way appeal to Francis.
-
With all due respect, GIVE ME A BREAK.
The First Dibs argument? Really?
3 bishops in the SSPX -- how does that help the Resistance or any other non-SSPX group? So it's "first come, first served?"
So that would imply that the SSPX bishops got some kind of de-facto Jurisdiction by the sole fact of their "going first" or getting "First Dibs".
The SSPX got "First Dibs" on the State of Necessity, and everyone else better form a nice organized line, bow and make obeisance to the SSPX Bishops, or else they're out of luck for more priests, Confirmations, and Holy Oils?
So the SSPX could do it in 1988, but if ANYONE ELSE wants to consecrate bishops the same way, in the same state of the world, it's TOO LATE, BUB. THE SSPX ALREADY DID IT. WORK WITH THEM, OR TOUGH LUCK PAL.
That would be ludicrous.
No, there is no "First Dibs" in Catholic doctrine or Moral Theology. Something which is a moral act for one person, is a moral act for another, regardless of who goes first.
...
That is my main argument. But there's also --
+Fellay is a Judas traitor. He was formerly the SSPX Bursar, so he ACTUALLY held the purse and the things that were put therein (might as well count him as a Conciliar bishop at this point, in all categories except for Validity), and +de Mallerais is basically on death's door. Is he still alive? And how is +de Galarreta doing? +Fellay was the youngest of the 4, and that's NOT a good thing. He's the most pro-Vatican II and pro-Conciliar of the 4. So as such, he no longer counts as "we have a Trad bishop".
The other two SSPX bishops are as close to death as +Lefebvre considered himself back in 1988. Plus they belong to a specific group, so they don't belong "to the whole Trad world".
It could easily be argued that by saying "Vatican II is 95% good" you disqualify as Trad. I certainly hold this. VATICAN II DELENDUM EST. *that* is the Trad position, always has been since the 1970's. You don't go praising the cyanide-laced kool-aid as being 99% healthy. It has been contaminated by cyanide, it must be dumped out. Period.
-
With all due respect, GIVE ME A BREAK.
The First Dibs argument? Really?
3 bishops in the SSPX -- how does that help the Resistance or any other non-SSPX group? So it's "first come, first served?"
So that would imply that the SSPX bishops got some kind of de-facto Jurisdiction by the sole fact of their "going first" or getting "First Dibs".
The SSPX got "First Dibs" on the State of Necessity, and everyone else better form a nice organized line, bow and make obeisance to the SSPX Bishops, or else they're out of luck for more priests, Confirmations, and Holy Oils?
...
I suppose what I had in mind is that consecration of bishops without papal approval is justified in a state of emergency, but not outside a state of emergency. I suppose what I was wondering is what entails state of emergency. Does the mere fact that the Vatican is modernist *in itself* create the state of emergency, or are additional factors (such as potential destruction of traditional episcopate) necessary to justify it?
All that said I think your argument is fair. But remember my argument wasn't that you were wrong. It was just that it doesn't seem *obvious* to me that if Lefebvre was justified it therefore follows that Williamson was as well.
I see your point with the whole "having to work with one specific organization during a state of emergency" seeming wrong however.
-
P.S. To bolster my argument, all I need to provide is ONE case where the SSPX used a heavy hand with various religious orders: "tow the line, or no priestly ordinations for you!" and alas, this has happened at least once. So much for the SSPX taking care of the whole Trad world with their bishops -- which might THEORETICALLY have erased the state of necessity.
But if the SSPX has shown any pettiness (which they have), then more bishops are needed, to provide NECESSARY bishop services to these groups who run "afoul" of the SSPX heavy hand.
-
But think about it, seriously. How flawed is the "First Dibs" or "Winner Take All" argument.
Why would the first bishops to be consecrated without a Papal Mandate be granted some kind of exclusive license to that position? Why would OTHER GROUPS have to come to THEM for Trad bishops -- rather than vice-versa? What makes that "first across the Finish Line" so fundamentally special?
It would imply that God, or the Church, awards some kind of bonus jurisdiction or authority -- outside the usual channels (i.e., from the Pope) -- to the first "not in Communion with the Conciliar Church" who consecrates bishops for Tradition.
Think about it. Who would suggest Bp. Fellay is any more "legitimate" than Bp. Zendejas? Did either one of them receive an explicit Papal Mandate from the reigning Pontiff? If not, then they are on equal footing. That is the *only* way to look at it.
The situation at the time of Consecration was virtually the same. If anything, the Conciliar Church is in worse shape now, with an even worse prognosis for the future, compared to 1988. There were other existing Traditional bishops in 1988 when +Fellay was consecrated, too. They are called SEDEVACANTISTS and INDEPENDENT BISHOPS. The Nine (who left the SSPX in 1983) have had a couple of bishops from among their number for some time. When was Bp. Sanborn consecrated?
-
And again, a much weaker argument is that the SSPX only has 3 bishops (technically) but 1 of them is retired from active duty and/or living in a senior care facility. 2 Trad bishops for the whole world? I think not.
Also, the SSPX has shown *every indication* that it refuses to consecrate any more bishops "illegally", so it doesn't run afoul of Roman Authorities. Their actions (including the condemnations of +Williamson's recent consecrations) make this explicitly clear.
How close to death must a bishop be, before it is legitimate to consecrate a replacement? 1 month? 1 year? 3 years? I think there would at least be some wiggle room there.
But again, my above argument is the real one. This little argument is just a cherry on top.
-
I believe the following question was brought up at some point here on CathInfo so pardon us, o pardon us...
If the neoSSPX HAS to rely at least in terms of permission from Conciliaroma for new consecrations, how can the neoSSPX ever be a force for Tradition?
(Which considering they have already fallen anyway, are they really a steward for Tradition anymore? Based on all the compromises, I do not believe they are.)
Once you get Nervous Ordite “bishops” into the mix, with respect to consecrating, how does that NOT kill the neoSSPX?
Perhaps the neoSSPX has not been completely over come by the waves, but her bow is definitely under water, and her stern is bottoms up.
-
I believe the following question was brought up at some point here on CathInfo so pardon us, o pardon us...
If the neoSSPX HAS to rely at least in terms of permission from Conciliaroma for new consecrations, how can the neoSSPX ever be a force for Tradition?
(Which considering they have already fallen anyway, are they really a steward for Tradition anymore? Based on all the compromises, I do not believe they are.)
Once you get Nervous Ordite “bishops” into the mix, with respect to consecrating, how does that NOT kill the neoSSPX?
Perhaps the neoSSPX has not been completely over come by the waves, but her bow is definitely under water, and her stern is bottoms up.
It’s end game for the SSPX’s role in maintaining traditional Catholic priestly formation. Their time has passed.
But what masonic reward does the SSPX inner circle get out of their great compromise?
Are these priests planning on retiring in first class Swiss convalescent homes?
-
But think about it, seriously. How flawed is the "First Dibs" or "Winner Take All" argument.
Why would the first bishops to be consecrated without a Papal Mandate be granted some kind of exclusive license to that position? Why would OTHER GROUPS have to come to THEM for Trad bishops -- rather than vice-versa? What makes that "first across the Finish Line" so fundamentally special?
It would imply that God, or the Church, awards some kind of bonus jurisdiction or authority -- outside the usual channels (i.e., from the Pope) -- to the first "not in Communion with the Conciliar Church" who consecrates bishops for Tradition.
Think about it. Who would suggest Bp. Fellay is any more "legitimate" than Bp. Zendejas? Did either one of them receive an explicit Papal Mandate from the reigning Pontiff? If not, then they are on equal footing. That is the *only* way to look at it.
The situation at the time of Consecration was virtually the same. If anything, the Conciliar Church is in worse shape now, with an even worse prognosis for the future, compared to 1988. There were other existing Traditional bishops in 1988 when +Fellay was consecrated, too. They are called SEDEVACANTISTS and INDEPENDENT BISHOPS. The Nine (who left the SSPX in 1983) have had a couple of bishops from among their number for some time. When was Bp. Sanborn consecrated?
OK this is a good point
-
I suppose what I was wondering is what entails state of emergency.
No offense, but if you’re asking this question, that means you don’t fully grasp the heresies of V2 and the utter, diabolical evil of the new mass, both of which have been used to sweep 99% of Catholics into a new-age, ecuмenistic religion.
.
And if you don’t grasp the gravity and extent of the above changes, that means you don’t have a complete understanding of true orthodoxy, church history or secular political history since the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn, when Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ/Modernism burst from the depths of hell out into society.
.
I suggest you read, religiously 1) The Great Sacrilege, 2) Who Shall Ascend?, and ....politically....3) Makers of the Modern Mind, 4) The Unseen Hand
.
You need to be red pilled, as the cool kids say nowadays.
-
No offense, but if you’re asking this question, that means you don’t fully grasp the heresies of V2 and the utter, diabolical evil of the new mass, both of which have been used to sweep 99% of Catholics into a new-age, ecuмenistic religion.
.
And if you don’t grasp the gravity and extent of the above changes, that means you don’t have a complete understanding of true orthodoxy, church history or secular political history since the French ʀɛʋօʟutιօn, when Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ/Modernism burst from the depths of hell out into society.
.
I suggest you read, religiously 1) The Great Sacrilege, 2) Who Shall Ascend?, and ....politically....3) Makers of the Modern Mind, 4) The Unseen Hand
.
You need to be red pilled, as the cool kids say nowadays.
Indeed! Well said.
-
No, not in the same way.
Just because +Lefebvre said that the NOM could be valid, doesn't mean he signed anything approving it, Vatican II, or the Conciliar Church.
The FSSP was born from a Judas-like act of betrayal, and I (for one) will always hold that against them.
Several priests (and Faithful) walked away from +Lefebvre after the 1988 Consecrations, like the disciples who walked away from Our Lord in John chapter 6, and accepted a deal from Rome in which they accepted the New Mass and Vatican II.
You can tell me about great priests in the FSSP today, but the organization was born of a Judas betrayal and I'll never forgive the organization for that. I must oppose them for that perfidy. +ABL deserved fidelity and support at that juncture, and FSSP denied it to him.
You people are so weird.
-
Funny thing is, I provided several Lefebvre quotes showing that his SSPX was militantly against any kind of collaboration with the PCED communities.
That’s a fact.
But surprisingly, or perhaps not, it garnered 4 down votes.
I can only imagine those were sspxers who disagreed with Lefebvre, which speaks volumes about the state of his Society then vs today.
There have been no changes! We have always been at war with Eastasia! Please quit showing the divergences between the old SSPX and the new!
-
You people are so weird.
You people ignore reality.
-
Funny thing is, I provided several Lefebvre quotes showing that his SSPX was militantly against any kind of collaboration with the PCED communities.
That’s a fact.
But surprisingly, or perhaps not, it garnered 4 down votes.
I can only imagine those were sspxers who disagreed with Lefebvre, which speaks volumes about the state of his Society then vs today.
There have been no changes! We have always been at war with Eastasia! Please quit showing the divergences between the old SSPX and the new!
Any news about chocolate bunny rations for the Easter Octave? ::)