Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7

Author Topic: SSPX Responds to Cardinal Fernandez  (Read 2108 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX Responds to Cardinal Fernandez
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2026, 04:36:34 PM »
Quote from: Centroamerica on February 20, 2026, 04:22:43 PM
That’s the worst Non-sequitur I have ever seen. Faulty logic and rash judgement. I’m not really interested in furthering discussion with you as it appears to be a moraless waste of time.
:jester:  If you don’t think that +Fellay picked his successor and that +Benedict picked his successor, you’re naive.  That’s how power works.  To stay in charge. 

+Benedict admitted that he failed to “make a deal” with the new sspx.  We all know +Fellay wanted to make a deal too.  

So is it THAT outlandish to think that the 2 successors-to-be, who both worked in the same country, didn’t talk during the YEARS when the new-sspx was talking to new-Rome?

Don’t be so naive man.  +Fellay didn’t pick his successor by accident.   Neither did +Benedict.  
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX Responds to Cardinal Fernandez
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2026, 06:32:44 PM »
I'd agree that Fr. Pagliarani was selected to be a +Fellay or +Fellay-ite sock puppet, just like when Medvedev stood in for Putin for a few years ... and everyone knew that Putin still held the reins of power.  There's no way someone like a Fr. Pagliarani would have been appointed a superior at all if he hadn't been on board with the modernizing agenda.  We see some of the most orthodox, holy, and talented priests tucked away in straw+mud huts in Nigeria or in retreat houses precisely because they can't have any kind of public voice to offset their agenda.

Despite the theatrics, the kayfabe ... I am of the opinion that this entire little dispute we PRE-SCRIPTED right out of the gate.  This tries to make Fr. Pagliarani seem like a "strong man" among the SSPX laity so that when he actually caves and there's some arrangement, people would be less suspicious about its having been pre-arranged.

They will have permission from Rome, either shortly before or will be "absolved" shortly afterwards, depending on the psychological effect they want to have ... except that the consecrands will be among the worst of the worst.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX Responds to Cardinal Fernandez
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2026, 06:34:16 PM »
Quote from: Centroamerica on February 19, 2026, 02:15:06 PM
After reading this, those who support ardently the Resistance, should be able to find some balance.

Only if you believe it's genuine and not pre-scripted.  I am of the opinion that the entire thing was orchestarted for public consumption.  In fact, it's calculated to have precisely the effect of inspiring sentiments exactly like that in your post.  Well, you know, maybe neo-SSPX aren't so bad after all, and maybe they're not really compromisers, since they stood up to Rome.  If that was their intent, it's been rather effective.
Logged

Offline Michelle

Re: SSPX Responds to Cardinal Fernandez
« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2026, 07:19:50 PM »
If I remember correctly, many years back the SSPX held a rosary crusade asking our Lady to have the false excommunications lifted.  Soon after they were lifted, but I read it was all pre-scripted to make it appear as an answer to our prayers and our Lady wanted this agreement with Rome.??  Has anyone else heard this?
Logged

Offline Centroamerica

Re: SSPX Responds to Cardinal Fernandez
« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2026, 07:51:06 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on February 20, 2026, 06:34:16 PM
Only if you believe it's genuine and not pre-scripted.  I am of the opinion that the entire thing was orchestarted for public consumption.  In fact, it's calculated to have precisely the effect of inspiring sentiments exactly like that in your post.  Well, you know, maybe neo-SSPX aren't so bad after all, and maybe they're not really compromisers, since they stood up to Rome.  If that was their intent, it's been rather effective.
Well, Lad, I do not assume bad faith or bad intentions on your part. But I struggle with the level of suspicion you are applying, because once we begin interpreting every action as pre-scripted theatre or hidden manipulation, we move away from theological reasoning and into conjecture about motives that cannot actually be demonstrated. From a Thomistic standpoint, we must judge acts by their object, their principles, and their publicly verifiable effects, not by imagined psychological strategies or comparisons to political strongmen. It may be true that prudence requires vigilance, but prudence is not the same as presuming orchestration without proof. My concern is not whether Fr. Pagliarani is strong or weak, nor whether some arrangement may or may not occur later, but whether our system of interpretation remains logical and proportionate. If every development is interpreted through a lens of inevitable compromise, then no action can ever be read honestly, and we risk turning theology into suspicion rather than reasoned judgment. I respect your caution, but for me the issue is not being “right” about outcomes; it is whether the framework we use preserves intellectual charity, avoids rash judgment about persons, and remains consistent with the Thomistic demand for evidence rather than inference from perceived patterns.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7
« previous next »