With a breath of fresh air (well nearly fresh air), the sspx.org finally came out with a very good article about the presiding Pope –Pope Francis.

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/will_pope_francis_be_able_to_rebuild_the_church_5-8-2013.htm

In it, they lay at his feet some of the scandals and betrayals of his previous record as Cardinal of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires (Argentina), and his recent liberal actions and modernistic tendencies as the new Pope.

Such as,
“If his work at the head of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires (Argentina) is any indication of the future, it is difficult, perhaps even presumptuous, to be hopeful. Very conscious of the dilapidated state of his clergy, he was unable to improve vocations, seminary training, or continuing formation. Never has the seminary of Buenos Aires had as few seminarians as today.[2] The liturgies presided over by the "Cardinal of the Poor" have been poor in tradition, dignity, and sacrality. With Pope Francis we appear to be on the brink of a return to the bizarre, secular, and even sacrilegious liturgies of Paul VI’s and John Paul II’s pontificates, complete with raucous singing, dancing, and lack of care for the consecrated sacred species. Liturgies[3] as Pope Francis was accustomed to perform as cardinal would be a far cry from Benedict XVI’s efforts to restore some of the dignity worthy of the worship of God.[4]”

And,
“Concerning the exponential rise of blasphemy in our world, Cardinal Bergoglio revealed more than once his dislike for confrontations over or demonstrations against blasphemous expositions. Is it not akin to a politician who likes to get along with everyone and will ask for peace rather than provoke a confrontation by boldly proclaiming the truth of the moral law?
Unlike his predecessor, but in the footsteps of John Paul II, the Pope seems happy to oblige a media ever ready to turn him into a superstar. Yet this ready-made "Pope of the humble and the poor" could in reality be promoting not personal humility but humiliation of the Church and denial of the rights of Christ.”

And,
“We could say so much more about his apparent friendliness to communists and the violently anti-Christian Argentinean government, social questions apart, on which is stance, however strong, nevertheless remains humanistic. In his biography El Jesuita [The Jesuit], he praises the work of the theologians of the liberation theology movement[10] as well as Cardinal Casaroli and his Ostpolitic compromise with communist Moscow.[11] The mission of a Pope is not compatible with an attitude of a mercenary politician ready to work for whatever is popular in the world these days.”

And,
“These words do not bode well for any coming back to sane doctrine or for any acceptable pragmatic solution to the canonical persecution of the Society of St. Pius X through our unjust canonical irregularity.”

And,
“No doubt, the pontificate of Pope Francis will blaze new trails. It would seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from that of the two previous Popes who were university professors. (…) although we have many reasons to fear that the results he doggedly pursues will prove more detrimental to the Church than Benedict XVI’s moderate reforms proved favorable.”

Good job.

But wait, did I just write that the sspx.org did that?  Is it endorsed and approved by the party line of Menzingen?  What’s going on?

The contents of the article is not even shy to express the words of Bishop Fellay at the blessing of the new Virginia Seminary cornerstone.  “Bishop Fellay: when blessing the cornerstone of the new SSPX seminary in Virginia this past month, explained that this Pope is not a European intellectual but a pragmatic man. This mindset, geared towards action, is seen clearly in his scolding of those Catholics who wish for the return of the pre-conciliar Church, that is the Church of Tradition.” Bishop Fellay said that?  

Isn’t all of this going to taint any deal with conciliar Rome?

So what happened to the “sweetie pie” words the N-SSPX said to the modernist Benedict XVI?  And they said that the conciliar church is “changing”?  Well is it not?  If it is “changing”, then it would be by the Holy Ghost, they want us to believe, then it would continue to manifest itself in other origins of the conciliar church. Would it not?

Hmmm…to fast forward, me thinks that the SSPX leaders were trying to pump us up to the cult of the Benedict XVI personage for their own “pragmatic-practical deal” with a left foot right foot paradigm.

So which foot are they on now?

It seems to be a tactic move to return back to Archbishop Lefebvre's position in these recent (high profile) conferences and articles to buy some time; seeing that they are not going to get their way with modernist Pope Francis as they did with the modernist post-Pope Benedict XVI.  –So, let’s change “foots” back in our SSPX pulpits and magazines, to sound like we did before, and get back some of those we had lost to try and save face.

Bottom line, in all of this left foot right foot paradigm-positioning stuff, it shows that there is no conviction anymore in the SSPX.  With their disorientation, it only leads astray the innocent, the helpless, and the gullible.

I’m not buying it.  Not until the day that they lay at the feet of Bishop Fellay his own scandalous statements and actions; as well as, to RETRACT all their scandalous Legal Docuмents of the April 15, 2012 Preamble, and all the other statements that they had signed; including the 6-conditions of the 2012 General Chapter; along with an apology to all of us; and, to reinstate the good priests and Bishop they have unjustly defamed and expelled!
   
In the end of their left foot- right foot paradigm shift, I think that we are still going to get the “church of Fellay”, and the big “boot” if we do not like it.

I hate to be picky, but I also hate to hear this article qualified as a "very good article." Saying it is a breath of nearly fresh air is all right, I suppose - but this article has serious problems in it to qualify it as "more poison from the Neo-SSPX." (The air is nearly fresh, because it has only a small percentage of deadly poison gas).

Never has the seminary of Buenos Aires had as few seminarians as today.

As if Novus Ordo seminarians were a precious commodity! They may be rare, but notice that rarity doesn't make something good. Parkinson's disease and 6.0 earthquakes are both rare! The fewer, the better! Novus Ordo seminaries have little, if anything to do with the true Faith. They are houses of heresy.

If his work at the head of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires (Argentina) is any indication of the future, it is difficult, perhaps even presumptuous, to be hopeful.

Duh. There is no hope, humanly speaking. Seeing the word "difficult" used in this way makes me think of the AFD ("with difficulty reconcilable").

We could say so much more about his apparent friendliness to communists...

If they could, then why don't they!? We have a strict right to know how hostile this arch-enemy of our Catholic Faith is! They should already be putting together a book about him, like Bishop Tissier's book on B16! But of course, they won't, short of a miracle of conversion.

Let us beware. "Good" articles, let alone "very good" articles, are few and far between on sspx.org these days. This is not one of them.

I hate to be picky, but I also hate to hear this article qualified as a "very good article." Saying it is a breath of nearly fresh air is all right, I suppose - but this article has serious problems in it to qualify it as "more poison from the Neo-SSPX." (The air is nearly fresh, because it has only a small percentage of deadly poison gas).

Quote

Never has the seminary of Buenos Aires had as few seminarians as today.

As if Novus Ordo seminarians were a precious commodity! They may be rare, but notice that rarity doesn't make something good. Parkinson's disease and 6.0 earthquakes are both rare! The fewer, the better! Novus Ordo seminaries have little, if anything to do with the true Faith. They are houses of heresy.

Quote

If his work at the head of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires (Argentina) is any indication of the future, it is difficult, perhaps even presumptuous, to be hopeful.

Duh. There is no hope, humanly speaking. Seeing the word "difficult" used in this way makes me think of the AFD ("with difficulty reconcilable").

Quote

We could say so much more about his apparent friendliness to communists...

If they could, then why don't they!? We have a strict right to know how hostile this arch-enemy of our Catholic Faith is! They should already be putting together a book about him, like Bishop Tissier's book on B16! But of course, they won't, short of a miracle of conversion.

Let us beware. "Good" articles, let alone "very good" articles, are few and far between on sspx.org these days. This is not one of them.

Hello SeanGovan,

That was not my intent.

You missed the point of my “context” right in the beginning of using the words: “…the sspx.org finally came out with a very good article about the presiding Pope –Pope Francis.

In it, they lay at his feet some of the scandals and betrayals of his previous record as Cardinal of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires (Argentina), and his recent liberal actions and modernistic tendencies as the new Pope".

What I chose to do, was to bring to light that the SSPX had finally said something remotely good for a change, of putting at the feet of the modernist Pope his scandals and betrayals; all the while, the SSPX themselves also have scandalous statements and betrayals at their own feet.  Nothing else!

In addition, I used the words “fresh air”, because we have NOT heard anything from the SSPX media being a “shepherd” for a long time to call out a “wolf”; along with the following play of words, “well nearly fresh air”, because as you had pointed out, there are also many other objections and contexts that are contained within that sspx.org article that can be pulled out.  Mea Culpa also made a post and drew an excellent observation.

It doesn’t mean that any of us “endorse” the author, or any of the author’s leanings, nor anything else in its article.  By far.  That is why I tore apart the hypocrisy of this article in the conclusion of “my post”.  

Quote from: Machabees

It doesn’t mean that any of us “endorse” the author, or any of the author’s leanings, nor anything else in its article.  By far.  That is why I tore apart the hypocrisy of this article in the conclusion of “my post”.

Hello, Machabees.

I totally agree with the conclusion of your post at the top of the page. On the other hand, I do not agree that that article can be called "very good." I believe that you, too recognize the article as Neo-SSPX poison, do you not? Unfortunately, however, the sentence that I was picking on was badly worded, and it was necessary for someone to point it out so that people wouldn't go around saying "The [Neo-] SSPX has finally come out with a good article about Pope Francis!"

In conclusion, I agree with most of your post, but not with the part that calls the article "very good." That part I disagree with very strongly.

Sorry about my undiplomatic way of saying things in my other post. (For the record, I did not "thumbs down" your post; someone else did.)

God bless, and keep the Faith!

Sincerely,

Sean Govan :cheers:

SeanGovan,

I'm sorry that you are reading into this wrongly; I certainly do not agree with you.  I can keep telling you that there is no intent.  You are reading into something that is not there.  Read the next line that follows my statement.  If you were to read the rest of it, I said that the article is very good because it shows the scandals and betrayals of the present Pope -Pope Francis.  

Sean, if you take a line out of many, you loose the context.  That is what you are doing.  Let's stay focused on the fight of the Faith that the N-SSPX is attacking us on in a daily basis.

As like, if anyone else bothered to write about the same contents in description of the scandalous workings of the present Pope's history, it would also be very good.  With the context of the sspx.org's "plot" to deceive us into thinking that they are still "cool", when they are not, is what I tore apart.  Read it again.  I am the author of it; it is not for you to change the context.

I think in your "limitedness" of reading this, that you may have deduced too quickly anything, or even something that may be good of what the SSPX did -to bring to light the scandals of the new Pope.  That is not fair.  Like Caiaphas who was bad, who hated Christ, and condemned Him throughout, he still said something that was a good (by the Holy Ghost), when he said that one must die for many...it was prophetic.  So it shows that God can use many "donkeys" throughout history, even at times using the present N-SSPX betrayals to say something good, once and awhile, for the awakening of others, even if their audience is N-faithful who drink in their stuff.  At least their article will brazen their thinking of this new Pope.

The rest of the article draws a different context for others to pick apart; Like Mea Culpa did.

There is nothing there; but what you are injecting into it.

Peace.