Author Topic: The Recusant - A Letter of Entreaty (Read 14292 times)

miserere nobis · « **on:** May 21, 2013, 05:53:34 PM »

http://www.therecusant.com/letter-of-entreaty

A Letter of Entreaty
to
Fr. Morgan and the Clergy of the British District

21st May, 2013

(St. Godric; Bl. John Haile)

Dear Fr. Morgan, Dear Fathers,

We beg of you in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, high priest and lover of souls, in the name of his Blessed Mother, in the name of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and in the name of all the wonderful, holy ideals which led you to answer the call to become a shepherd and a lover of souls – aid our souls now, in our moment of need.

The Subversion of the Society of St. Pius X

For some time now, we have felt betrayed by one portion of the SSPX and let down and abandoned by the lack of response from another portion. The leadership of the SSPX are wilfully pursuing a new direction and a new agenda, remaking the Society in their own image with reckless disregard for the souls which Divine Providence has placed in their care. Every month, sometimes it seems every week, some new, fresh piece of evidence emerges of the liberalism at the top which is being forced downwards upon the lower members and faithful of the Society. We have heard not one single convincing explanation, nothing to put our minds at rest, although it is not uncommon for Menzingen or DICI to issue “clarifications” or for Bishop Fellay to claim that his words have been misrepresented in some way.

What concerns us especially is that we see what amounts to a new direction officially enshrined in the SSPX. Recently we have seen proof of the liberalism of Bishop Fellay in the form of a modernistic “Doctrinal Declaration”, a declaration of the his own doctrinal position, presented to Rome with his signature as supposedly representing us also. Amongst other things, we are now able to see that Bishop Fellay accepts the legitimacy of the New Mass which Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX always held to be illegitimate; he accepts the idea of collegiality which Archbishop Lefebvre fought against at the council since it undermines any previous notion of the Church's Magisterium, replacing it with a sort of 'teaching democracy' in the form of the modern Bishops; he accepts the 'hermeneutic of continuity' and the idea that Tradition and the revolution can be thought of as consistent with one another; he accepts all of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which John-Paul II said was Vatican II translated into law, and which includes Canon 844 which provides for the giving of the sacraments to non Catholics; he states explicitly that diabolical modern ideas such as ecuмenism and religious liberty are reconcilable with the true teaching of the Church and with Tradition; and finally he also explicitly states that Vatican II “enlightens and deepens... the life and doctrine of the Church.”

Father, you can see as clearly as we that this Doctrinal Statement is a serious insult to Almighty God, and a total betrayal of the mission of the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. It is also a personal betrayal of every soul who has reposed confidence in the SSPX and worked to build it up and strengthen it, and of course a personal insult to the Archbishop who, far from accepting the New Religion of the conciliar church, declared that it “begins in heresy and ends in heresy, even if not all of its acts are formally heretical.” Let me remind you, Father, that this docuмent in question is not a throwaway remark, a bad translation, or an unfortunate choice of words made in the heat of the moment – it took months to prepare, and once handed over two months were waited to see whether it had been accepted or not. This docuмent, furthermore, is a Doctrinal Declaration: its purpose is to declare doctrine. If one declares something, surely one declares it in public and not in secret? How can one have 'secret doctrine'? Furthermore, since it is a declaration of doctrine, i.e. Bishop Fellay's “Declaration of what I believe”, it is perfect nonsense for him to say that he has “withdrawn it” - in what meaningful sense can one possibly “withdraw” doctrine? If Bishop Fellay was prepared to believe those things recently, but claims to have “withdrawn” his secret docuмent now that it has come to light, then we can take it that he as good as believes them still today. Since he has been caught betraying the Society, it would be “optimistic” to the point of reckless irresponsibility simply to pretend to ourselves that he is one of us once again. Neither he nor any of his allies can be trusted, and we think that if you are honest with yourselves you must admit that.

How are we to remain faithful to Tradition?

Taken together with all the other signs of the past year, and especially the General Chapter's scandalous “three conditions” (and “three desirable conditions – which in effect amounts to “three things we are not prepared to fight for, and are thus quite happy to lose”) which took the revolution in the SSPX and the Superior General's disobedience to the 2006 Chapter and legitimised it and made it the official position of the Society – what we now see is the revolution inside the SSPX fully established in power. Ideas not personalities are what concern us most. And in the persons of Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, and a large number of Superiors and members of the General Chapter we see new ideas which we abhor, and with which we wish nought to do. We do not wish to be underneath these clerics, whose ideas and doctrinal position are so much at variance with our own, and we do not wish there to be any risk or danger to the Faith by continuing under priests with whom we disagree. We cannot help but be reminded of the simple but insightful words of Archbishop Lefebvre: it is the superiors who form the subjects, not the subjects who form the superiors.

It is clear to us that the SSPX is now a sinking ship. The men who hold authority over it are the problem, and yet they cannot be removed from their positions (the only real opportunity to do so would have been at the last General Chapter). The very thing on account of which Almighty God blessed the SSPX, its faithful adherence to Tradition and its determination not to compromise with modernism, has been officially jettisoned and is now gone. Its absence is the one essential difference between the SSPX of yesterday and the SSPX of today. The good priests opposed to compromise who remain inside the SSPX are now good in spite of their being in the SSPX and not because of it. Since you cannot serve two masters, you must ask yourselves this: to which SSPX do you wish to remain loyal? Although you may have been left comparatively unmolested by Menzingen thus far, you cannot be unaware of what is happening all around the world in the Society. Which being the case, it is now only a matter of time: sooner or later if you do not choose to remain traditional at the cost of SSPX membership, you will find that you chose to remain SSPX members at the cost of your fidelity to Tradition.

Fathers, please consider: at your judgement Almighty God will not judge you faithful servants on account of what you said or thought in secret, but rather what you spoke openly and what actions you did in public. We your faithful have waited now for a year since the liberalism became apparent. We did not wish to act rashly. We have been giving you an opportunity to lead us. If, however, you will not do so, then we must reluctantly part company. It is clear that the situation can only become worse, and in such cicrumstances we can see no alternative but to start again. We can be confident for the future, however, since the only thing being begun again would be the administrative structure. The Faith remains, and that is what matters. If we do the right thing, everything else will be taken care of: God helps those who help themselves, as the saying goes. We beg and implore you to come to our aid and not to abandon souls which need you, especially not on account of a false obedience to superiors who regard you as, at best, a problem and with whom you will have increasingly little in common.

God bless you and reward you for your years of work caring for our souls.

Gregory Taylor
Waltraud Taylor
Olivia Bevan
Jeremy Bevan
Susan Warren
Alun Rowland
Anna Thompson

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** May 21, 2013, 08:56:35 PM »

Now THAT'S what I like to see in an Open Letter!!

I was hoping and praying for something special I could give to a young man
who is thinking about entering the seminary. I don't want to discourage him,
but at the same time, I don't want to have him ask me in three years from
now why I didn't tell him something.

I'll give him a copy of this marvelous testimonial of the Faithful of Britain!

http://www.therecusant.com/letter-of-entreaty

A Letter of Entreaty
to
Fr. Morgan and the Clergy of the British District

21st May, 2013

(St. Godric; Bl. John Haile)

Dear Fr. Morgan, Dear Fathers,

...
Father, you can see as clearly as we that this Doctrinal Statement is a serious insult to Almighty God, and a total betrayal of the mission of the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. It is also a personal betrayal of every soul who has reposed confidence in the SSPX and worked to build it up and strengthen it, and of course a personal insult to the Archbishop who, far from accepting the New Religion of the conciliar church, declared that it “begins in heresy and ends in heresy, even if not all of its acts are formally heretical.” Let me remind you, Father, that this docuмent in question is not a throwaway remark, a bad translation, or an unfortunate choice of words made in the heat of the moment – it took months to prepare, and once handed over two months were waited to see whether it had been accepted or not. This docuмent, furthermore, is a Doctrinal Declaration: its purpose is to declare doctrine. If one declares something, surely one declares it in public and not in secret? How can one have 'secret doctrine'? Furthermore, since it is a declaration of doctrine, i.e. Bishop Fellay's “Declaration of what I believe”, it is perfect nonsense for him to say that he has “withdrawn it” - in what meaningful sense can one possibly “withdraw” doctrine? If Bishop Fellay was prepared to believe those things recently, but claims to have “withdrawn” his secret docuмent now that it has come to light, then we can take it that he as good as believes them still today. Since he has been caught betraying the Society, it would be “optimistic” to the point of reckless irresponsibility simply to pretend to ourselves that he is one of us once again. Neither he nor any of his allies can be trusted, and we think that if you are honest with yourselves you must admit that.
...

I had thought I was doing okay understanding these matters, until I read this.

In the past, I have been ill-at-ease and irritable when I could not get a firm
grasp on something important. Now I know why this has been so upsetting to
me. Now this letter puts my mind at ease, and I would like to thank the
authors, whom I have never met, of whom neither have I heard:

Gregory Taylor
Waltraud Taylor
Olivia Bevan
Jeremy Bevan
Susan Warren
Alun Rowland
Anna Thompson

God bless you, dear friends. Perhaps some day we may
have the honor of meeting each other.

Until then, may you walk with God.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #2 on:** May 21, 2013, 09:07:08 PM »

.

Note: For future reference, this Letter is currently found under the
Recent Articles tab on The Recusant Home page.

I haven't been watching, but perhaps "recent articles" get moved
eventually to "Reference Materials?"

Machabees · « **Reply #3 on:** May 21, 2013, 10:30:04 PM »

Quote from: miserere nobis

http://www.therecusant.com/letter-of-entreaty

A Letter of Entreaty
to
Fr. Morgan and the Clergy of the British District

21st May, 2013

(St. Godric; Bl. John Haile)

Dear Fr. Morgan, Dear Fathers,

We beg of you in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, high priest and lover of souls, in the name of his Blessed Mother, in the name of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and in the name of all the wonderful, holy ideals which led you to answer the call to become a shepherd and a lover of souls – aid our souls now, in our moment of need.

The Subversion of the Society of St. Pius X

For some time now, we have felt betrayed by one portion of the SSPX and let down and abandoned by the lack of response from another portion. The leadership of the SSPX are wilfully pursuing a new direction and a new agenda, remaking the Society in their own image with reckless disregard for the souls which Divine Providence has placed in their care. Every month, sometimes it seems every week, some new, fresh piece of evidence emerges of the liberalism at the top which is being forced downwards upon the lower members and faithful of the Society. We have heard not one single convincing explanation, nothing to put our minds at rest, although it is not uncommon for Menzingen or DICI to issue “clarifications” or for Bishop Fellay to claim that his words have been misrepresented in some way.

What concerns us especially is that we see what amounts to a new direction officially enshrined in the SSPX. Recently we have seen proof of the liberalism of Bishop Fellay in the form of a modernistic “Doctrinal Declaration”, a declaration of the his own doctrinal position, presented to Rome with his signature as supposedly representing us also. Amongst other things, we are now able to see that Bishop Fellay accepts the legitimacy of the New Mass which Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX always held to be illegitimate; he accepts the idea of collegiality which Archbishop Lefebvre fought against at the council since it undermines any previous notion of the Church's Magisterium, replacing it with a sort of 'teaching democracy' in the form of the modern Bishops; he accepts the 'hermeneutic of continuity' and the idea that Tradition and the revolution can be thought of as consistent with one another; he accepts all of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which John-Paul II said was Vatican II translated into law, and which includes Canon 844 which provides for the giving of the sacraments to non Catholics; he states explicitly that diabolical modern ideas such as ecuмenism and religious liberty are reconcilable with the true teaching of the Church and with Tradition; and finally he also explicitly states that Vatican II “enlightens and deepens... the life and doctrine of the Church.”

Father, you can see as clearly as we that this Doctrinal Statement is a serious insult to Almighty God, and a total betrayal of the mission of the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. It is also a personal betrayal of every soul who has reposed confidence in the SSPX and worked to build it up and strengthen it, and of course a personal insult to the Archbishop who, far from accepting the New Religion of the conciliar church, declared that it “begins in heresy and ends in heresy, even if not all of its acts are formally heretical.” Let me remind you, Father, that this docuмent in question is not a throwaway remark, a bad translation, or an unfortunate choice of words made in the heat of the moment – it took months to prepare, and once handed over two months were waited to see whether it had been accepted or not. This docuмent, furthermore, is a Doctrinal Declaration: its purpose is to declare doctrine. If one declares something, surely one declares it in public and not in secret? How can one have 'secret doctrine'? Furthermore, since it is a declaration of doctrine, i.e. Bishop Fellay's “Declaration of what I believe”, it is perfect nonsense for him to say that he has “withdrawn it” - in what meaningful sense can one possibly “withdraw” doctrine? If Bishop Fellay was prepared to believe those things recently, but claims to have “withdrawn” his secret docuмent now that it has come to light, then we can take it that he as good as believes them still today. Since he has been caught betraying the Society, it would be “optimistic” to the point of reckless irresponsibility simply to pretend to ourselves that he is one of us once again. Neither he nor any of his allies can be trusted, and we think that if you are honest with yourselves you must admit that.

How are we to remain faithful to Tradition?

Taken together with all the other signs of the past year, and especially the General Chapter's scandalous “three conditions” (and “three desirable conditions – which in effect amounts to “three things we are not prepared to fight for, and are thus quite happy to lose”) which took the revolution in the SSPX and the Superior General's disobedience to the 2006 Chapter and legitimised it and made it the official position of the Society – what we now see is the revolution inside the SSPX fully established in power. Ideas not personalities are what concern us most. And in the persons of Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, and a large number of Superiors and members of the General Chapter we see new ideas which we abhor, and with which we wish nought to do. We do not wish to be underneath these clerics, whose ideas and doctrinal position are so much at variance with our own, and we do not wish there to be any risk or danger to the Faith by continuing under priests with whom we disagree. We cannot help but be reminded of the simple but insightful words of Archbishop Lefebvre: it is the superiors who form the subjects, not the subjects who form the superiors.

It is clear to us that the SSPX is now a sinking ship. The men who hold authority over it are the problem, and yet they cannot be removed from their positions (the only real opportunity to do so would have been at the last General Chapter). The very thing on account of which Almighty God blessed the SSPX, its faithful adherence to Tradition and its determination not to compromise with modernism, has been officially jettisoned and is now gone. Its absence is the one essential difference between the SSPX of yesterday and the SSPX of today. The good priests opposed to compromise who remain inside the SSPX are now good in spite of their being in the SSPX and not because of it. Since you cannot serve two masters, you must ask yourselves this: to which SSPX do you wish to remain loyal? Although you may have been left comparatively unmolested by Menzingen thus far, you cannot be unaware of what is happening all around the world in the Society. Which being the case, it is now only a matter of time: sooner or later if you do not choose to remain traditional at the cost of SSPX membership, you will find that you chose to remain SSPX members at the cost of your fidelity to Tradition.

Fathers, please consider: at your judgement Almighty God will not judge you faithful servants on account of what you said or thought in secret, but rather what you spoke openly and what actions you did in public. We your faithful have waited now for a year since the liberalism became apparent. We did not wish to act rashly. We have been giving you an opportunity to lead us. If, however, you will not do so, then we must reluctantly part company. It is clear that the situation can only become worse, and in such cicrumstances we can see no alternative but to start again. We can be confident for the future, however, since the only thing being begun again would be the administrative structure. The Faith remains, and that is what matters. If we do the right thing, everything else will be taken care of: God helps those who help themselves, as the saying goes. We beg and implore you to come to our aid and not to abandon souls which need you, especially not on account of a false obedience to superiors who regard you as, at best, a problem and with whom you will have increasingly little in common.

God bless you and reward you for your years of work caring for our souls.

Gregory Taylor
Waltraud Taylor
Olivia Bevan
Jeremy Bevan
Susan Warren
Alun Rowland
Anna Thompson

Excellent!!!

Incredulous · « **Reply #4 on:** May 21, 2013, 11:27:54 PM »

Neil said:

Now THAT'S what I like to see in an Open Letter!!

I was hoping and praying for something special I could give to a young man who is thinking about entering the seminary. I don't want to discourage him, but at the same time, I don't want to have him ask me in three years from now why I didn't tell him something.

I'll give him a copy of this marvelous testimonial of the Faithful of Britain!
_____________________________________________________________

You're right Neil...

"These people" have a reputation for writing effective confrontational letters.

Magna Carta 1215

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:46:56 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Neil said:

Now THAT'S what I like to see in an Open Letter!!

I was hoping and praying for something special I could give to a young man who is thinking about entering the seminary. I don't want to discourage him, but at the same time, I don't want to have him ask me in three years from now why I didn't tell him something.

I'll give him a copy of this marvelous testimonial of the Faithful of Britain!
_____________________________________________________________

You're right Neil...

"These people" have a reputation for writing effective confrontational letters.

Magna Carta 1215

That big "table" in the middle of the room, on a riser - can anyone say that
was not used for Mass at some point? Maybe a 10-inch top to bring it up to
altar height? Anyway --

I'm looking through this Letter of Entreaty and it has a smooth flow to it. It's
actually hard to yank out one sentence or even two without wishing you can
bring along the one that came before or after. And the most intense material
is buried deep in the center of each paragraph, as if it were guarded on all
sides by sentries in arms, with embattlements, and encircled by a moat.

It could be shown as a list of propositions, but they still want to stick together.

I broke up this paragraph into a "list," but I found that I had to repeat some
words and add a few more, lest the sentences would not make sense on their
own without the separated material. Interesting, how this works................

It is clear to us that the SSPX is now a sinking ship.

The men who hold authority over the Society are the problem, and yet
they cannot be removed from their positions.

The only real opportunity to remove them would have been at the last
General Chapter.

Almighty God has blessed the SSPX on account of its faithful adherence to
Tradition and its determination not to compromise with Modernism.

But this very thing, for which God has blessed the SSPX, has been officially
jettisoned and is now gone.

The absence of this very thing for which God has blessed the Society is the
one essential difference between the SSPX of yesterday and the SSPX of today.

The good priests opposed to compromise who remain inside the SSPX
are now good in spite of their being in the SSPX and not because of it.

Since you cannot serve two masters, you must ask yourselves this: to which
SSPX do you wish to remain loyal, to the old one, or to this new one?

Although you may have been left comparatively unmolested by Menzingen
thus far, you cannot be unaware of what is happening all around the world
in the Society.

Although you may have been left comparatively unmolested by Menzingen
thus far, unmistakable world events warn you otherwise, and it is now only
a matter of time: sooner or later you will have to choose.

Sooner or later, if you do not choose to remain traditional at the cost of
losing your SSPX membership, you will find that you therefore are choosing
to remain SSPX members at the cost of your fidelity to Tradition. [/b]

Each and every SSPX priest on planet earth

needs to read this letter.

Wessex · « **Reply #6 on:** May 22, 2013, 04:59:40 AM »

I suspect this letter adds to the other petitions that Fr. Morgan must be receiving before Bp. Fellay makes him an offer he can't refuse! He has a week to collect his thoughts and forge his own destiny; this could well be a turning point in the history of traditionalism in England, a difficult place to organise. One can feel the tension ..... but are all eyes on London or are we of little consequence?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** May 22, 2013, 11:07:20 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

I suspect this letter adds to the other petitions that Fr. Morgan must be receiving before Bp. Fellay makes him an offer he can't refuse!

He has a week to collect his thoughts and forge his own destiny;

this could well be a turning point in the history of traditionalism in England, a difficult place to organise.

One can feel the tension .....

but are all eyes on London or are we of little consequence?

This could well be a turning point in the history of traditionalism in England..

England, a difficult place to organise.

One can feel the tension..

Are all eyes on London or are we of little consequence?

You are not alone. In my small experience, people just don't seem to care.

If England is "a difficult place to organize," I wonder what L.A. is? Fr.
Pfeiffer came here with Fr. Chazal about 8 months ago, and looked for
kindred spirits. While they found Catholics devoted to the TLM, they could
apparently find no quarum of support. I'm not too surprised.

With a population of 15 million, one person here, one person there...

Bishop Williamson visited here on the way to Post Falls for confirmations
during Lent and offered Mass at OLHC - the pastor asked him to not say
anything too upsetting during his sermon. He complied. I guess he is
accustomed to hearing requests like that.

I have handed a copy of the AFD, the Doctrinal Declaration, to friends, to
traditional priests, to SSPX regulars, to trads who have friends who are
regulars, and they say the most alarming things.

They say, "But lawyers come up with all kinds of words, and they twist
them later into something else."

They say, "Why are you so concerned about these internal affairs?"

They say, "Are you so sure this is saying that they declare this,
and not that they would suggest to discuss declaring this?"

They say, "All this SSPX controversy is too abstract and complicated for me."

They say, "You are just anti-Fellay."

They say, "Another priest said that +Fellay withdrew this and so it's no
longer anything to worry about."

You can't force anyone to care about something they don't care about.

Maybe this Letter of Entreaty will make a difference, but who knows?

I share your concern, for all eyes may not be on London. But they
should be.

And I do appreciate your post, Wessex, because it's nice to know that
one can feel the tension. In California, it's a real challenge to find
anyone who thinks this is important. Everyone seems to be existing
in their own tiny bubble, and when I try to talk to them about the
looming catastrophe, they pity me, that my tiny bubble isn't all happy
and rosy like theirs is.

I'm not making this up. Everyone has their own subjective reality, and
they can only have a conversation in context of thinking about how their
subjective reality is more important to them than yours is to them.

"And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold"
(Matt. xxiv. 12).

Maybe when the SSPX splits it will be important. But then again,
maybe not.

It's the Brave New World on the rise, the rise of Antichrist.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** May 22, 2013, 12:32:09 PM »

.

For the convenience of anyone who, like me, thinks this ought to be
shared far and wide, and,

WHEREAS, it takes a few tedious minutes to make a printable file
that is presentable and eye-catching, which see, and,

WHEREAS, it is so terribly challenging to find a single person who
may endeavor to actually turn on their computer, open a browser,
navigate to a particular website, display the text, see it on their
screen and ACTUALLY READ IT, and,

WHEREAS, on the contrary, when the same person is simply handed
a 4-page letter he is far more likely to take the time, even right now,
to look it over and perhaps actually let a few of the words penetrate
into his erstwhile impenetrable subjective reality-bubble, and,

WHEREAS, upon being read, this fine testimonial cannot but do good,
wherever it may go, and for also, by whomever it is read,

THEREFORE, I am uploading an easy-to-print-out .doc file such that
you can most easily do this spiritual work of mercy for your friends
about whom you care......................... if they don't shun you.

Click here:

John Grace · « **Reply #9 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:11:33 PM »

Quote

Each and every SSPX priest on planet earth

needs to read this letter.

Indeed. It has to be said though, they could read it a dozen times but acting upon it is another matter.

A line in the sand has been drawn ages ago.

Sadly in Ireland some feel betrayed as Fr Morgan being District Superior was meant to be temporary and many resent being under English rule.

I have encountered many SSPX laity in Ireland, who dislike Fr Morgan. I am a great fan of his and regard him as one of the better Society priests.

As he is a 'social teachings' type, solid on the Jєωs etc etc how strange it is laity dislike him.

John Grace · « **Reply #10 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:20:51 PM »

Neil Obstat

Quote

I have handed a copy of the AFD, the Doctrinal Declaration, to friends, to
traditional priests, to SSPX regulars, to trads who have friends who are
regulars, and they say the most alarming things.

They say, "But lawyers come up with all kinds of words, and they twist
them later into something else."

They say, "Why are you so concerned about these internal affairs?"

They say, "Are you so sure this is saying that they declare this,
and not that they would suggest to discuss declaring this?"

They say, "All this SSPX controversy is too abstract and complicated for me."

They say, "You are just anti-Fellay."

They say, "Another priest said that +Fellay withdrew this and so it's no
longer anything to worry about."

You can't force anyone to care about something they don't care about.

Maybe this Letter of Entreaty will make a difference, but who knows?

Neil Obstat is correct as you can't force anyone to care about it. The points raised are very good and accurate.

It's embarrassing for them that some people still will defend or support Bishop Fellay. Granted, they are few in number but still. As I said before it is like talking to a wall with them. I encountered two and it was painful. I felt like saying 'wacko' to them.I felt a bit sorry for them. Regardless of an agreement or not, they will stick with Bishop Fellay. Not representative of Society laity though.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** May 23, 2013, 12:36:19 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

Neil Obstat

Post
Quote
I have handed a copy of the AFD, the Doctrinal Declaration, to friends, to
traditional priests, to SSPX regulars, to trads who have friends who are
regulars, and they say the most alarming things.

They say, "But lawyers come up with all kinds of words, and they twist
them later into something else."

They say, "Why are you so concerned about these internal affairs?"

They say, "Are you so sure this is saying that they declare this,
and not that they would suggest to discuss declaring this?"

They say, "All this SSPX controversy is too abstract and complicated for me."

They say, "You are just anti-Fellay."

They say, "Another priest said that +Fellay withdrew this and so it's no
longer anything to worry about."

You can't force anyone to care about something they don't care about.

Maybe this Letter of Entreaty will make a difference, but who knows?

Neil Obstat is correct as you can't force anyone to care about it. The points raised are very good and accurate.

It's embarrassing for them that some people still will defend or support Bishop Fellay. Granted, they are few in number but still. As I said before it is like talking to a wall with them. I encountered two and it was painful. I felt like saying 'wacko' to them. I felt a bit sorry for them. Regardless of an agreement or not, they will stick with Bishop Fellay. Not representative of Society laity though.

Thanks for the reply, John Grace. It sounds like you're fortunate to be in an
area where "they are few in number." In my neck of the woods, they are the
norm -- big time. What shocks me so, is that people who I thought would be
most receptive of new information, such as I see in The Recusant for example,
are boiler-plated already. This is not to say they are Indultery-Mass goers, or
Novordiens. They are loyal CTLM supporters and most of them are supportive
of +W, but not really 100% IYKWIM. I think they listen to too much Rush
Limbaugh, actually, or that's their thinking. Maybe it's the 9-11/h0Ɩ0cαųst
theme they've sucked up, and don't want to know about any facts like building
7 or the infeasibility of poison gas at Auschwitz. I don't know.

But these guys I know are really dug in. They can't answer my questions, but
they're not interested in learning how to answer them because that would
mean they have to look at facts that they don't want to look at, because then
their illusion of how holy the Menzingen-denizens are would be shattered.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** May 23, 2013, 02:52:16 AM »

.

GO HERE TO GET THE DOWNLOAD

.DOC FILE OF THIS LETTER.

Get it printed out in advance so you won't run out of time when
you're getting ready to leave for the day!!

It won't be a problem if it IS printed a day ahead of time, but
it's a big problem when it's NOT printed and you're a minute late.

Wessex · « **Reply #13 on:** May 23, 2013, 04:36:59 AM »

Neil, it may come down to people being either naturally critical or compliant. I was always of the former disposition, as a boy gazing out of the window instead of swallowing a blackboard full of pointless facts to regurgitate later for those all important exams. I would have been better employed understanding how various disciplines connect. Let us have a grand plan of existence ..... or was this too revolutionary for Christian Brothers hooked on rugby football and not much else!

The compliant type always seemed to be the more devout and these were the majority. And these were eager supporters of the new religion for a time until that very religion made in easy for them not to belong. The traditionalist movement did assemble critical types and it was a wonderful time. But future generations have reverted to being compliant and we are back to a familiar pattern.

Going with the flow is the order of city life. The countryside does allow one time to think and develop an eccentric nature. Apply that to the UK where Catholics have been traditionally urban (working-class, immigration) and you get churches with easy audiences dishing out whatever they like.

John Grace · « **Reply #14 on:** May 23, 2013, 06:12:20 AM »

Neil Obstat

Quote

It sounds like you're fortunate to be in an
area where "they are few in number." In my neck of the woods, they are the
norm -- big time. What shocks me so, is that people who I thought would be
most receptive of new information, such as I see in The Recusant for example,
are boiler-plated already. This is not to say they are Indultery-Mass goers, or
Novordiens. They are loyal CTLM supporters and most of them are supportive
of +W, but not really 100% IYKWIM. I think they listen to too much Rush
Limbaugh, actually, or that's their thinking. Maybe it's the 9-11/h0Ɩ0cαųst
theme they've sucked up, and don't want to know about any facts like building
7 or the infeasibility of poison gas at Auschwitz. I don't know.

But these guys I know are really dug in. They can't answer my questions, but
they're not interested in learning how to answer them because that would
mean they have to look at facts that they don't want to look at, because then
their illusion of how holy the Menzingen-denizens are would be shattered.

I'm doing my own thing and not up to date on the SSPX. Whilst taken back by the comment from 'JMCQ' I won't be intimidated by SSPX people either.

Whilst I don't dispute there are the 'fighting Irish' your analysis is very sensible and correct. The main interest for Irish SSPX folk is pro-life activism and the upcoming pro-life rally in July. Very little discussion about the politics of the SSPX.

It's an open question to ask them of how many believe the myth of there being gas chambers and other issues raised here.

It's difficult or impossible to force people to act. They could read The Recusant etc etc but have they any inclination to act upon the information?