http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3049-father-x-takes-issue-with-father-sspx-x

On February 16, just two days after the Church observed the Feast of Saint Valentine, who was known for his kind gestures and notes, a rather unkind anonymous post appeared on the SSPX U.S.A. website, criticizing of all things anonymous posts on websites, among other things, such as the anti-Francis posters that appeared on many streets throughout Rome last week:



An excerpt from the SSPX website appears below:
"Further, and as we have touched on before, we cannot support this passive-aggressive and disrespectful method of "correcting" the Sovereign Pontiff. While privacy and confidentiality are not without their place, hiding behind a computer screen has, unfortunately, become an accepted method of public discource. Letters sent without signatures, anonymous emails, and posts on websites using pseudonyms are not done by men of fortitude and conviction in the truth. They are the acts of cowards, who like the mythological figure Eris, only seek to attain their goals - however noble they may be - through chaos."

Beyond the amusing irony of an anonymous poster denouncing anonymous posts, as an anonymous poster myself I take issue with the anonymous poster, whom we will refer to hereafter as SSPX-X.

In my experience there are two groups of people highly critical of anonymous criticism or correction: those who wield power tyrannically and those who are protected or immune from the power of the tyrant. In the case of Francis of Rome, it is manifestly the case that this man wields his crosier like a club. If you doubt this, ask the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate or Cardinal Raymond Burke or anyone else who has been the object of his papal tirades and insults—to include traditional Catholics.

With regard to those who are protected or immune from the power of the tyrant, to a degree this applies to the Society of Saint Pius X. Even though—and precisely because—they are regarded as irregular by the Vatican authorities and mainstream Church, this has put them in a position to stand in private and public opposition to the aberrations of the Vatican II era Church with relative impunity. After all, what Society priest would be suspended or laicized by superiors for criticizing Vatican II or any heterodoxy. On the other hand, what diocesan cleric dares speak publicly about the same without a realistic fear of suspension, or far worse?

It is my hope that the criticisms of SSPX-X are not widespread within the Society and do not represent an official position of the Society, even though the post appears on the Society webpage. Many anonymous bloggers and authors within the broad spectrum of tradition are strong supporters of the SSPX, including many or most of us here at The Remnant. And while still supporting the SSPX, many of us are gravely concerned about the impending regularization of the Society with Rome, under a papal regime that is transparently tyrannical, heretical and unprecedented in Church history.

The atypical silence of the Society over the constant outrages of Francis in the months leading up to a possible regularization with Rome does not bode well for the future, for the Society itself and for tradition as a whole. If the price to pay for regularization is silence now, the cost to remain will be the same. Then, my friend SSPX-X, you will find out what it is like to fight in the trenches of tradition and keep your head down from enemy fire.

Father X

 

It seems that Bergolio has is making the Remnant more traditional than the SSPX.

Like I said before, if the SSPX joins Rome under Bergolio, the betrayal is obvious.

I'm glad to see this article in the Remnant. Not so very long ago, there were only a few of us speaking out against a SSPX reconciliation in the comboxes of the mainstream trad news sources (AKA Catholic, Vox Cantoris, Hilary White, Eponymous Flower, and the Remnant).

Now there are quite a few voices in the comboxes that are speaking out. Thank heavens. Though I was banned from Mundabor's blog for doing so. And One Peter Five won't allow any speaking out against a deal with Rome. They're a lot like Church Militant TV.

The more the trad mainstream news reports on things such as this, the more it will be keeping an eye on the SSPX after it reconciles with Rome....I hope. Though the Resistance will become the New SSPX after the Reconciliation. God bless the three Resistance bishops and their supporters.

 

Quote from: Meg

Though the Resistance will become the New SSPX after the Reconciliation. God bless the three Resistance bishops and their supporters.
 

That's all the Resistance is -- nothing more, nothing less -- than what the SSPX was.

The unfortunate part is the TIME PERIOD in which we resemble the SSPX: the early days (1970's).

In terms of Mass center availability, numbers, condition, quality, as well as number of priests, variety of opinions, unity, etc. we are in every way just like the SSPX...in the late 1970's.

Keep in mind that back then, the 1962 Missal wasn't the standard for all SSPX priests yet, the sedevacantist Nine hadn't left yet, and a lot of SSPX "Mass centers" were in hotels, garages, meeting halls, etc.

Actually, a better comparison might be the SSPX in America in 1984. Ask around at your SSPX chapel, or in your own family: I bet not many SSPXers go back as far as 1984. Know how I know that? Because the SSPX had almost COLLAPSED at that point. It was every bit as tiny as the Resistance is today. Just a handful of priests, with grueling Mass circuits every weekend, and very few Mass centers. Very similar to the Resistance today.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense that the Resistance resembles the SSPX in the early days. Though I wasn't around back then of course. I converted through the SSPX in 2007, and there aren't any other Catholics in my family to ask about the situation.

 I don't attend an SSPX chapel anymore, but I'd be interested to know why the SSPX had almost collapsed in the 1980's. Was it because of the Nine? Since it is as tiny now, as you say, as it was back then, then there's every hope that it will grow. The three Resistance bishops have a lot of integrity and common sense.

In a way, it was a good thing that Bishop Williamson was expelled from the SSPX. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much of a Resistance now. Or maybe it would just be even smaller than it is.