Your logic is seriously flawed.

America and Americans do countless good on a daily basis, even today!
And we have a Freemasonic constitution and up till recently were controlled by the Deep State, a cabal of very evil men who literally worship the devil and commit unmentionable atrocities. America is officially Liberal (do what you please) and permits Abortion, Sodomy, etc. -- and look at how many good men and good actions abound in America!

The SSPX was like a powerful freight train with tons of inertia going 70 MPH. A body like that doesn't stop on a dime, however much it might change at the top. Even if you took a sledgehammer to everything in the engine room, it would still barrel along for quite some time. Thus there are still many good laymen, priests, and good works being done by the SSPX even today on a daily basis. 

Another example: the Catholic Church and its own downfall at Vatican II. EVEN TODAY, with the New Mass being the official Liturgy for the past 50 years, there are STILL Catholics who have the Faith, who practice the Catholic religion the best they can. They act like Catholics and do many good works.

That doesn't mean it isn't time to head for the lifeboats. We should be thinking of the future -- as in, beyond 2 years from now. That's what wise men do. If you were on the titanic right before it sank, you probably would have been unalarmed until you saw water on the upper decks. I would have taken immediate action as soon as I felt the iceberg hit the hull.

Not everyone at Vatican II knew where the new principles would lead. Only +ABL and a few others saw clearly *at the time* what problems would arise. Today, everyone's a Trad (even many Conservative Catholics are sounding almost sedevacantist) but back in the late 60's, the voices for Tradition were few.


Principles lead to actions. When the principles change, INEVITABLY practical changes will follow. It's the way of things.




On 10/30/19 2:00 PM, John McFarland wrote:

Matthew,

No doubt you know of Fr. Pagliarani's communique on Monday to the SSPX Third Society calling for acts of reparation by the Society and its faithful for the Pachamama abominations

But there has been no reaction from the Resistance.

Is it silent because there is nothing critical to say about the communique, and posting it without criticism might well scandalize some Resistants?

Or is it silent because its more prominent members are still trying to craft an appropriate response?  No doubt they realize that the Society's offering Mass in diocesan churches isn't going to generate much outrage by comparison to the Society's expression of outrage.

Perhaps this will be the occasion for some light to shine into the souls of the Resistance.  I'll be saying a Memorare daily for that intention.

In caritate,
Jack McFarland

We should be thinking of the future -- as in, beyond 2 years from now. That's what wise men do

Agreed. And some 35+ years ago, a wise man, a clear thinker, and a far-sighted saintly ArchBishop presciently warned us that there is a great danger than which "there is nothing more disastrous": namely, unnecessary sectarian divisions within Tradition, because, to quote, "because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition". Here's the full quote from +ABL, "I trust you will remain faithful and that we will be able to continue working together for the greater good of the Church, because there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out." And unfortunately, the Resistance has fallen into that precise trap post-2012.

Matthew, supposing +ABL had signed the protocol, and Rome had granted a Bishop. Suppose nothing else happened, and things continued as normal within the Society, except maybe doctrinal discussions. Then, would it have been (1) a right to break away (2) a duty to break away (3) a duty NOT to break away? I hope you will agree (3) would have been the right answer in that hypothetical scenario.

There are similarly 3 possibilities today: [I ]It is only permissible, but not at all obligatory, to break away from the SSPX (analagous to the so-called "yellow light" idea). [II] It is supposedly not merely permissible, but even obligatory, to divide and break away (what so-called "red-lighters advocate for SSPX Priests to do) and the third correct position [III] It is neither obligatory, nor even permissible, to break away.

[II] is easily disproven. In order for it to be obligatory to break away, there must be a proximate danger to the Faith that is positively imposed upon the people. This kind of danger was present for many of the faithful in the Novus Ordo in the 70s; but it most manifestly is not present today in the SSPX, as even Resistants who assist habitually at SSPX chapels (and rightly so, but not consistently) admit. What danger to the Faith has the SSPX commanded its faithful to accept? No one will be able to prove the SSPX has taught heresies, much less obliged the faithful the accept them. Therefore, it is most certainly not obligatory to break away, and [II] is discarded.

Even [I ]does not stand. In order for it to be at least permissible to break one's vows or fail in one's duties of obedience to one's legitimate superiors in the spirit of a Fraternity of Bishops and Priests, there must be at least an undeniable danger to the Faith that is openly advocated for. But, no such danger exists, because it is not only not wrong, but even positively good, to obtain Ordinary Jurisdiction from the Pope, with no strings attached at all, as has already been granted to the Society, even in advance of the anticipated resumption of doctrinal discussions in the distant future. Also, it is more dangerous to be under no kind of habitual jurisdiction at all, as those faithful who want to break away from the SSPX now are doing, than to be subject to the SSPX Shepherds who have not professed any heresies at all.

Therefore, [III] is the Truth. At most, it is subjectively understandable and morally excusable to have broken away, but it is objectively unacceptable and factually incorrect to have done so; and therefore should be corrected as soon as possible by a return to or a re-union with the SSPX in future. There can be respectful criticism from within the Society, as many Priests and faithful still do, but not a breaking away or a division.

Rev. Father Pagliarani has denounced the abominations in Rome; the Resistance has hardly done so yet. According to the erroneous ideas of the Resistance, one now needs a "Resistance to the Resistance" - as in fact many are already advocating - and then a "Resistance to "the Resistance to the Resistance", and so on ad infinitum. By the logical impossibility and mathematical absurdity of an infinite regress, the very basis of the Resistance idea of breaking away without proximate dangers to the Faith is logically disproven.

He denounces the abomination, but makes no mention of the one responsible for it (and this, not in a public rebuke, but in an internal letter that was likely never intended for the Internet).

All this implies he had approval from his Roman superiors to settle the troops, without condemning his masters.

Therefore, what you wrote is irrelevant to the important question of who, between the SSPX and Resistance, is more faithful to +ABL and is doing as H.G. would do in this situation.

Your analysis is fundamentally wrong, because you are asking the wrong question.  The question should be:  Who is more faithful to 2,000 years of catholic orthodoxy?
.
+ABL created the sspx in an attempt to remain faithful to Church doctrine, which is a reiteration of God's unchanging, Eternal Truths.  You can spend all day picking out this +ABL quote or that +ABL quote and then debate til the cows come home about "what +ABL would do in this situation".    What a complete waste of time!  +ABL would be the first person to admit that he doesn't have all the answers, that's he's not an oracle and that Church doctrine and Tradition trump all else.
.
Any and all moral situations should be compared to doctrine, Scripture and Tradition.  These are the foundation of Catholicism.  V2 and the new mass are deviations and subversions of Eternal Truth, so they must be discarded, ignored and challenged.  This is what +ABL did when he was alive.  This is what Traditionalists did since the 60s til now.  This is what Traditionalists should continue to do.
.
Now is not the time for any "deal" with new-rome.  You don't deal with the devil.  You wait for God to remove the evil or the obstacle, before you go forward.  Until God acts, then Traditionalists wait, preserve and protect the Faith, as they've been doing for 50 years.  We don't need +ABL alive to confirm this course of action; it's Catholic common sense.

The Society of St. Pius X trusts Archbishop Lefebvre. He was the Saint God raised up to help deal with the crisis. It's his Society that has now happily formed 650+ Priests to labor in the Lord's vineyard, and is going to form countless more in the decades to come, to carry the torch of Tradition.

I've not said +ABL is infallible, but +ABL is an authoritative guide on the Crisis, just like St. Athanasius is an authoritative guide on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The word of this or that layman on the Holy Trinity is not equal to the authoritative enlightened guidance and teaching of St. Athanasius on the Trinity, sorry, and neither is the opinion of this or that layman of equal worth on what to do as the authoritative guidance of +ABL was and would be. We know Catholic principles, and we know 2000 years of Catholic Tradition teaches us the Holy Roman Church, the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, the Church of all time, is indefectible, and no matter the storms afflicting it, nor the infiltrators there, we have to be in union with that Church if we want to go to Heaven. Period. That's what all the Saints, Doctors and Popes would tell you, that's what 2000 years of Catholic Tradition. Read Msgr. Fenton's article on indefectibility of Rome.

The SSPX will carry a torch, alright, but it won’t be for Tradition (which is daily being washed out of them).

They will be the torchbearers for all former trade to follow their scandalous example of entering into conciliar pluralism.

That’s antithetical to preserving Tradition.

Nice little puppies who get treats for making compromises, and being good boys.

I'm gonna guess Xavier means +Lefebvre was an authority in a less formal sense.  Like "he's a wise, learned man who knows more than we do" not that he had jurisdictional authority over anyone.

Hi Xavier, your questions and arguments assume nothing has changed within the SSPX that is why you say "speculation" "predictions" etc. You are arguing based on the assumption  nothing has happened. But those on the Resistance side, know by fact and experience that the SSPX has changed, they are reacting to what HAS happened and not what they think will happen in the near or distant future. So any debates with you or Mr. McFarland, etc. will go nowhere until you accept there has been changes in the SSPX, then once you accept that, then you can begin to debate on what is the proper reaction to those changes.

Xavier wants to be a seminarian with the SSPX and McFarland has a son who is a priest with the SSPX, don't expect them to acknowledge that anything has changed or is wrong, it affects their pocket.