Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on October 30, 2019, 03:15:51 PM
-
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
-
McFarland-
You must not read anything besides Cathinfo.
Non Possumus notes that nowhere in Fr. Pagliarani’s letter does he mention Francis, nor does he explain why this letter was only for internal consumption, rather than writing an open, public letter denouncing Francis tge Apostate Idolator.
Of course, we both know this duplicity and cowardice has been official policy in the SSPX since Fr. Wagner sold Bishop Fellay on the branding:
Tell SSPXERS what we know they expect to hear, to calm nerves and quell suspicions in the ranks, but make no criticisms addressed to Rome or the Roman Apostates we are in the process of subjecting ourselves to.
After all, the Idolator tells us we are Catholic! Isn’t that great? Let’s not make this devil change his mind.
We want a deal!
Do you feel better now?
-
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.
-
Xavier, your views aren’t based on reality, correct theology or catholic history. It would take a book-length explanation to correct the errors just in your last post alone. I pray that God will send someone that can spend the time needed to teach you. I don’t know where to begin...
-
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.
-
Pax Vobis, you admit you disagree with Archbishop Lefebvre's teaching and approach. 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.
Sean: Questions for you (1) Can you prove the Resistance has already denounced it more firmly than Rev. Fr. Pagliarani? According to your approach, it would be justified to break away from the Resistance if they have not already done so, on the flimsiest of speculations about the future. The Superior General clearly said, from memory, "we await the resumption of doctrinal discussions, with the awareness that Our Lord does not necessarily ask the Society to convince its interlocutors, but to bear unconditional witness to the Faith in the sight of the Church". That remains the Society's purpose and mission statement and there is nothing at all contrary to the Faith in it. If we give our best, God will do the rest. The Resistance is not doing its best to build up the Church or Tradition, but seems to be working against both (2) what benefit comes to you from splitting further Priests away from the Society now? Have the Resistance's predictions for 7 years come true? Has the Society become another Campos? No, they have not, and no it has not. Why? Because Summorum Pontificuм in 2007 and Universae Ecclesiae in 2011 have changed things. And now with the even more recent admission (2017?) that religious liberty, the new mass, ecuмenism and interfaith dialogue are all non-infallible and "open questions" which anyone can challenge, the situation is even more positively changed in favor of Tradition. What is necessary now is great unity of purpose among the Shepherds of Tradition and the flock, in continuing to pursue the course that has already brought forth those good fruits.
+ABL against division and necessity of relations with Rome when possible, as in today's situation: "I think that, like all traditionalist Catholics, you would like now to hear how things stand; at what point relations are between the Priestly Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican in Rome. So I shall give you a rapid summary. Why do I maintain relations with Rome? Why do I keep going to Rome? Because I think that Rome is the center of Catholicism, because I think that there cannot be any Catholic Church without Rome. Consequently, if our purpose is to find a way of setting the Church straight again, it is by turning to Rome that maybe, with the grace of God, we may perhaps manage to set the situation straight. It is not one single bishop like myself who can set the whole situation straight in the Catholic Church. That is why I strive to keep on going to Rome and to plead the cause of Tradition ... I ask you not to get into polemics, but simply to follow us. You now have here a magnificent chapel. Come and attend Mass in this chapel with the priests of the Society, and, in the various centers, bring about a regrouping of the faithful staying with the Society, so that they keep their bond with Rome and with the Church. It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable." http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/long_island_conference_1983.htm (http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/long_island_conference_1983.htm)
-
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". :facepalm: 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 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.
-
+ABL is an authoritative guide on the Crisis, just like St. Athanasius is an authoritative guide on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
Ridiculous. +ABL was one of many clerics who operated independently in the aftermath of V2. And most all of them came to the same conclusion - V2 is heretical garbage. +ABL didn't go around the world and give speeches to tell Traditionalists in the 60s, 70s and 80s what to do. Those that decided to stick with "what has always been taught" were given the graces and wisdom from God to see the same Truth.
.
St Athanasius wasn't an authority on the Trinity; The Church is the authority. St Athanasius just re-taught what the Church councils taught.
.
we have to be in union with that Church if we want to go to Heaven.
Traditionalists are in union with Eternal Rome, which is the True Church. The new-sspx wants to be in union with new-rome, which is NOT Eternal Rome but the V2 spirituality. Those that follow V2's humanistic spirituality are not in union with Eternal Rome and, objectively speaking, will not get to heaven.
-
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.
-
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"
Sure, I get that. But my point is that +ABL isn't the only wise, learned man who rejected V2 and the new mass in the 60s. The world was filled with courageous, wise clerics who rejected new-rome and started Tradition. And there are still many today of +ABL's caliber, like the Traditional monks in Europe, Fr Cyprian's monks in NM, many of the Pius V bishops/priests, and, of course, +Williamson.
-
Even 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.
Fr. McDonald explains some of the problems with the "ordinary jurisdiction" which the SSPX has obtained: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/'crisis-in-the-sspx'-rev-fr-edward-macdonald-at-rockwood-manitoba-canada/
-
Sean: Questions for you (1) Can you prove the Resistance has already denounced it more firmly than Rev. Fr. Pagliarani? According to your approach, it would be justified to break away from the Resistance if they have not already done so, on the flimsiest of speculations about the future. Have the Resistance's predictions for 7 years come true? Has the Society become another Campos?
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.
-
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.
-
Changes have been going on for longer in French and Spanish speaking countries. I have a brother that 25 yrs ago went to the seminary in Argentina and came back to our home country 2 months later with the sad news.
-
25 years ago wasn't Bishop Williamson running the SSPX seminary in Argentina?
-
25 years ago wasn't Bishop Williamson running the SSPX seminary in Argentina?
No, I believe he left Winona for Argentina in 2003.
-
From "Joseph" on the French Resistance forum: http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t1046-abbe-Pagliarani-joue-au-dur.htm (http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t1046-abbe-Pagliarani-joue-au-dur.htm)
"Father Pagliarani wants to give a renewed and finally serious image of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, after the Fellay years. But only the bad resistance fighters don't want to admit that everything is back to normal....
The truth is that the FSSPX is even more confused. Read more:
The real problem for the new Superior General is not that the Fraternity has abandoned the fundamental maxim of the 2006 Chapter "no agreement with Rome until it has converted", but simply to remedy the bad practical consequences of this new orientation taken in 2012... and among these regrettable consequences is the existence of the famous and very embarrassing "Resistance" (or Catholic Fidelity), which denounces this insidious and slow rapprochement of the neo-FSSPX with the Council authorities. The Liberals are thus made to never want to give up their bad principles, they prefer to "tinker" with their consequences, and hide things from the public eye.
From then on, we try to conceal at all costs the betrayal of 2012 (which is materialized before our eyes in this "rallying by stages") by displaying an attitude apparently firmer than in Bishop Fellay's time. The post-Synod period and its scandals thus allowed Father Pagliarani to rebound by outbidding on the "Pachamama" affair alongside Bishop Schneider and the conservatives, leading priests and faithful FSSPX-News readers to believe that relations with Rome... it is over... finished!
... except that, in parallel with these "muscular" postures - words and promises are only binding, as is well known, for those who listen to them! - we have just learned that Bishop Fellay and his two former assistants came to Rome a few days ago to visit Father Suarez, former treasurer of the FSSPX, who became secretary to Pope Francis! Probably to talk about the cultivation of peas in Norway...."
-
The Society of St. Pius X trusts Archbishop Lefebvre.
This is completely false.
The Resistance trusts Archbishop Lefebvre and continues his work.
The Neo-SSPX, which is what XavierSem refers to, is ashamed of Archbishop Lefebvre. It is Menzingen who banned and criticized the book of Fr Pivert "Archbishop Lefebvre, Our Relations With Rome". It was Bishop Fellay who obtained a court injunction to stop the publication and promotion of the large collection of Archbishop Lefebvre's sermons.
XavierSem is a Trad-ecuмenist and not a true Traditional Catholic as can be seen from a multitude of his posts, for example where he strongly encourages Traditional Catholics to attend Masses and frequent the Sacraments of the doubtful priests of the Conciliar ICKSP.
XavierSem sees no problem with corrupting Catholic Tradition with conservatives who place 'obedience' above Faith, Catholics who accept the New Mass and Vatican II, Catholics who will submit to the Modernist hierarchy whenever they choose to curtail their traditional 'privileges'.
XavierSem considers that Archbishop Lefebvre would rejoice to have a modernist Conciliar bishop like Huonder dressed up like a Catholic Bishop and offering the True Mass with his doubtful Orders in a house of the Society. Who is he trying to kid?
XavierSem condemns what the Archbishop concluded about the impossibility of placing the SSPX in subjection to Modernist Rome until it comes back to the Faith. He condemns what the Society bishops and superiors, faithful to their holy founder, dutifully proclaimed for decades, that such an arrangement is impossible and would mean our death.
On the other hand, XavierSem endlessly defends Bishop Fellay who divided the Society by abandoning its principles and encouraging us to accept a deal with modernist Rome "it cannot be a trap, it can only be friends wanting to do us good". He would have you, too, let down your guard and trust the wolves in sheep's clothing.
XavierSem is a Liberal. He wants you to abandon your principles to achieve a practical unity, independent of the truth, with all those who are attracted to the smells and bells of the traditional liturgy. He dreams that in this way the cause of Catholic Tradition will somehow be served.
-
This is completely false.
The Resistance trusts Archbishop Lefebvre and continues his work.
The Neo-SSPX, which is what XavierSem refers to, is ashamed of Archbishop Lefebvre. It is Menzingen who banned and criticized the book of Fr Pivert "Archbishop Lefebvre, Our Relations With Rome". It was Bishop Fellay who obtained a court injunction to stop the publication and promotion of the large collection of Archbishop Lefebvre's sermons.
XavierSem is a Trad-ecuмenist and not a true Traditional Catholic as can be seen from a multitude of his posts, for example where he strongly encourages Traditional Catholics to attend Masses and frequent the Sacraments of the doubtful priests of the Conciliar ICKSP.
XavierSem sees no problem with corrupting Catholic Tradition with conservatives who place 'obedience' above Faith, Catholics who accept the New Mass and Vatican II, Catholics who will submit to the Modernist hierarchy whenever they choose to curtail their traditional 'privileges'.
XavierSem considers that Archbishop Lefebvre would rejoice to have a modernist Conciliar bishop like Huonder dressed up like a Catholic Bishop and offering the True Mass with his doubtful Orders in a house of the Society. Who is he trying to kid?
XavierSem condemns what the Archbishop concluded about the impossibility of placing the SSPX in subjection to Modernist Rome until it comes back to the Faith. He condemns what the Society bishops and superiors, faithful to their holy founder, dutifully proclaimed for decades, that such an arrangement is impossible and would mean our death.
On the other hand, XavierSem endlessly defends Bishop Fellay who divided the Society by abandoning its principles and encouraging us to accept a deal with modernist Rome "it cannot be a trap, it can only be friends wanting to do us good". He would have you, too, let down your guard and trust the wolves in sheep's clothing.
XavierSem is a Liberal. He wants you to abandon your principles to achieve a practical unity, independent of the truth, with all those who are attracted to the smells and bells of the traditional liturgy. He dreams that in this way the cause of Catholic Tradition will somehow be served.
:applause: :applause: :applause:
-
:applause: :applause: :applause:
-
On Facebook
Let’s talk about those little compromises that pave the smooth road to hell
Marian Corps of St. Pius X - MCSPX : Traditional Catholic·Friday, 1 November 2019·3 minutes
The article below was written by a man who has always been Traditional Catholic and who has been continually fighting liberalism since before Vatican II.
For those who have acquaintances especially prone to compromises, consider copying and distributing this article to them.
Little compromises may not worry you, but they are the devil’s most effective tool to erode your faith and thus destroy your soul. The little compromise is a personal “white flag” of surrender in your resolve to keep strong your faith, without which there is no salvation. This is gradualism at work.
The dictionary defines compromise as: “to come to agreement by concession; to make a shameful or disreputable concession.” Those small compromises that I’ve witnessed over the years are falsely accepted by weak-willed traditionalists, as the only answer to most religious problems. After the first little compromise, bigger ones are easily accepted, and are sure to follow, because they lend credence to the first one.
What tempts a person to start taking the small (eventually fatal) steps of compromise that inevitably lead to the loss of faith? There are many, but I will mention a few:
to avoid ridicule;
to avoid estranging friends and family;
to avoid being considered radical;
to avoid friction with a religious son or daughter in a liberal “traditional” community;
to avoid losing convenient access to the sacraments; and
to avoid discovering a truth which would disturb one’s conscience.
After many little and big compromises, one’s informed conscience is non-existent, and faith is lost without remorse.
Bishop Fellay has counted on his followers accepting the little compromises he has been promoting over the years. He has skillfully avoided being exposed for his effort to liberalize the SSPX. He has been at it for many years, hiding his true intentions by using deceptive phrases like “always fighting for Catholic tradition,” and for sure, attaching the SSPX founder's name, Archbishop Lefebvre, to cover his real intentions.
He has been patient and is working hard to avoid defections—which Rome will not tolerate since they wish to avoid a strong traditional voice against them.
Bishop Fellay understood it would take time and technique to turn around the traditional goals of battleship SSPX Lefebvre. The first command was full stop for the engines fighting liberalism, then a left rudder to modernism, and finally full speed ahead for acceptance by Masonic Rome. This hijacked battleship was renamed the N-SSPX Fellay and commissioned to fight against traditionalism.
The day has come when every family has to make the soul-saving decision to avoid the sinking ship of little compromises. For all those compromisers out there on the deck of the battleship N-SSPX Fellay who mistakenly believe they are heading for the safe harbor of salvation, better jump ship and climb aboard the Good Ship Real Resistance before it is too late and you run aground in the polluted waters of Rome's harbor of lost souls.
-
Ask any SSPX Priest if they still have supplied jurisdiction. If they tell you no, then we are no longer under an emergency situation and there's no crisis in the church. These are the reasons the SSPX said they had supplied jurisdiction. They supposedly don't need it now because of the deal they made with Pope Francis on Confessions and Marriages. So they really are already inside Rome's Control.