Author Topic: The SSPX Peace Plan (Read 3728 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** December 06, 2012, 05:48:12 AM »

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Menzingen truly no longer was driving for a merely practical accord with the Roman apostates.

It still would not change the fact that the SSPX has substantially morphed its orientation over the last 12 years with all the preparations leading up to the desired sellout.

So, if the deal was really dead, what would Menzingen have to do to restore confidence and trust to the laity and clergy?

Here are some suggestions:

1) The current staff in Menzingen must resign (and perhaps even leave the SSPX, as their orientation has brought the SSPX to the brink of total chaos);

2) The 2012 General Chapter declaration must be repealed, and replaced with one consistent with the policy of Archbishop Lefebvre;

3) The concomitant 6 ephemeral conditions must likewise be repealed, as being completely repugnant to the policy of ABL, and the survival of the SSPX;

4) Bishop Williamson must be reinstated post-haste;

5) An emergency Chapter must be convoked to accomplish 1-4;

Note: Even if all the above we're accomplished, it would only bring the SSPX back in time to about June/July, 2012!!! Meaning, all the other damaging developments which have occurred over the last 12-13 years to prepare for the sellout would still remain in place (e.g., the placement of company yes-men in all the seminaries, district offices, media outlets, etc).

Humanly speaking, that realization means this article is completely frivolous, since the measures that would be required to restore sanity and trust back into the SSPX have absolutely no hope of succeeding.

And that in turn tells me that the SSPX will continue its dissolution, as it merges in a trajectory with Conciliarism, with or without a deal.

Self-censure to become acceptable to Rome has telegraphed to Rome that they can destroy the SSPX by indefinate procrastination with regard to the coveted practical accord.

Look what has transpired in pursuit of it just in the last 6 months!!

Menzingen has destroyed the SSPX as it once existed, and the means of restoration (above, for starters) have no hope.

You draw the conclusion.

PAT317 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2012, 07:45:40 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Self-censure to become acceptable to Rome has telegraphed to Rome that they can destroy the SSPX by indefinite procrastination with regard to the coveted practical accord.

This.

John Grace · « **Reply #2 on:** December 06, 2012, 08:11:42 AM »

I'm more of the view of

http://www.stmarcelinitiative.com/

Quote

IT SEEMS THAT, today, God wants a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s and is now sinking the Society of St. Pius X. If you agree, make contributions to the St. Marcel Initiative; they will certainly come in useful. For myself, once my situation stabilizes, I am ready to put my bishop’s powers at the disposal of whoever can make wise use of them.
—His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson, London, November 3, 2012

Whilst many are waiting until a deal is announced, I no longer support the SSPX. Don't get me wrong, the Society still have excellent priests and laity but I believe the will of God is a loose network of independent priests. The Neo SSPX are no longer part of the Catholic Resistance.

I will certainly be sending any money I have to the resistance and not the Neo SSPX or the Church of Bishop Fellay or whatever they call themselves. The Neo SSPX is sinking.

Wessex · « **Reply #3 on:** December 06, 2012, 08:51:01 AM »

One would hope that some districts would resist the liberal trend but appointees by and large have to reflect current management thinking, even anticipate it. Meanwhile the influence of critical senior members is depreciating over time unless they make a stand.

I think the biggest obstacle is the climate of resignation found throughout the Society to the new attitude towards Rome and a recognition that conciliarism is now to be accommodated and not fought. If that is the prevailing position and one that is being enforced, there is no freedom to practice traditionalism but outside the Society. There will be no room for dissenters ..... the message Rome is telling the Society!

John Grace · « **Reply #4 on:** December 06, 2012, 10:00:53 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

One would hope that some districts would resist the liberal trend but appointees by and large have to reflect current management thinking, even anticipate it. Meanwhile the influence of critical senior members is depreciating over time unless they make a stand.

I think the biggest obstacle is the climate of resignation found throughout the Society to the new attitude towards Rome and a recognition that conciliarism is now to be accommodated and not fought. If that is the prevailing position and one that is being enforced, there is no freedom to practice traditionalism but outside the Society. There will be no room for dissenters ..... the message Rome is telling the Society!

Unless third order, the laity are not members of the SSPX so tend to come and go, and from all walks of life.

The Irish pro-life group, Youth Defence have members or associates who would attend both SSPX and Indult. Though the vast bulk of their support is Novus Ordo folk.It's necessary to 'tradify' those folk.
Just one example.

Ireland has been a country where independent chapels like in America have not been established.

Because Tradition is so small in Ireland there is a tendency to work together.

For many as long as you have the 'Latin Mass', you are ok. What many are waiting for is the SSPX to come home to Rome.

Ireland is very much a place where you would fill a room if there was a talk on a seer but would struggle to fill a room if about doctrine.

With the SSPX sinking, where will the resistance come from. The way I see things going is loose networks of Independent priests.

You can hardly describe a Latin Mass via a Diocesan structure or Institute Christ the King as resistance.

John Grace · « **Reply #5 on:** December 06, 2012, 10:08:42 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

One would hope that some districts would resist the liberal trend but appointees by and large have to reflect current management thinking, even anticipate it. Meanwhile the influence of critical senior members is depreciating over time unless they make a stand.

I think the biggest obstacle is the climate of resignation found throughout the Society to the new attitude towards Rome and a recognition that conciliarism is now to be accommodated and not fought. If that is the prevailing position and one that is being enforced, there is no freedom to practice traditionalism but outside the Society. There will be no room for dissenters ..... the message Rome is telling the Society!

Another point is who influences who. I have often had discussions with friends and well intentioned folk, who argue the Traditional Mass and Novus Ordo are both valid if offered correctly. These people just seem not to get it. How people attend that Novus Ordo is beyond me? What's worse is priests who offer both. They are in error and serious danger to faith.

John Grace · « **Reply #6 on:** December 06, 2012, 10:18:04 AM »

To cite an example of Ireland again, it is quite tragic to think at the recent International Eucharistic Congress, which was a flop that there was no true Mass. In 1932, it was Catholic. Thankfully, the SSPX youth group distributed some leaflets outside. A little pocket of resistance.

John Grace · « **Reply #7 on:** December 06, 2012, 10:29:33 AM »

There should be great rejoicing if the SSPX is declared schismatic. Given the Bishop Fellay leadership and direction, it seems doubtful though.

John Grace · « **Reply #8 on:** December 06, 2012, 10:55:04 AM »

If there is no deal, why then would Fr Steiner state the expulsion of Bishop Williamson facilitates the deal?

Columba · « **Reply #9 on:** December 06, 2012, 10:58:17 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote from: Wessex
One would hope that some districts would resist the liberal trend but appointees by and large have to reflect current management thinking, even anticipate it. Meanwhile the influence of critical senior members is depreciating over time unless they make a stand.

I think the biggest obstacle is the climate of resignation found throughout the Society to the new attitude towards Rome and a recognition that conciliarism is now to be accommodated and not fought. If that is the prevailing position and one that is being enforced, there is no freedom to practice traditionalism but outside the Society. There will be no room for dissenters ..... the message Rome is telling the Society!

Unless third order, the laity are not members of the SSPX so tend to come and go, and from all walks of life.

The Irish pro-life group, Youth Defence have members or associates who would attend both SSPX and Indult. Though the vast bulk of their support is Novus Ordo folk.It's necessary to 'tradify' those folk.
Just one example.

Ireland has been a country where independent chapels like in America have not been established.

Because Tradition is so small in Ireland there is a tendency to work together.

For many as long as you have the 'Latin Mass', you are ok. What many are waiting for is the SSPX to come home to Rome.

Ireland is very much a place where you would fill a room if there was a talk on a seer but would struggle to fill a room if about doctrine.

With the SSPX sinking, where will the resistance come from. The way I see things going is loose networks of Independent priests.

You can hardly describe a Latin Mass via a Diocesan structure or Institute Christ the King as resistance.

What is resistance? Indulterors think that opposing the Novus Ordo and the modernist "spirit" of Vatican II is enough. More serious trads realize that the Vatican II text itself is wrong and that modernist errors necessitate supplied jurisdiction and bold, constant criticism from the resistance. However, I would postulate that even many in this latter group do not go far enough because they do not fully understand who it is they must resist. Most do not realized how skilled the enemy has become at targeting and infiltrating organizations. They have forgotten the Gospel lesson Judas and such naivety leaves them in a state of almost helpless unwatchfulness concerning religious institutions they follow, such as the Vatican, SSPX, or even future organizations of SSPX refugees.

These trads are not able to take necessary safeguards against infiltration, much less restore institutions already infiltrated. Even trads who pray the Rosary and reject all modernist error cannot protect their institutions or even the faith of their children if they do not understand the lesson of Judas and apply it to current conditions. Therefore, I submit that any truly serious resistance must provide its participants with full understanding of how the enemy has infiltrated almost all modern institutions of government, media, academia, and religion. One must posses the courage to examine the problem before setting about to seek a solution.

If a large, centralized institution like the SSPX provided its members with detailed information about the enemy, it world certainly be targeted for emergency destruction. However, a loose network as suggested by Bp. Williamson is better situated for more discreet dissemination.

Diego · « **Reply #10 on:** December 06, 2012, 11:32:45 AM »

Yes, a loose network. What cannot be named is difficult to target.

Who here imagines that the Court Zionist has not sewn up control of SSPX assets for his Rothschild/Jaidhoff handlers? Since it has been their contumacious choice, let them take their earthly riches with them to hell... if they can.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** December 06, 2012, 12:55:00 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

If there is no deal, why then would Fr Steiner state the expulsion of Bishop Williamson facilitates the deal?

And why would the PCED come out the day after the expulsion and announce the negotiations had never ended?

And why would yet another PCED communique immediately after the expulsion state "the SSPX has been in a gradual state of reintegrationm since 2007?"

And why would Fr. Rostand assert (at his Post Falls conference) that a deal with Rome is "prudent?"

And on and on and.....

John Grace · « **Reply #12 on:** December 06, 2012, 01:07:30 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: John Grace
If there is no deal, why then would Fr Steiner state the expulsion of Bishop Williamson facilitates the deal?

And why would the PCED come out the day after the expulsion and announce the negotiations had never ended?

And why would yet another PCED communique immediately after the expulsion state "the SSPX has been in a gradual state of reintegrationm since 2007?"

And why would Fr. Rostand assert (at his Post Falls conference) that a deal with Rome is "prudent?"

And on and on and.....

Indeed. All this whilst Bishop Fellay and Menzingen being well aware vast bulk of priests and laity are against an agreement. Who believes the negotiations ever ended? An obstacle to the deal has been removed.

John Grace · « **Reply #13 on:** December 06, 2012, 01:32:32 PM »

Quote

Who here imagines that the Court Zionist has not sewn up control of SSPX assets for his Rothschild/Jaidhoff handlers?

Some SSPX folk seem not to give a hoot as demonstrated by cronier on another thread.

wallflower · « **Reply #14 on:** December 06, 2012, 05:29:35 PM »

This would actually restore trust.

It was the lack of these things that confirmed for me that they were up to no good. Not that I really expected Bishop Fellay to resign, but I did expect some sort of acknowledgment that those who were wary of the deal and speaking out against it were in fact correct. Especially when they themselves finally admitted that Rome HAD wanted them to accept VII.

One one side of your mouth you declare that you declined a deal because Rome wanted you to accept VII yet on the other side of your mouth you follow through with expelling, silencing, intimidating those who knew this and rang the alarm?

I smell rat.

They can pin all sorts of excuses on it but true humility and true proper leadership would have made some acknowledgment of their error. If they didn't like HOW the expelled Bishop and Frs went about ringing the alarms, that can be dealt with privately, but if you know they were correct to do so and have one humble bone about you, you wouldn't go so far as to expel and denigrate them.