The following is not "Internet rumor."  It comes from a reliable source,
which I am not at liberty to divulge.  Names of key players have been
removed for their privacy.

This seems to be timely and important information, so I am taking the risk
onto myself to post it here today.  

When you watch all the videos from this past Octave of Christmas
conference in KY, and then you read the following, you will see, it fits right
in.  



+Fellay is smart.  The incompetency is all an act.  He truly wants people to
believe he was deceived by Rome but he knew all along what was up ~ ~
and the 'deal' is NOT 'off.'

The Preamble still stands as is and Fellay wants it signed, even though he
has not made it public.  We get some idea of its contents by looking at the 6
Conditions.

Fellay has placed all his key men in the various position of authority:  he
has 'stacked the deck' in the Society, such that his removal, or his death or
his deposition cannot result otherwise than his being replaced with a new
SG who has an outlook practically identical to his own.  He has done
everything in his power to immortalize his capitulationist agenda.  Getting
the SSPX back under the control of modernist Rome is his Magnum Opus.

We are 'officially' under the impression that there are no more 'negotiations'
going on with modernist Rome, but that is not the case in reality, for there
continue to be quiet talks behind closed doors.  With today's technology you
do not have to be physically present to have a discussion with someone
anywhere in the world.  

When the Pope did not sign the deal in May or June of 2012, it was not
'divine providence' but rather it was diabolical, because now they are going
to wait until +Fellay can expel all of the resistance priests, and even
bishops!  They simply had a bit more opposition than they had anticipated,
and Rome wants to get the whole enchilada, without any pesky resistance.  
Rome wants a clean exhibit for her museum, her Rogue's Gallery of
conquests.

Changes are to be done slowly, in baby steps:  two steps forward, one step
back:  that is, two baby steps forward, and one baby step back.  
Sometimes there will be two DADDY steps forward, but that will always be
followed by a DADDY step back, as well. Same goes for Mommy Steps.

When someone complains about a particular baby step, he can be doing
the Society's dirty work for them, because other Faithful will start to see
him as a "nut case."  E.g., take the altar-table at Econe, or the removal of
the cross-bearer in Post Falls, or the closing of the Winona seminary where
THERE IS PLENTY OF ROOM for growth even while the Menzingen-denizens
whine about not enough room. Those who complain will be looked upon as
deficient in their thinking because nobody in authority agrees with him.  

Therefore, when the Super-Ordinary Mass arrives, the hybrid mix with the
Novus Ordo, and such nut cases complain, others will ignore him AND what
he says, because he's just a nut case. The abiding principle is, nobody
wants to be thought of as being a nut case.  That is the Ace-in-the-hole that
Menzingen is banking on.

By making Sacred Tradition and the defense thereof look like the work of
troublemakers, the Society can incrementally introduce Modernism,
liberalism and ecuмenism, but it has to be slowly, in baby steps, mostly,
like slow-boiling a frog.

The seminary at Winona was in an uproar this past December.  Over the
past 5 years the teaching has changed, such that priests today who were
seminarians 5 years ago were taught things differently than the
seminarians there today are taught.  Gradually, there is Modernism,
Liberalism and Ecuмenism being introduced.

Some of the seminarians there had been reared in SSPX chapels, and were
aware of what traditional Catholicism is, since their childhood.  Now they
see something new coming in, that they are expected to learn and they are
opposed to it.  But there is another faction:  seminarians who are from
Novus Ordo backgrounds, and have come in being unaware of the
traditional curriculum, so that when they start learning things in Winona
and they are told "this is what the Church has always taught," they believe
it.  Now these two factions are at odds with each other, for the NewOrder
background students think that this contention of the students with a Trad
background is some kind of heresy.  

This whole scene reminds me of the way Canon Gregorius Hesse described
the techniques of Modernists to promote aggiornamento, using the Hegelian
Dialectic approach, with the thesis and the antithesis fighting against each
other, to produce a new reality.  He said compare it to a contractor who
hires two painting sub-contractors to paint the same room. He meets with
one sub and tells him to paint the room RED, and then he meets with the
other sub and tells him to paint the room GREEN.  He sets the date for both
to show up on the SAME DAY, and then the contractor leaves town, and is
unavailable on the appointed day.  What do you suppose will happen when
two crews show up to paint the same room, one with red paint and the
other with green paint?  There is going to be a big fight, because if they mix
their paint they will get BROWN, and nobody has a contract to paint the
room brown, so they know that they will not get paid for doing that job.  

Chapels are now being pastored by priests no more than 5 years out of the
seminary.  Check it and see: everywhere you look, older pastors are being
removed or retired, or sent to new priories where they will do mission work
or fill-in for regular, young priests.  These new priests only know the "new"
form of Tradition.  Therefore they can be more easily manipulated to pass it
on to the Faithful.  

Older, wiser priests, many of whom are beloved by their flock, are being
kicked out, or transferred.  We are not being told of all the particular
stories.  Fr. Ward in Arcadia was sent packing to Chicago to be at the new
priory with Bishop de Mallerais and some others. He was sent away in
September, and filled a large moving van with all his books and papers
from Our Lady of the Angels parish, leaving behind numerous very sad
parishioners, some of whom may now be suffering a crisis of faith after this
loss.  But the faith of Catholics is not important, apparently.  What matters
is making a 'deal' with modernist Rome, and that will be pushed regardless
of the cost.  It is the top priority, now.

Many of the Society chapels are "YELLOW LIGHT" zones, that is, your faith
might be in danger by going there.  But there are others that are "RED
LIGHT" chapels, and you really should not go there at all.  I am not at
liberty to identify them.  Perhaps someone else can.

Wherever you go to SSPX Mass, keep your eyes peeled.  Watch for
unacceptable changes and be prepared to LEAVE.  

Fr. Pfeiffer recommends having a discussion with the pastor before you go,
because it is possible that he has not noticed a problem, that is, perhaps he
has introduced a change thinking that nobody will be offended or maybe
nobody will notice.  Perhaps his own training did not prepare him for being
aware of what these changes lead up to.  Or he may need to hear from a
concerned Faithful to give his own weak faith a boost.  These are not
his words, but mine.  What he said is these priests are isolated in their
priories and do not have that much interaction with the faithful, except for
Confessions and after Mass for a few minutes, and a few social gatherings.  
But when can the Faithful voice their concerns, really?  So make an
appointment to see the pastor in his office when you can describe your
discontent, and let him know how important it is for you.  

If you really believe it, tell him that you cannot attend Mass there any more
with these changes, because it is a danger to your faith.  Do not mince
words. Be prepared with specific examples, and be ready to hear his
contradictory argument, if any.  If he has none, then let him know that if
these changes are not reversed, then you will have no option but to leave,
and you will go out explaining why you are leaving to anyone who wants to
know.  

I have it on reliable testimony that some of the Faithful who have left such
chapels in the past 6-8 months have now returned, because of some
"scraps from the rich man's table" that have been tossed out for their
consideration.  Please be aware that the district superiors and even the new
pastors are not averse to tempting you to return, even if it means offering
you a piece of bait, or a "carrot on a stick."  Please be careful to recognize
it for what it is.  

Remember that your limit line beyond which you will leave, is subject to
change.  And the pastors know that.  Just like at Vatican II when change
after change came in under the progressiveness of Bugnini, so too now
there are incremental changes that in effect cause you to move your limit
line, if you let them.  Keep in mind what is important to you, and be aware
of what has happened already in the past.  For pretty soon you won't mind
no cross-bearer, and the table won't look so bad instead of the altar.  You
can be pretty sure that the Society isn't going to sell the chapel to any
independent group or priest, any more than the Novus Ordo dioceses was
willing to sell closed churches to the SSPX many many years ago.  Now the
tables have turned.

And this time, the SSPX is even more experienced than the dioceses were
back then, because they have been there, done that, already.

Problems in the Resistance movement:  Some people in the Society chapels
don't want to know about the dirty secrets. They want to trust +Fellay
because the track record of the Society has been not to accept the
Newmass, and therefore +Fellay cannot make a mistake.  Because of this
false confidence, the Society is now becoming a cult of personality.  People
are only human, and it is human to err.  You have to look at what the
motivation is for someone to be doing the things he is doing.

+Fellay claims (when asked) that he does not want to be a cult leader.  Nor
does he desire to be created Cardinal.  The one ambition he has, and this is
key, is that he may go down in history as the one who brought Tradition
back into the Church.  That has been his outspoken agenda for the past 16
years, his lifetime dream, his PERSONAL HOLY GRAIL,  and "there is no
stopping him."

Another problem in the Resistatnce movement:  Habit and satisfaction --
there are those who do not want to go back to Mass in rented halls, hotels,
or barns.  They don't want to be a guest in someone's home every Sunday.  
They built up a chapel and now they want to use it, even though they
haven't noticed that they do not own the chapel.  

There are a lot of Society priests who want to leave it, but do not have
anywhere to go.  

Curiously, there are groups of Faithful all over the world who have no
priest, so maybe it is more a lack of communication.  IMHO it has been the
work of the Holy See in the past to send missionaries out to distant lands,
but now this task is being left undone because what the Holy See sends out
any more is not the true Mass, but an imposter.  

Since the Preamble was not signed last year, a lot of priests have grown
tepid toward the dealmaking problem, or think that there is no problem
since there was no signature.  The longer this goes on, the more of this is
happening. +Fellay knows this, and he is able to use it to his advantage.  
The priests are being lulled to sleep, pretty much.



What if the Society returns to the ideals of Archbishop Lefebvre - will the
priests who have been expelled be willing to return?  

I will not answer that question.  I leave it for you:  CI members.............  :reading:




 

This thread was poorly titled (so I fixed it for you).

It was a good post about the SSPX-Rome crisis, but you failed to illustrate the point you were apparently trying to make.

You didn't even make CLAIMS (let alone proof) of defects or misdirection in the Resistance movement, etc. which is what I expected when I clicked on it.

You are simply musing about the current true state of the SSPX-Rome Crisis.

Why all the drama and Bob Dylan references?

I attend two different Soceity chapels and haven't noticed any changes or red flags.  I am curious what people have noticed specifically at their Church that has caused them concern?

This thread was poorly titled (so I fixed it for you).

It was a good post about the SSPX-Rome crisis, but you failed to illustrate the point you were apparently trying to make.

You didn't even make CLAIMS (let alone proof) of defects or misdirection in the Resistance movement, etc. which is what I expected when I clicked on it.

You are simply musing about the current true state of the SSPX-Rome Crisis.

Why all the drama and Bob Dylan references?

That's pretty special.  You don't change thread titles very often, Matthew.  

Like the one that misspells discreet: even after Tele politely requested
a correction.


I didn't write the title first, but last.  So while you read the title thinking
one thing, that doesn't mean I wrote the title then composed the post.  So
I was not really "trying to make a point" based on the title.  I guess what
I was thinking is that there are apparently some priests out there who are
experiencing a gradual change - in their own outlook which had been their
"resistance" to corruption, but under this agenda of the Menzingen-denizens,
they have changed direction.  So it isn't really a change in direction of the
Resistance, but rather a change in direction of these unidentified SSPX
priests, whoever they may be.

There ought to be a warning for all the SSPX priests right now, that they
may not be cognizant of what is happening to them, while the pressures
of the Mn-dzs gradually build up, kind of like a pressure cooker.  I'll bet
the proverbial frog would succuмb quicker with an increase of
temperature AND pressure.  I know that wood does!*  

I was real uneasy about making any such allusion in the thread title, for
I only know a couple such priests and was relying on the word of very
reliable sources.  So I went for being vague.  I guess that was a bad idea.
While I intended vagueness it came out looking more like antithesis, I
guess.  Besides, actually I rather like your title better, anyway.  I wish I
had thought of that!  HAHAHAHA



As for "all the drama," I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  And the
Bob Dylan quip was a tune that got stuck in my head.  I was never a fan of his.
But I had friends who were.  They wanted to be upright and respectable, but
they just couldn't help showing their infatuation with liberalism, or, that is,
with trendiness.  Kind of sad, really.  One of them recently died of leukemia.






*Refers to the fact that humidity alone is nearly useless compared to
steam combined with pressure to make wood fibers flexible for a short
period of time.  The best results are obtained with gaseous ammonia.

It sure was a depressing thread, Neil.  Matthew's right that it is largely musings but it's too bad we didn't have the internet around for people to muse on before Vatican II.  

Sometimes, mere musings turn out to be correct.

And having read it, I will keep my eyes open.  

Neil, since I assist at an SSPX Chapel, what specific signs should I look for?  

Quote from: RJS

I attend two different Soceity chapels and haven't noticed any changes or red flags.  I am curious what people have noticed specifically at their Church that has caused them concern?

I'm thinking that it was about 8 months ago that I noticed a change in sermons at my SSPX chapel. The reason it was noticeable is because our priest gave awesome sermons pretty much every week, then I noticed that for three weeks in a row, he preached strictly about Love and Charity - not the NO kind of Luv, a trad kind of love - but it's what was missing from his preaching that was noticeable.

No more warnings about the things I came used to him warning and teaching about i.e. the NO, TV, Rock and Roll, society, sin, hell, sacraments and so on. He got transferred out a few months ago and the new priest (+10 years an SSPX priest) preaches pretty much the same way.

Before this change happened, lines for confession were always very long - waiting an hour was typical if you were toward the end of the line and Saturday Masses had about twice as many people as there are now.

I thought something was going on but didn't really want to dwell on it because of what it would mean - thanks to Matthew and the folks here at CI and this forum about the SSPX, I knew I had reason to be suspicious, and I remain suspicious since as Neil said, we're in the baby step phase, for now.    

I appreciate this report, Stubborn.  

Now, I don't know where your chapel is and I don't know who your priest was.  
But I can already surmise by what you say, that you are not mistaken..  You might
want to try and remember what the date was when he started to preach on
love and charity.  It may come in useful.  

The thing that hits me is, he was in my own, weak observation, "given the word."  
He was probably told by his district superior that he had to stop saying things
like this and that, and had to start saying things like that and this, for if he did
not comply with these directives there would be 'consequences.'  If there is any
way you could get in touch with him to find out, you may be pleasantly surprised
by his appreciation of your perception.  As it is, he might be thinking that nobody
noticed.  Priests are people too.  Their faithful is their family.  You are his son,
really.  You should think of it that way.  Why do you think we call them "Father?"

To top it all off, even after he 'complied' (presuming my suspicion is correct) he
was transferred anyway.  

Which reminds me:  Was he over 50 years old?  If so, that was probably the
reason he was moved, because the Menzingen-denizens are moving OUT all
the older priests who were trained with the ABL TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI kind
of thing, and moving IN new priests for pastors that have only been ordained
about 5 years thereabouts, because they have the new training that is going
to EVOLVE the Faithful into an accepting bunch of lemmings who will not kick
and scream when the *SUPER-ORDINARY Mass* comes to town like a 3-ring
circus on tour.

*I think Fr. Hewko really hit pay dirt with that one.*

There is a sickening, serpentine, masonic infiltration.

Neil,
     I spoke with a resistance priest last week who said some believe the "deal" is not off. I would agree.  I also told him I no longer attended my SSPX chapel since October because of Bishop Fellay and the gang and ALL of the MANY things they have said and done to Bishop Williamson, the priests and the laity ( for instance, cutting off the funds for the poor monks in Brazil). I don't believe any of this is pleasing to God. I told the priest that the nearest Masses were an hour and an hour and a half away.  It's hard to make it. Staying home, reading Mass prayers and saying rosaries. Thought about going back to the chapel, even though I don't know that I could actually do it. Would have to leave right after Mass and not talk to friends. Anyway, the priest told me not to go back, that the teaching of the SSPX has changed and is going to trickle down. I continue to pray for Bishop Fellay and the gang that God will give them light, but meanwhile, I JUST WANT THEM TO PACK THEIR BAGS AND LEAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get out of Archbisop Lefebvres pious union of priests. You don't belong there anymore, because you don't believe in the principles he held! Like my daughter said "the dirty rat".

I agree with staying away.
The neoSSPX is experiencing a great corruption.
What an injustice that they can walk away with all the chapel properties.