Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: drphil on March 05, 2025, 11:22:44 PM
-
If the SSPX never actually "implemented" the docuмent or went through with any compromises in 2012 under Fellay then why does the resistance still exist other than the whole controversy with Williamson being kicked out? Didn't the pressure of the sspx resistance and criticisms from sspx priests who remained win out in the end? What's the point? Why not rejoin the SSPX and keep that pressure there, within it, rather than just scattering? I have heard that Fr. Pagliarani is more hardline and skeptical of compromise than Fellay, but this may be nothing more than rumor. I've also heard of some resistance groups rejoining the SSPX recently, like Benedictine monastery (https://fsspx.news/en/news/benedictine-monastery-reconnects-society-saint-pius-x-50372)I'm very new to this divide and have heard very little about the resistance until Williamson's passing, so feel free to correct me of my ignorance.
-
If the SSPX never actually "implemented" the docuмent or went through with any compromises in 2012 under Fellay then why does the resistance still exist other than the whole controversy with Williamson being kicked out? Didn't the pressure of the sspx resistance and criticisms from sspx priests who remained win out in the end? What's the point? Why not rejoin the SSPX and keep that pressure there, within it, rather than just scattering? I have heard that Fr. Pagliarani is more hardline and skeptical of compromise than Fellay, but this may be nothing more than rumor. I've also heard of some resistance groups rejoining the SSPX recently, like Benedictine monastery (https://fsspx.news/en/news/benedictine-monastery-reconnects-society-saint-pius-x-50372)I'm very new to this divide and have heard very little about the resistance until Williamson's passing, so feel free to correct me of my ignorance.
Ragebait? :laugh2:
-
If the SSPX never actually "implemented" the docuмent or went through with any compromises in 2012 under Fellay then why does the resistance still exist other than the whole controversy with Williamson being kicked out? Didn't the pressure of the sspx resistance and criticisms from sspx priests who remained win out in the end? What's the point? Why not rejoin the SSPX and keep that pressure there, within it, rather than just scattering? I have heard that Fr. Pagliarani is more hardline and skeptical of compromise than Fellay, but this may be nothing more than rumor. I've also heard of some resistance groups rejoining the SSPX recently, like Benedictine monastery (https://fsspx.news/en/news/benedictine-monastery-reconnects-society-saint-pius-x-50372)I'm very new to this divide and have heard very little about the resistance until Williamson's passing, so feel free to correct me of my ignorance.
on a serious note,If this isnt ragebait or for the memes I would say since the '90s and after the great Archbishop died the SSPX isn't what it used to be doctrinally, which is why the SSPX Resistance exists, it goes beyonf the 2012 deal at this point. For the record I attend both SSPX and Resistance chapels for the Sacraments, but it's clear that SSPX structures are veering toward conciliarism. As for staying within the SSPX to apply internal pressure, while that may be a valid political tactic, I can’t say for certain—it’s ultimately up to the priests. That said, I can attest that Fr. Pagliarani seems more hardline and skeptical of compromise than Bishop Fellay, given his background as a former IMBC Sedeprivationist seminarian.
-
Because of people like Fr. Paul Robinson
-
A newly established account and this is the first posting from that account?
🐟 🐟 🐟
-
If the SSPX never actually "implemented" the docuмent or went through with any compromises in 2012 under Fellay then why does the resistance still exist other than the whole controversy with Williamson being kicked out? Didn't the pressure of the sspx resistance and criticisms from sspx priests who remained win out in the end? What's the point? Why not rejoin the SSPX and keep that pressure there, within it, rather than just scattering? I have heard that Fr. Pagliarani is more hardline and skeptical of compromise than Fellay, but this may be nothing more than rumor. I've also heard of some resistance groups rejoining the SSPX recently, like Benedictine monastery (https://fsspx.news/en/news/benedictine-monastery-reconnects-society-saint-pius-x-50372)I'm very new to this divide and have heard very little about the resistance until Williamson's passing, so feel free to correct me of my ignorance.
Here's a start:
Things the SSPX has already DONE (past tense) to change, compromise, and contradict +Lefebvre's original apostolate.
http://www.cathinfo.com/c.htm
Sean Johnson came up with 100 in 2019 -- he could probably write 5 more follow-up volumes of 100 each by now, IF HE WANTED TO.
But at some point, it's so obvious, it almost gets boring. The example I like to reference -- back in 2007 there was a housing collapse. At first, only those "in the know" who followed things closely were aware of it. The rest of the people followed the lies of the Media and were clueless. But eventually, it became so mainstream, that certain "housing collapse blogs" actually shut down because, basically, their job was done. It was mainstream now, and continuing the blog was pointless.
That's about the situation with the SSPX today. Literally every chapel (are there any exceptions?) strives to work as close as possible with the local conciliar bishop, clergy, etc. And the organization has totally changed course with regards to Vatican II and the Conciliar Church. Their seminary formation has changed. Everything.
-
Here's a start:
Things the SSPX has already DONE (past tense) to change, compromise, and contradict +Lefebvre's original apostolate.
http://www.cathinfo.com/c.htm
Sean Johnson came up with 100 in 2019 -- he could probably write 5 more follow-up volumes of 100 each by now, IF HE WANTED TO.
But at some point, it's so obvious, it almost gets boring. The example I like to reference -- back in 2007 there was a housing collapse. At first, only those "in the know" who followed things closely were aware of it. The rest of the people followed the lies of the Media and were clueless. But eventually, it became so mainstream, that certain "housing collapse blogs" actually shut down because, basically, their job was done. It was mainstream now, and continuing the blog was pointless.
That's about the situation with the SSPX today. Literally every chapel (are there any exceptions?) strives to work as close as possible with the local conciliar bishop, clergy, etc. And the organization has totally changed course with regards to Vatican II and the Conciliar Church. Their seminary formation has changed. Everything.
Couldn't agree more Matthew
-
In addition to everything else said here, there is a real possibility that in the next generation or so, the SSPX literally will cease to exist. No new bishops mean no new priests - or worse the chance of NO bishops.
Bishop Williamson has ensured the continuity of tradition for however long this crisis lasts with his consecrations.
-
That said, I can attest that Fr. Pagliarani seems more hardline and skeptical of compromise than Bishop Fellay, given his background as a former IMBC Sedeprivationist seminarian.
That's good to know, I wasn't aware he came from sedevacantism. So did Fr Schmidberger. When they 'convert', they often seem to end up Conciliarist - the other side of the same coin as Bishop Williamson never tired of explaining.
Fr Pagliarani 'hardline'? No, he is to the Society what Benedict XVI was to the Conciliar Church.
-
Fr Pagliarani 'hardline'? No, he is to the Society what Benedict XVI was to the Conciliar Church.
Precisely this - otherwise where are the actual fruits to this "hardline" approach? It's business as usual in the Neo-SSPX.
-
I've also heard of some resistance groups rejoining the SSPX recently, like Benedictine monastery (https://fsspx.news/en/news/benedictine-monastery-reconnects-society-saint-pius-x-50372)
That's incorrect. It's actually a case of another Benedictine monastery JOINING the Resistance. The Motherhouse of this German Benedictine monastery is in Bellaigue, France. They had a falling out with the SSPX in 2019, but did not at that time side with the Resistance. The German monastery remained united with its Motherhouse - until just recently when Bellaigue hosted Bishop Morgan of the Resistance... Now if there was no difference between the SSPX and the Resistance, why would this have provoked such a reaction from the German Benedictines?
-
If the SSPX never actually "implemented" the docuмent or went through with any compromises in 2012 under Fellay then why does the resistance still exist... Didn't the pressure of the sspx resistance and criticisms from sspx priests who remained win out in the end?
The Resistance to an agreement with modernist Rome in 2012 from a large part of the SSPX undoubtedly foiled the plan of Bishop Fellay for the imminent agreement he had arranged with Pope Benedict XVI.
However, the Resistance did not win out. Quite the opposite. The SSPX has now been purged of the Resistance element by ruthless Menzingen authority more intent than even on a legal position in the Conciliar Church. This can be seen by the revolutionary resolutions of the 2012 Extraordinary General Chapter, and the appointments of ralliers Bishop Fellay and Fr Schmidberger to two new positions specially created for them by the 2018 General Chapter.
The SSPX gleefully received the New Church Bishop Huonder under their roof, sent by Pope Francis amid contradictory and deceitful declarations, allowing him to exercise a ministry without any care for sacramental validity. They hailed him as a convert to Tradition. Yet the true convert to Tradition from the Conciliar Church, Archbishop Vigano, was given the cold shoulder, and that was well before he expressed any sedevacantist opinions. You can see by their choice of friends what the New SSPX stands for...
-
I think OP's questions are in good faith-- for those who lived "in the Resistance" as it was happening, the events probably seem closer, but it's been more than ten years and there are a lot of people who are analyzing the events after the fact, as part of traditionalist history.
While it is true that the SSPX did not reach an open and formal agreement with modernist Rome, it is equally true that the SSPX has slid leftward, and continues to slide leftward, since ~2012 (I agree with Britpapist that this leftward slide actually dates to ABL's death-- but it's accelerated over the last 10-15 years). The Resistance as originally formulated was motivated by resistance to and rejection of any deal, but the spirit of it was also opposed to increased liberalization of the SSPX whether or not a deal was struck.
Of course, one can point to lots of good priests within the SSPX who are not liberal and who have resisted liberalization. But considered corporately, the SSPX as measured by its messaging, its priestly formation, its politicking, what it will and won't criticize, has become largely indistinguishable from the Indult groups. It (the SSPX) maintains one very significant difference from the Indult groups which is that the lion's share of its priests are still validly ordained. Aside from that (which is no small issue), it's hard to tell the difference between the SSPX and the FSSP.
I've spent some time thinking about the nature of the term/label "SSPX Resistance" as a descriptor for a specific group, and I think the label has expired. The label came about as a way of describing a rather significant exodus of priests all leaving the SSPX (or being expelled) at around the same time, for the same reason: they were opposed to Fellay's intention of striking a deal with modernist Rome. And at the beginning, the label made sense. As time went on and the deal was not made, and as priests had a chance to reconsider various things (like whether they wanted to be part of a group at all, or whether they wanted to maintain an R&R position, or if they did want a group whether it should be headed by Bishop Williamson or someone else, etc.), the label basically became a catch-all for any priest that was left/was expelled from the SSPX due to its liberalization. But that's a label so stretchy it starts to lose its usefulness, since it's referring to priests who are sedes and non-sedes, priests who want an organization and priests who want a loose affiliation, priests who "red light" the SSPX and priests who don't, etc.
The more and more time passed, the more clear it became that there really was no corporate body that could be called "the Resistance" because there was just too much diversity of opinion and no real corporate unity among them. This, of course, does not stop people from still talking about "the Resistance" as though it is some corporate body, but I personally don't think it's any more useful than referring to "The (Oyster Bay) Nine" as though that is some corporate body. Like The Nine, the Resistance is really an historical artifact. Some people who belonged to it are still alive, some aren't, some still think exactly what they thought at the time the group existed in corporate unity while some have changed their mind.
But in present day, there is no "The Nine"-- there's MHTS, SGG, the SSPV, and a few independent priests. Likewise in present day there is no "SSPX Resistance"-- there's the SJAM, Dom Tomas Aquinas's group, +Williamson's independent bishops, a variety of independent priests, etc. Mind you I am only making a claim about the usefulness of the label as a descriptor of a corporate body. If you can do a "where are they now?" retrospective on the majority of the members of a group, that's proof that the group just doesn't exist in any meaningful way.
-
In addition to everything else said here, there is a real possibility that in the next generation or so, the SSPX literally will cease to exist. No new bishops mean no new priests - or worse the chance of NO bishops.
Bishop Williamson has ensured the continuity of tradition for however long this crisis lasts with his consecrations.
IMO, the next step will be for the Vatican to offer full communion to the SSPX in exchange for the SSPX celebrating the Novus Ordo in Latin and in a "traditional way" that satisfies all of the SSPX's concerns laid out in the following docuмent:
https://sspx.au/en/traditional-mass-vs-new-mass-33860
Read that docuмent carefully. The SSPX does not reject the Novus Ordo per se. They reject certain "abuses" and "Protestant" influences, which if excised would leave what the SSPX calls "the Catholic elements." Here is how they put it:
Some of the elements that make up the New Mass are Catholic: a priest, bread and wine, genuflections, signs of the Cross, etc. But some are also Protestant: a table, common-place utensils, communion under both kinds and in the hand, etc. The New Mass mixes these heterodox elements alongside the Catholic ones to form a liturgy which would marry the Church and the world, Catholicism and Protestantism, light and darkness.
So, if the SSPX is allowed to celebrate without his "mixture," it will be, according to them, a "Catholic Mass." By making this concession, they will be back in the grace of their "Holy Father" Bergoglio (aka the Antichrist).
Most of the people in the SSPX pews won't know and won't care to know the difference. They will have their "Latin mass." It will look very similar, almost identical to the untrained eye. But it will be emptied of its Holy Prayers, including removal of "mysterium fidei" from the Consecration of the Blood and, therefore, will invalidate the double consecration necessary to achieve the authentic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
It will look something like this Latin Novus Ordo from the Canons of St. John Cantius:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czqlGPj1BY4
-
If the SSPX never actually "implemented" the docuмent or went through with any compromises in 2012 under Fellay then why does the resistance still exist...
Nothing " implemented"..?
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation
The article says this wedding was Feb 10, 2018.
Neo Sspx in Canada still use " Planto Prrotect" for their WOKE agenda...ie. boys ok in female washrooms blah blah blah ,gender ID,
So if you don't have a problem with that, then you are not awake.
Pray+
-
Nothing " implemented"..?
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation
The article says this wedding was Feb 10, 2018.
Neo Sspx in Canada still use " Planto Prrotect" for their WOKE agenda...ie. boys ok in female washrooms blah blah blah ,gender ID,
So if you don't have a problem with that, then you are not awake.
Pray+
-
I think OP's questions are in good faith-- for those who lived "in the Resistance" as it was happening, the events probably seem closer, but it's been more than ten years and there are a lot of people who are analyzing the events after the fact, as part of traditionalist history.
While it is true that the SSPX did not reach an open and formal agreement with modernist Rome, it is equally true that the SSPX has slid leftward, and continues to slide leftward, since ~2012 (I agree with Britpapist that this leftward slide actually dates to ABL's death-- but it's accelerated over the last 10-15 years). The Resistance as originally formulated was motivated by resistance to and rejection of any deal, but the spirit of it was also opposed to increased liberalization of the SSPX whether or not a deal was struck.
Of course, one can point to lots of good priests within the SSPX who are not liberal and who have resisted liberalization. But considered corporately, the SSPX as measured by its messaging, its priestly formation, its politicking, what it will and won't criticize, has become largely indistinguishable from the Indult groups. It (the SSPX) maintains one very significant difference from the Indult groups which is that the lion's share of its priests are still validly ordained. Aside from that (which is no small issue), it's hard to tell the difference between the SSPX and the FSSP.
I've spent some time thinking about the nature of the term/label "SSPX Resistance" as a descriptor for a specific group, and I think the label has expired. The label came about as a way of describing a rather significant exodus of priests all leaving the SSPX (or being expelled) at around the same time, for the same reason: they were opposed to Fellay's intention of striking a deal with modernist Rome. And at the beginning, the label made sense. As time went on and the deal was not made, and as priests had a chance to reconsider various things (like whether they wanted to be part of a group at all, or whether they wanted to maintain an R&R position, or if they did want a group whether it should be headed by Bishop Williamson or someone else, etc.), the label basically became a catch-all for any priest that was left/was expelled from the SSPX due to its liberalization. But that's a label so stretchy it starts to lose its usefulness, since it's referring to priests who are sedes and non-sedes, priests who want an organization and priests who want a loose affiliation, priests who "red light" the SSPX and priests who don't, etc.
The more and more time passed, the more clear it became that there really was no corporate body that could be called "the Resistance" because there was just too much diversity of opinion and no real corporate unity among them. This, of course, does not stop people from still talking about "the Resistance" as though it is some corporate body, but I personally don't think it's any more useful than referring to "The (Oyster Bay) Nine" as though that is some corporate body. Like The Nine, the Resistance is really an historical artifact. Some people who belonged to it are still alive, some aren't, some still think exactly what they thought at the time the group existed in corporate unity while some have changed their mind.
But in present day, there is no "The Nine"-- there's MHTS, SGG, the SSPV, and a few independent priests. Likewise in present day there is no "SSPX Resistance"-- there's the SJAM, Dom Tomas Aquinas's group, +Williamson's independent bishops, a variety of independent priests, etc. Mind you I am only making a claim about the usefulness of the label as a descriptor of a corporate body. If you can do a "where are they now?" retrospective on the majority of the members of a group, that's proof that the group just doesn't exist in any meaningful way.
I think the best example of the SSPX sliding leftwards was moving Bp Williamson from Winona to La Reja, to hide him from the public eye of the Western Journalists (Of course that didn't stop the great Bishop). Let us not forget the SSPX breaking it's own founders ethos of not having Superior General being one of the SSPX Bishops after 1988 yet we got Bp Fellay in 1994!
While I also somewhat agree that "the messaging, its priestly formation, its politicking, what it will and won't criticize, has become largely indistinguishable from the Indult groups", I do not think the main anecdote of Priest size is true to a large extent as while the SSPX Clerics do have the largest non-tainted line of Priests (Indult uses Post '69 Ordained Bishops so thats tainted), I do think what makes the SSPX stand out is that when they get it right they get it right and actually stands up to conciliarism or modernism hence why they are in a state of "canonical Irregularity". I do think it's by in large also on the Corporate level the SSPX does seem to still use the Facade that they are still the last bastions of the Church and "the only good guys"
Also while I don't think my knowledge on what to label the SSPX Resistance as,your analogy on the the SSPX Resistance label it reminds me of the idea of conservativism and how many Enlightenment fanatics have not labelled conservativism as not an Ideology per se rather a culture/state of being in a reaction chain. I do think however the late BP Williamson told me he never wanted a corporate SSPX Resistance of an official grouping for himself
-
IMO, the next step will be for the Vatican to offer full communion to the SSPX in exchange for the SSPX celebrating the Novus Ordo in Latin and in a "traditional way" that satisfies all of the SSPX's concerns laid out in the following docuмent:
https://sspx.au/en/traditional-mass-vs-new-mass-33860
Read that docuмent carefully. The SSPX does not reject the Novus Ordo per se. They reject certain "abuses" and "Protestant" influences, which if excised would leave what the SSPX calls "the Catholic elements." Here is how they put it:
So, if the SSPX is allowed to celebrate without his "mixture," it will be, according to them, a "Catholic Mass." By making this concession, they will be back in the grace of their "Holy Father" Bergoglio (aka the Antichrist).
Most of the people in the SSPX pews won't know and won't care to know the difference. They will have their "Latin mass." It will look very similar, almost identical to the untrained eye. But it will be emptied of its Holy Prayers, including removal of "mysterium fidei" from the Consecration of the Blood and, therefore, will invalidate the double consecration necessary to achieve the authentic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
It will look something like this Latin Novus Ordo from the Canons of St. John Cantius:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czqlGPj1BY4
I think this is indeed coming down the line. But first, I think they wanted Huonder involved to potentially ordain seminarians, casting doubt on the validity of orders.
What I find particularly interesting is the prevalence of free-standing altars in many of the neo-SSPX's new "monuments". Are these rather impressive new chapels being designed to potentially accommodate Novus Ordo priests? Or perhaps something resembling the 1965 Mass?
-
I think this is indeed coming down the line. But first, I think they wanted Huonder involved to potentially ordain seminarians, casting doubt on the validity of orders.
What I find particularly interesting is the prevalence of free-standing altars in many of the neo-SSPX's new "monuments". Are these rather impressive new chapels being designed to potentially accommodate Novus Ordo priests? Or perhaps something resembling the 1965 Mass?
I understand the issues with a freestanding Altar and the speculation, it's a valid view imho, but the SSPX's Immaculata church gives a "justified" view on it
One difference in the Immaculata will be a free-standing altar. For many of us, it may be foreign or even a novelty. In fact, for the full solemnity of the liturgy, a free-standing altar is ideal (as one can witness if you visit the main churches of Rome.) As the Old Catholic Encyclopedia from 1910 explains: "Hence it [the high altar] must stand free on all sides, allowing ample room for the consecrator to move around it. As its name indicates, the high altar, being the chief place for the enactment of the sacrificial function, is to be prominent not only by its position but also by the richness of its material and ornamentation." As a practical example, the priest, during a High Mass, will now be able to incense around the entire altar, not simply the front.
https://www.anewimmaculata.org/blog/2020/3/12/the-sanctuary#:~:text=One%20difference%20in%20the%20Immaculata,the%20main%20churches%20of%20Rome.)
But I totally accept that a Free standing Altar is susceptible for allowing the Novus Ordo and I will give them the benefit of the doubt out of charity
-
I understand the issues with a freestanding Altar and the speculation, it's a valid view imho, but the SSPX's Immaculata church gives a "justified" view on it
One difference in the Immaculata will be a free-standing altar. For many of us, it may be foreign or even a novelty. In fact, for the full solemnity of the liturgy, a free-standing altar is ideal (as one can witness if you visit the main churches of Rome.) As the Old Catholic Encyclopedia from 1910 explains: "Hence it [the high altar] must stand free on all sides, allowing ample room for the consecrator to move around it. As its name indicates, the high altar, being the chief place for the enactment of the sacrificial function, is to be prominent not only by its position but also by the richness of its material and ornamentation." As a practical example, the priest, during a High Mass, will now be able to incense around the entire altar, not simply the front.
https://www.anewimmaculata.org/blog/2020/3/12/the-sanctuary#:~:text=One%20difference%20in%20the%20Immaculata,the%20main%20churches%20of%20Rome.)
But I totally accept that a Free standing Altar is susceptible for allowing the Novus Ordo and I will give them the benefit of the doubt out of charity
Even giving them benefit of the doubt and assuming best intentions, it still raises questions considering everything else happening within the SSPX.
I've also heard some attribute this to "French tastes", but to me that explanation doesn’t seem very convincing.
-
Ragebait? :laugh2:
.
I've never heard the term before, but yes, I think you are correct. :laugh1:
-
.
I've never heard the term before, but yes, I think you are correct. :laugh1:
Sorry, it's a young people online word term :laugh1:, it just means a post on social media or a forum designed to make you mad so they can get an interaction or garner attention.
-
.
I've never heard the term before, but yes, I think you are correct. :laugh1:
Perhaps, but at the same time it is a legitimate question that somebody of good will could very well ask.
I don't see how asking resistance folk to clarify and justify out position alone could lead to "rage".
Then again, the lack of engagement on his part might indicate bad intentions. But he might just be reading the thread.
-
Perhaps, but at the same time it is a legitimate question that somebody of good will could very well ask.
I don't see how asking resistance folk to clarify and justify out position alone could lead to "rage".
Then again, the lack of engagement on his part might indicate bad intentions. But he might just be reading the thread.
my exact thought hence why I gave my input and my two pennys on it
-
I think the best example of the SSPX sliding leftwards was moving Bp Williamson from Winona to La Reja, to hide him from the public eye of the Western Journalists (Of course that didn't stop the great Bishop). Let us not forget the SSPX breaking it's own founders ethos of not having Superior General being one of the SSPX Bishops after 1988 yet we got Bp Fellay in 1994!
While I also somewhat agree that "the messaging, its priestly formation, its politicking, what it will and won't criticize, has become largely indistinguishable from the Indult groups", I do not think the main anecdote of Priest size is true to a large extent as while the SSPX Clerics do have the largest non-tainted line of Priests (Indult uses Post '69 Ordained Bishops so thats tainted), I do think what makes the SSPX stand out is that when they get it right they get it right and actually stands up to conciliarism or modernism hence why they are in a state of "canonical Irregularity". I do think it's by in large also on the Corporate level the SSPX does seem to still use the Facade that they are still the last bastions of the Church and "the only good guys"
Also while I don't think my knowledge on what to label the SSPX Resistance as,your analogy on the the SSPX Resistance label it reminds me of the idea of conservativism and how many Enlightenment fanatics have not labelled conservativism as not an Ideology per se rather a culture/state of being in a reaction chain. I do think however the late BP Williamson told me he never wanted a corporate SSPX Resistance of an official grouping for himself
.
Yes, Bishop Williamson promoted a loose network of independent but affiliated priests-- even early on. He made it clear that he did not intend to start a new organization, much to the dissatisfaction and disappointment of some.
Corporately, the SSPX no longer stands up to modernism-- except maybe in some abstract sense. They do not produce regular content warning about the errors of the Novus Ordo, criticizing the heresies of Bergoglio, etc. There are of course some priests who still do, but as a corporate body the SSPX just doesn't.
-
So between neo-SSPX and Resistance you have two completely different paradigms:
Resistance: there's a radical incompatibility between the Conciliar religion that cannot be reconciled and that the Conciliars need to convert back to Tradition. There's no reconciling the two, and the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church (at least in one sense according to them) and lacks the marks of the Church.
neo-SSPX: there are some problems within the Conciliar Church, but it's really and substantially the Catholic Church. We can work with them to correct those problems from within, and the neo-SSPX are content to have their seat at the table or their niche in the Conciliar pantheon.
There are not reconcilable.
Now, in terms of the practical consequences, we're seeing the inevitable result of this blending of neo-SSPX with Conciliarism, the same progression towards Modernism that we saw in the 1940s and 1950s before Vatican II. We see the SSPX promoting Modernist trash, like Fr. Robinson's heretical book, telling people it's OK to get the jab, that 95% of V2 is Catholic (adopting more the Schneider position), having communicatio in sacris with the Modernists, etc. We see influxes of Conciliars into SSPX chapels after Jorge shut down the Motus so that the cultures at these chapels are being polluted. Finally, you have to be "on the lookout" constantly in terms of whether the neo-SSPX might send you some Novus Ordo presider who has not been conditionally ordained in the Traditional Rite and could be subjected to doubtful Sacraments.
-
Finally, you have to be "on the lookout" constantly in terms of whether the neo-SSPX might send you some Novus Ordo presider who has not been conditionally ordained in the Traditional Rite and could be subjected to doubtful Sacraments.
This is terrible. I am practically giving up on the SSPX because of this problem. There's always a converted priest around, leaving doubtfully consecrated hosts on the tabernacle.
And, as I have stated before, Bp. Thomas Aquinas does not oppose the new rite:
In defense of Fr. Jahir and his priesthood
We would like to record here our vehement disapproval of those who, among the sedevacantists, attack the Rev. Father Jahir Britto and deny his priesthood.
It is lighthearted, an act of pride to call into question the priesthood of those who, within Tradition, have always done a great job, like Fr. Jahir, who founded a religious congregation that served and serves countless souls, and whose priesthood was received from a bishop of traditional spirit.
Dom Lefebvre did not question the ordinations in the new rite. The only thing he said can be questioned is the bishop's intention, and there is no reason to doubt the intention of the bishop who ordained Father Jahir, as he was an old-fashioned bishop, a bishop that Fr. Jahir chose it for its more traditional spirit. So, calling into question the priesthood of the Rev. Padre is disturbing the faithful in an undignified and irresponsible way.
We rise, therefore, vehemently to defend the priestly honor of Fr. Jahir and remember all the good he did to souls in Bahia and outside Bahia, as well as the good done by his community and in particular by Fr. Joaquim, who was trained by Fr. Jahir and who has assisted souls in many states of Brazil. For the honor of Fr Jahir, his monastery and his faithful, we make this protest, and more than a protest, a condemnation of those who disturb souls by questioning the priesthood of Fr. Jahir Britto.
May Our Lady bless us and protect us from all error and all groundless disturbance. So be it.
+ Thomas Aquinas, OSB
Source: https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/em-defesa-do-pe-jahir-e-de-seu-sacerd%C3%B3cio
(https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/em-defesa-do-pe-jahir-e-de-seu-sacerdócio)So, you are not safe in the Resistance either, in case the other bishops think like him.
-
Even giving them benefit of the doubt and assuming best intentions, it still raises questions considering everything else happening within the SSPX.
I've also heard some attribute this to "French tastes", but to me that explanation doesn’t seem very convincing.
I disagree that the SSPX should be given the benefit of the doubt.
If a man had a rap sheet of 500 counts of theft over the past 15 years, would you give him "the benefit of the doubt" and let him watch your property while you're on vacation? Why would you treat him like any other Catholic with a good or neutral reputation? Or would his track record PRECLUDE such a naive gift of trust, that was clearly not called for.
There is such a thing as prudence. And when you destroy your own reputation/good name by your actions, you no longer have a "good name" or any right to a "benefit of the doubt". Especially if there is zero indication you have converted in any way since your "rap sheet" thefts.
Being charitable doesn't mean being naive or imprudent.
-
Another example concession is that NeoSspx thought the Excommunications of the 4 (6?) bishops had to be lifted.
In the good old days, +Lefebvre explained that they were null and void. Plus, the old SSPX had demanded that the Decree of exco be shredded, because that was in fact what the Decree was: garbage. +L was content to exist outside Modernist Rome anyway. Then +F wanted recognition, (wreckedco ignition to be more proper.)
(https://i.imgur.com/xfnxZIC.jpeg)
These are very important concepts to study.
But the cherry on the cake is when neoSspx THANKED the Pope for the lift !!!
-
Resistance: there's a radical incompatibility between the Conciliar religion that cannot be reconciled and that the Conciliars need to convert back to Tradition. There's no reconciling the two, and the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church (at least in one sense according to them) and lacks the marks of the Church.
But for some reason the heresiarch leader of the conciliar church is the pope of the Catholic Church despite the fact that "there's a radical incompatibility between the Conciliar religion that cannot be reconciled and that the Conciliars need to convert back to Tradition. There's no reconciling the two, and the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church (at least in one sense according to them) and lacks the marks of the Church." :facepalm:
-
Isso é terrível. Estou praticamente desistindo da FSSPX por causa desse problema. Sempre tem um padre convertido por aí, deixando hóstias consagradas duvidosamente no tabernáculo.
E, como já afirmei antes, o Bispo Tomás de Aquino não se opõe ao novo rito:
Fonte: https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/em-defesa-do-pe-jahir-e-de-seu-sacerd%C3%B3cio
(https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/em-defesa-do-pe-jahir-e-de-seu-sacerdócio) Então, você também não está seguro na Resistência, caso os outros bispos pensem como This depends on each case. Father Gregory Hesse was also ordained in the Novus Ordo and Bishop Williamson said that a new ordination was not necessary.
-
OFather Jahir was ordained in 1968 by the then Archbishop of Salvador and Primate of Brazil Cardinal Augusto Alvaro da Silva. The Archbishop was consecrated bishop in 1911.
-
+Aquinas
Dom Lefebvre did not question the ordinations in the new rite. The only thing he said can be questioned is the bishop's intention,
:facepalm:
Seriously? No. In fact, it's the Bishop's intention that CANNOT be questioned (absent anything that might be manifested publicly), as the Church has always PRESUMED intention of the Rite itself expressed the Catholic intention. If the Rite doesn't express the Catholic intention, then the RITE is questionable even if the proper intention is supplied. Quick perusal of Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae would suffice to clarify this.
I've never seen such ass-backwards bad theology regarding the Sacraments.
This nonsense goes back to the day of The Nine I'm afraid, where the SSPX had to come up with some way to force the acceptance of NO Orders on SSPX priests in the interests of playing nithe with Wojtyla. So they threw The Nine under the bus.
Interesting that on another thread, a prominent Resistance supporter attacked Father Mawdsley as a "married layman", when those two are PRECISELY the exact same counts that SSPX jettisoned The Nine over, acceptance of NO annulments (which she rejects here) and the NO Orders (which she also rejects here). Ironic.
We also had prominent Resistance supporters here (i.e. SeanJohnson) very forcefully arguing that there are doubts with NO Orders outside of just some internal-forum-and-therefore-unknowable "intention". Again Leo XIII clarified that what's at issue is the intention of the RITE, not the individual. If the RITE expresses the Catholic intention, the intention of any minister using the Rite is presumed by the Church. If the RITE does NOT express the Catholic intention, then the RITE ITSELF is suspect, and no amount of internal-forum intention by the minister could "wish" it into validity. Those principles are quite clear ... but they've been inverted by SSPX for decades now, and it looks like +Aquinas is following that same ridiculous line.
-
This depends on each case. Father Gregory Hesse was also ordained in the Novus Ordo and Bishop Williamson said that a new ordination was not necessary.
Sure. As great as he was, I don't agree with Bp. Williamson on everything. In my opinion, it does not depend on each case at all. Each and every case is doubtful.
OFather Jahir was ordained in 1968 by the then Archbishop of Salvador and Primate of Brazil Cardinal Augusto Alvaro da Silva. The Archbishop was consecrated bishop in 1911.
Then the archbishop must have used the new rite of ordination, which started to be used just in 1968, otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for Bp. Thomas Aquinas to write this letter.
I don't have a problem with people who like the new rites and believe that they are valid. I just won't be receiving any sacraments from priests ordained or consecrated in these rites.
-
The label, Resistance, has largely lost its original meaning. For myself, it has pretty much come down to evaluating trad chapels on their own merits including those of the SSPX. In as much is as reasonable, look into the background of the priest(s) and at the lifestyles and general demeanor of the people. If it sounds Protestant, it kind of is. If I had to be in 100% agreement with all stands on issues outside of rejecting the novus ordo, I would not hear Mass, receive Sacraments, associate with other trads—-ever. I’d change my surname to Dimond, but even they have one another.
I’d change my CathInfo name from Seraphina to LoneRangerCatholic.
God doesn’t expect me to judge in the internal forum. All I can do is my best within the Church Militant.
After doing my best, the following maxims apply.
1) Keep out of trivial disputes.
2) Maintain a certain distance. “Don’t ask; don’t tell.”
3) Assume Catholic intent unless there is a obvious reason to believe otherwise.
4) If in positive doubt, go without.
5) Keep my end in mind.
-
Each and every case is doubtful.
THIS^^^
Enough has most certainly changed to constitute postive doubt at the very least. This "intention" game they're playing was just the reason for them to force their validity down everyone's throats when they were trying to get Wojtyla to allow them to make the "Experiment of Tradition" (just like +Fellay is doing now). They couldn't very well reconcile wiht Wojtyla while telling him that NO Sacraments are invalid.
LOL ... I know a priest who had been ordained directly by Wojtyla himself but was conditionally ordained by +Williamson later.
So, listen, either there is positive doubt or there isn't. If there is, then the faithful cannot approach them for Sacraments except in danger of death. If there isn't, then there's no justification for conditional ordinations at all. But they came up with this "intention" thing so they can justify doing it and also not doing it, depending on the politics of any specific case.
-
Then the archbishop must have used the new rite of ordination, which started to be used just in 1968...
A significant nuance exists in this statement: which STARTED to be used just in 1968...
The new rites of ordination were promulgated in 1968, but up to two to three years elapsed before the new -- and costly -- liturgical books were had everywhere. That era saw the advent of the mimeographed or photocopied (called "xeroxed" in those days) liturgical rites shoved into unsightly binders for Masses and sacraments. Not all bishops would tolerate this and continued to use the books on hand with the old rite until the new could be purchased.
In other words, every Novus Ordo episcopal ordination from that point forward needs to be examined for validity -- which form was used? Most may be doubtful, some are invalid, yet others prove valid. The same applies to presbyteral ordinations because of the vanishing "ut" in the form.
-
Hello, OP here. I asked out of genuine curiousness, and it was inspired from a Reddit poster's question. Ofc ppl who ask such questions on Reddit get destroyed for even implying they associate with anything SSPX let alone SSPX resistance. I am new to the Catholic faith and was naive of the crisis until after I was baptized and confirmed (Novus Ordo I'm sure some of you may consider such invalid, although even by trad terms I believe my baptism was done legitimately.) Once i learned the of the betrayal in the Church that occurred during and even leading up to V2 i became pretty obsessive in trying to find out, and cope with my faith. Im very confident in the Catholic Church and that it has the fullness of Truth... but I can't in good conscience continue to go to the Novus Ordo, it is actually very heavy on me to continue to witness what I have knowing what I know now (very little). Thank you for the discussion here as it helps. The SSPX (neo-sspx as some seem to refer to the non-resistance strain since Fellay) would be my only logical weekly option for Mass, there is no SSPX resistance in my state and the nearest sedes meet once a month, 4 hours away (CMRI). I live in a spiritual wasteland. it sucks. I feel like this whole crisis is very hard for new converts because if they go my path, they have barely had the chance to read up on the fundamentals (you learn jack in NO RCIA) before figuring all this out, especially if they have a busy life.
-
Hello, OP here. I asked out of genuine curiousness, and it was inspired from a Reddit poster's question. Ofc ppl who ask such questions on Reddit get destroyed for even implying they associate with anything SSPX let alone SSPX resistance. I am new to the Catholic faith and was naive of the crisis until after I was baptized and confirmed (Novus Ordo I'm sure some of you may consider such invalid, although even by trad terms I believe my baptism was done legitimately.) Once i learned the of the betrayal in the Church that occurred during and even leading up to V2 i became pretty obsessive in trying to find out, and cope with my faith. Im very confident in the Catholic Church and that it has the fullness of Truth... but I can't in good conscience continue to go to the Novus Ordo, it is actually very heavy on me to continue to witness what I have knowing what I know now (very little). Thank you for the discussion here as it helps. The SSPX (neo-sspx as some seem to refer to the non-resistance strain since Fellay) would be my only logical weekly option for Mass, there is no SSPX resistance in my state and the nearest sedes meet once a month, 4 hours away (CMRI). I live in a spiritual wasteland. it sucks. I feel like this whole crisis is very hard for new converts because if they go my path, they have barely had the chance to read up on the fundamentals (you learn jack in NO RCIA) before figuring all this out, especially if they have a busy life.
In your situation I would go to the SSPX for the sacraments.
-
Hello, OP here. I asked out of genuine curiousness, and it was inspired from a Reddit poster's question. Ofc ppl who ask such questions on Reddit get destroyed for even implying they associate with anything SSPX let alone SSPX resistance. I am new to the Catholic faith and was naive of the crisis until after I was baptized and confirmed (Novus Ordo I'm sure some of you may consider such invalid, although even by trad terms I believe my baptism was done legitimately.) Once i learned the of the betrayal in the Church that occurred during and even leading up to V2 i became pretty obsessive in trying to find out, and cope with my faith. Im very confident in the Catholic Church and that it has the fullness of Truth... but I can't in good conscience continue to go to the Novus Ordo, it is actually very heavy on me to continue to witness what I have knowing what I know now (very little). Thank you for the discussion here as it helps. The SSPX (neo-sspx as some seem to refer to the non-resistance strain since Fellay) would be my only logical weekly option for Mass, there is no SSPX resistance in my state and the nearest sedes meet once a month, 4 hours away (CMRI). I live in a spiritual wasteland. it sucks. I feel like this whole crisis is very hard for new converts because if they go my path, they have barely had the chance to read up on the fundamentals (you learn jack in NO RCIA) before figuring all this out, especially if they have a busy life.
Welcome to the Faith. Deo gratias!
I agree, attend the SSPX, but stay aware of the issues.
The SSPX is surely infiltrated, just as Pope Pius X warned us in Pascendi that the enemy is now within.
The Society made a U turn back in 2012 down a road that, ever since 1988, it had warned was the road to death, to the loss of our faith: that is, an agreement with modernist Rome without first agreeing on doctrine.
Ever since, they have changed their attitude towards the Conciliar Church, identifying it simply with the Catholic Church, and they have drastically reduced their criticism of the errors and scandals.
They are increasingly friendly towards Ecclesia Dei type communities who accept the Council and the Novus Ordo and who have doubtful Orders.
They increasingly allow priests from the Conciliar Church with doubtful Orders to work with them without receiving conditional ordination.
However, there are still many solid priests who give good doctrine and valid sacraments.
Just beware, and stay in touch with the Resistance so you know what is going on.
And I think you should get your Baptism and definitely your Confirmation checked by a good Trad priest. You will definitely need conditional Confirmation.
-
I'm going to copy paste what Plenus Venter said, because he said it so well --
Welcome to the Faith. Deo gratias!
I agree, attend the SSPX, but stay aware of the issues.
The SSPX is surely infiltrated, just as Pope Pius X warned us in Pascendi that the enemy is now within.
The Society made a U turn back in 2012 down a road that, ever since 1988, it had warned was the road to death, to the loss of our faith: that is, an agreement with modernist Rome without first agreeing on doctrine.
Ever since, they have changed their attitude towards the Conciliar Church, identifying it simply with the Catholic Church, and they have drastically reduced their criticism of the errors and scandals.
They are increasingly friendly towards Ecclesia Dei type communities who accept the Council and the Novus Ordo and who have doubtful Orders.
They increasingly allow priests from the Conciliar Church with doubtful Orders to work with them without receiving conditional ordination.
However, there are still many solid priests who give good doctrine and valid sacraments.
Just beware, and stay in touch with the Resistance so you know what is going on.
And I think you should get your Baptism and definitely your Confirmation checked by a good Trad priest. You will definitely need conditional Confirmation.
I would add --
Make sure you support the Resistance as much as you can. There might be zero in your area -- for now. But on principle, you should support any priests' efforts to establish independent chapels outside the SSPX structure. You need to think ahead to the day when a newly-formed SSPX priest shows up at your SSPX chapel. And that WILL happen. The Old Guard won't live forever, nor will they necessarily be able to offer Mass until the day they pass into the next world.
The new priests are NOT formed the same way as the old. Their attitude and beliefs re: the Conciliar Church are the same as the FSSP, if not more liberal. They are NOT the same as the position/beliefs of Archbishop Lefebvre whose apostolate (SSPX) was so highly blessed by God. Validity of your priest is important, but it is NOT THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING.
Think about it: immediately after Vatican II, ALL THE PRIESTS WERE VALID. And yet, how many of them breathed out Modernism and acceptance of the Modern World, and other abominations, as a dragon breathing fire? Who implemented the destruction of the Faith in millions of souls? VALID PRIESTS.
-
I'm going to copy paste what Plenus Venter said, because he said it so well --
They are increasingly friendly towards Ecclesia Dei type communities who accept the Council and the Novus Ordo and who have doubtful Orders.
They increasingly allow priests from the Conciliar Church with doubtful Orders to work with them without receiving conditional ordination.
What about Bishop Aquinas' statement that he accepts NO Orders if the bishop was an "old fashioned" type?
-
I'm going to copy paste what Plenus Venter said, because he said it so well --
Welcome to the Faith. Deo gratias!
I agree, attend the SSPX, but stay aware of the issues.
The SSPX is surely infiltrated, just as Pope Pius X warned us in Pascendi that the enemy is now within.
The Society made a U turn back in 2012 down a road that, ever since 1988, it had warned was the road to death, to the loss of our faith: that is, an agreement with modernist Rome without first agreeing on doctrine.
Ever since, they have changed their attitude towards the Conciliar Church, identifying it simply with the Catholic Church, and they have drastically reduced their criticism of the errors and scandals.
They are increasingly friendly towards Ecclesia Dei type communities who accept the Council and the Novus Ordo and who have doubtful Orders.
They increasingly allow priests from the Conciliar Church with doubtful Orders to work with them without receiving conditional ordination.
However, there are still many solid priests who give good doctrine and valid sacraments.
Just beware, and stay in touch with the Resistance so you know what is going on.
And I think you should get your Baptism and definitely your Confirmation checked by a good Trad priest. You will definitely need conditional Confirmation.
I would add --
Make sure you support the Resistance as much as you can. There might be zero in your area -- for now. But on principle, you should support any priests' efforts to establish independent chapels outside the SSPX structure. You need to think ahead to the day when a newly-formed SSPX priest shows up at your SSPX chapel. And that WILL happen. The Old Guard won't live forever, nor will they necessarily be able to offer Mass until the day they pass into the next world.
The new priests are NOT formed the same way as the old. Their attitude and beliefs re: the Conciliar Church are the same as the FSSP, if not more liberal. They are NOT the same as the position/beliefs of Archbishop Lefebvre whose apostolate (SSPX) was so highly blessed by God. Validity of your priest is important, but it is NOT THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING.
Think about it: immediately after Vatican II, ALL THE PRIESTS WERE VALID. And yet, how many of them breathed out Modernism and acceptance of the Modern World, and other abominations, as a dragon breathing fire? Who implemented the destruction of the Faith in millions of souls? VALID PRIESTS.
As someone from Indiana, I believe the SSPX only have 1 chapel here, and the pastor of said chapel is a recent one from the seminary in France...
-
Indiana has almost zero regular traditional catholic presence other than the questionable SSPX chapel headed by a younger priest, yet there are very large and popular pockets of Catholics here... it's very unfortunate
-
This is terrible. I am practically giving up on the SSPX because of this problem. There's always a converted priest around, leaving doubtfully consecrated hosts on the tabernacle.
And, as I have stated before, Bp. Thomas Aquinas does not oppose the new rite:
Source: https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/em-defesa-do-pe-jahir-e-de-seu-sacerd%C3%B3cio
(https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/em-defesa-do-pe-jahir-e-de-seu-sacerdócio)So, you are not safe in the Resistance either, in case the other bishops think like him.
Good observation Giovanni.
The neo-SSPX & SSPX Resistance are weak because their history and culture were born in compromise.
It started with +ABL's acceptance of the 1962 Liturgy which is the Bugnini/Montini butchering of Holy Week.
While much has been written by both factions to justify this compromise, the fact is, +ABL was pressured and caved to this newChurch demand.
-
Good observation Giovanni.
The neo-SSPX & SSPX Resistance are weak because their history and culture were born in compromise.
It started with +ABL's acceptance of the 1962 Liturgy which is the Bugnini/Montini butchering of Holy Week.
While much has been written by both factions to justify this compromise, the fact is, +ABL was pressured and caved to this newChurch demand.
I agree.
I find it puzzling how Abp. Lefebvre did not study the validity of the new rites with more depth. He had a doctorate. He was no ignorant. He trusted his "theologians" which did not have half the training that he did and possibly had nefarious intentions.
He compromised because he wanted to make a deal, specially during the 1980s, but once he gave it up completely in 1988, he should have retracted his compromises.
-
It's really poor form for you blighters to be chiming in on this thread with your anti-Archbishop Lefebvre positions.
This thread is about the SSPX and the SSPX Resistance.
The Archbishop did study the new rite of priestly ordination and held that it was unequivocally valid. And as you say, he was a theologian, and he was not ignorant.
If you choose to follow another, good luck!
-
It's really poor form for you blighters to be chiming in on this thread with your anti-Archbishop Lefebvre positions.
This thread is about the SSPX and the SSPX Resistance.
The Archbishop did study the new rite of priestly ordination and held that it was unequivocally valid. And as you say, he was a theologian, and he was not ignorant.
If you choose to follow another, good luck!
Eh mate, I find that a proper interestin’ stance, that +ABL ain't made no blunders.
And he ain't got a clue the Jew-popes were gonna chop up the Church with a dodgy mass and those butchered sacraments."
-
It's really poor form for you blighters to be chiming in on this thread with your anti-Archbishop Lefebvre positions.
This thread is about the SSPX and the SSPX Resistance.
The Archbishop did study the new rite of priestly ordination and held that it was unequivocally valid. And as you say, he was a theologian, and he was not ignorant.
If you choose to follow another, good luck!
If it was unequivocally valid, why did he perform conditional ordinations?
If he did a study on the rites, he did not publish this study.
If his study is in the same line as the studies that the SSPX published decades after his death, I am sorry, but they are not convincing.
I don't get it. We can criticise Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV and all the post Vatican Popes (?), but not Abp. Lefebvre. It makes no sense for the person on the lower rank be immune to critics while his superiors are not.
-
Eh mate, I find that a proper interestin’ stance, that +ABL ain't made no blunders.
And he ain't got a clue the Jew-popes were gonna chop up the Church with a dodgy mass and those butchered sacraments."
Well, Incred, I think if you put it all in context, it's more a case of accusing Divine Providence...
-
Indiana has almost zero regular traditional catholic presence other than the questionable SSPX chapel headed by a younger priest, yet there are very large and popular pockets of Catholics here... it's very unfortunate
There's three sspx chapels in Indiana that I'm aware of.
I attend the Kingsford Heights chapel. There is one in Fort Wayne and one in the Indianapolis area.
-
If it was unequivocally valid, why did he perform conditional ordinations?
If he did a study on the rites, he did not publish this study.
If his study is in the same line as the studies that the SSPX published decades after his death, I am sorry, but they are not convincing.
I don't get it. We can criticise Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV and all the post Vatican Popes (?), but not Abp. Lefebvre. It makes no sense for the person on the lower rank be immune to critics while his superiors are not.
Agreed Giovanni, if he concluded it was valid, then why the conditional ordinations??
And you have hit the nail on the head: for some people in the Resistance, the Archbishop was a saint, his mother a stigmatist, and we cannot question ANYTHING he said or did. This is totally irrational.
The first reason being that the Archbishop's position evolved over the years, because the situation evolved and he justly had to make adjustments or revise his judgements on some things. So you can pull out attitudes or quotes of his out of context and justify a vast range of opinions! Anyhow, I am commenting against my best judgement...
Which leads me to ask, and I am very sorry to do this on someone's thread, but I cannot create a thread myself... How do I cancel or delete my Cathinfo account??? I have sent several messages to the Administrator without getting an answer. Can someone help me there? Thank you in advance!
-
Agreed Giovanni, if he concluded it was valid, then why the conditional ordinations??
And you have hit the nail on the head: for some people in the Resistance, the Archbishop was a saint, his mother a stigmatist, and we cannot question ANYTHING he said or did. This is totally irrational.
The first reason being that the Archbishop's position evolved over the years, because the situation evolved and he justly had to make adjustments or revise his judgements on some things. So you can pull out attitudes or quotes of his out of context and justify a vast range of opinions! Anyhow, I am commenting against my best judgement...
Which leads me to ask, and I am very sorry to do this on someone's thread, but I cannot create a thread myself... How do I cancel or delete my Cathinfo account??? I have sent several messages to the Administrator without getting an answer. Can someone help me there? Thank you in advance!
The issue in question is the validity of the official new rite as promulgated by Pope Paul VI which has only an ut changed to an et in the essential form, but I'm sure you know that.
The Archbishop, and the SSPX after him, including Bishop Williamson, held it as CERTAINLY VALID and there has never been ANY evolution in that position. Bishop Williamson and others have said that the change makes the form even stronger.
The Archbishop opposed 'The Nine' on this question, and as a result, there was a certain Fr Stark SJ who was permitted by the Archbishop to work with the Society, administering sacraments.
Also as a result of the Archbishop's teaching on this subject, we have Fr Jahir Britto, superior of the FBMV, working with the Resistance in Brazil (and formerly with the SSPX). Bishop Thomas Aquinas made a public statement defending his priesthood against the attacks of those of Giovanni's persuasion... and evidently yours.
We follow Archbishop Lefebvre because we see that he was clearly raised up by God for this mission in the Church. Obviously we can see the hand of Providence in all the facets of his life: being born into an exemplary Catholic family, his priestly formation, his intelligence, learning and piety, his dream in Dakar, his work as a missionary, a seminary professor and rector, his episcopal career and work as a Superior General, an Apostolic Delegate and Council Father. We can see God's hand in all of this. And yet we do not on that account follow him blindly, but because we are convinced by his arguments and we see and hear in him the good shepherd.
So why the conditional ordinations? Read chapter 7 from Open Letter to Confused Catholics: http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-7.htm
Sorry, I can't help you with your account.
-
Agreed Giovanni, if he concluded it was valid, then why the conditional ordinations??
And you have hit the nail on the head: for some people in the Resistance, the Archbishop was a saint, his mother a stigmatist, and we cannot question ANYTHING he said or did. This is totally irrational.
The first reason being that the Archbishop's position evolved over the years, because the situation evolved and he justly had to make adjustments or revise his judgements on some things. So you can pull out attitudes or quotes of his out of context and justify a vast range of opinions! Anyhow, I am commenting against my best judgement...
Which leads me to ask, and I am very sorry to do this on someone's thread, but I cannot create a thread myself... How do I cancel or delete my Cathinfo account??? I have sent several messages to the Administrator without getting an answer. Can someone help me there? Thank you in advance!
You can write an e-mail to Matthew, the administrator, at matthew AT cathinfo.com .
He might not have read your private messages on this board, but he does answers his e-mails, in my experience.
-
The issue in question is the validity of the official new rite as promulgated by Pope Paul VI which has only an ut changed to an et in the essential form, but I'm sure you know that.
The Archbishop, and the SSPX after him, including Bishop Williamson, held it as CERTAINLY VALID and there has never been ANY evolution in that position. Bishop Williamson and others have said that the change makes the form even stronger.
The Archbishop opposed 'The Nine' on this question, and as a result, there was a certain Fr Stark SJ who was permitted by the Archbishop to work with the Society, administering sacraments.
Also as a result of the Archbishop's teaching on this subject, we have Fr Jahir Britto, superior of the FBMV, working with the Resistance in Brazil (and formerly with the SSPX). Bishop Thomas Aquinas made a public statement defending his priesthood against the attacks of those of Giovanni's persuasion... and evidently yours.
We follow Archbishop Lefebvre because we see that he was clearly raised up by God for this mission in the Church. Obviously we can see the hand of Providence in all the facets of his life: being born into an exemplary Catholic family, his priestly formation, his intelligence, learning and piety, his dream in Dakar, his work as a missionary, a seminary professor and rector, his episcopal career and work as a Superior General, an Apostolic Delegate and Council Father. We can see God's hand in all of this. And yet we do not on that account follow him blindly, but because we are convinced by his arguments and we see and hear in him the good shepherd.
So why the conditional ordinations? Read chapter 7 from Open Letter to Confused Catholics: http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-7.htm
Sorry, I can't help you with your account.
Sure, the "wrong intention" argument.
From the link:
The "matter" of the sacrament has been preserved in the laying on of hands which takes place next, and likewise the "form," namely the words of ordination.
We know it's not true, since ut and et have completely different meanings in Latin.
Curiously enough, Pope Pius XII published a docuмent about the essential forms of ordination (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm)) about twenty years before the "reformed rites" came up. I don't know why he felt the need to do this, but it does seem providential, doesn't it? We were warned by God through the Pope not to accept the changes before they happened.
It also does not make sense to me, as Abp. Lefebvre never questioned the validity of Novus Ordo baptisms. If the bishop has the wrong intention to ordain, how can you be sure that he has always the right intention to baptize?
I am obviously not an expert, but, as far as I know, the intention is always presumed when the celebrant observes the rites correctly. If the rites themselves, or even worse, their lame translations, are so horrible that the intention to do "what the Church does" is not evident in them, then how can you presume that the celebrant had the right intention? It's way too risky to act on so much presumptions. First that the change is the form did not make it invalid and second that the celebrant has a Catholic intention when he uses a non-Catholic, Modernist rite.
-
Indiana has almost zero regular traditional catholic presence other than the questionable SSPX chapel headed by a younger priest, yet there are very large and popular pockets of Catholics here... it's very unfortunate
Are you in southern IN? Fr Bevan? We are up north at the SSPX chapel in Ft Wayne. We had a good solid priest for 3 years but have struggled with 2 in the last 1 1/2 years. It’s definitely a struggle, lots of prayer and independent study and advice from our old priest who stays in contact with us🙏🏼
-
The Archbishop opposed 'The Nine' on this question, and as a result, there was a certain Fr Stark SJ who was permitted by the Archbishop to work with the Society, administering sacraments.
WRONG on Fr. [sic] Stark!!!
My chapel location was directly involved in the Stark Affair. Msgr. Lefebvre was unsure on the question of validity for Stark's Orders. Stark was certain of validity. There was also at the time Fr. Roger Sullivan from the Picpus Fathers whose Orders were Novus Ordo. Sullivan was unsure of validity for his Orders and so too Msgr. Lefebvre was unsure. Sullivan was therefore conditionally ordained at St. Marys, Kansas, whilst Stark REFUSED conditional ordination. Sullivan took over service for an independent, pro-SSPX chapel; Stark broke his alignment with the SSPX and began assisting at an independent, hotel-room independent chapel.
I was there for this drama; I as a young boy saw and know this history.
-
You can write an e-mail to Matthew, the administrator, at matthew AT cathinfo.com .
He might not have read your private messages on this board, but he does answers his e-mails, in my experience.
Thank you Giovanni! God bless.
-
WRONG on Fr. [sic] Stark!!!
My chapel location was directly involved in the Stark Affair. Msgr. Lefebvre was unsure on the question of validity for Stark's Orders. Stark was certain of validity. There was also at the time Fr. Roger Sullivan from the Picpus Fathers whose Orders were Novus Ordo. Sullivan was unsure of validity for his Orders and so too Msgr. Lefebvre was unsure. Sullivan was therefore conditionally ordained at St. Marys, Kansas, whilst Stark REFUSED conditional ordination. Sullivan took over service for an independent, pro-SSPX chapel; Stark broke his alignment with the SSPX and began assisting at an independent, hotel-room independent chapel.
I was there for this drama; I as a young boy saw and know this history.
Archbishop Lefebvre April 26, 1983, Conference to Seminarians, Ridgefield:
That is another question, another problem. Fr. Stark said himself 'my ordination is good'. I am sure he IS a priest. He has been a priest for eleven years now, I think he is a very intelligent man. Not just because he is a Jesuit, no, no, no...(laughingly) ... but certainly he is a very intelligent man. He was a professor. He said to me 'My word, somebody is discussing about the validity of my ordination'. They discuss 'No, his ordination is not valid..' Well, that is the reason why I said to you yesterday, or the day before, that we must do an inquisition [a study of each case] to know what the situation really is - in this case - not in all cases in general [i.e., not a blanket judgment]- but in this case, to see if his ordination is valid or invalid. And I am responsible, and I make the decision. I can say to him: 'You must be re -ordained'. Otherwise, if I think that his ordination is valid, really valid, then I have no right to repeat the sacrament.
You can find these conferences of Archbishop Lefebvre, which have previously been posted on this forum, online in both written format and audio. He delivered them in English, with a little help with the language on the side from a certain Fr Richard Williamson!
-
Sure, the "wrong intention" argument.
From the link:
We know it's not true, since ut and et have completely different meanings in Latin.
Curiously enough, Pope Pius XII published a docuмent about the essential forms of ordination (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm)) about twenty years before the "reformed rites" came up. I don't know why he felt the need to do this, but it does seem providential, doesn't it? We were warned by God through the Pope not to accept the changes before they happened.
It also does not make sense to me, as Abp. Lefebvre never questioned the validity of Novus Ordo baptisms. If the bishop has the wrong intention to ordain, how can you be sure that he has always the right intention to baptize?
I am obviously not an expert, but, as far as I know, the intention is always presumed when the celebrant observes the rites correctly. If the rites themselves, or even worse, their lame translations, are so horrible that the intention to do "what the Church does" is not evident in them, then how can you presume that the celebrant had the right intention? It's way too risky to act on so much presumptions. First that the change is the form did not make it invalid and second that the celebrant has a Catholic intention when he uses a non-Catholic, Modernist rite.
"I am obviously not an expert"
That's just it, Giovanni, but Archbishop Lefebvre obviously was. He knew Latin. He also knew papal docuмents like few others. It was his business to ordain and administer sacraments and teach others how to do it. It was also his particular vocation to save the priesthood (and the Faith) in the greatest crisis the Church has ever seen, and that is what God fitted him to do.
You've obviously read the arguments and are not convinced. So the point I was making at the outset was that it is poor form to be spamming and derailing Resistance threads with views that are not and never have been part of the SSPX or the Resistance. If you want to discuss such things, you should start a new thread.
-
Are you in southern IN? Fr Bevan? We are up north at the SSPX chapel in Ft Wayne. We had a good solid priest for 3 years but have struggled with 2 in the last 1 1/2 years. It’s definitely a struggle, lots of prayer and independent study and advice from our old priest who stays in contact with us🙏🏼
Thanks, I'm just bumping this to get the thread back on track!
-
Are you in southern IN? Fr Bevan? We are up north at the SSPX chapel in Ft Wayne. We had a good solid priest for 3 years but have struggled with 2 in the last 1 1/2 years. It’s definitely a struggle, lots of prayer and independent study and advice from our old priest who stays in contact with us🙏🏼
Im in West-Central Indiana, Archdiocese of Indianapolis. i had forgotten of the other SSPX chapels in the northern part of the state. Do you have any info on Fr. Bernard Bevan in Greenwood Indiana?
-
Im in West-Central Indiana, Archdiocese of Indianapolis. i had forgotten of the other SSPX chapels in the northern part of the state. Do you have any info on Fr. Bernard Bevan in Greenwood Indiana?
An Englishman, ordained by Bishop de Galarreta, Econe, June 29, 2022: https://fsspx.uk/en/news/ordination-rev-fr-bernard-bevan-28143
-
Archbishop Lefebvre April 26, 1983, Conference to Seminarians, Ridgefield:
That is another question, another problem. Fr. Stark said himself 'my ordination is good'. I am sure he IS a priest. He has been a priest for eleven years now, I think he is a very intelligent man. Not just because he is a Jesuit, no, no, no...(laughingly) ... but certainly he is a very intelligent man. He was a professor. He said to me 'My word, somebody is discussing about the validity of my ordination'. They discuss 'No, his ordination is not valid..' Well, that is the reason why I said to you yesterday, or the day before, that we must do an inquisition [a study of each case] to know what the situation really is - in this case - not in all cases in general [i.e., not a blanket judgment]- but in this case, to see if his ordination is valid or invalid. And I am responsible, and I make the decision. I can say to him: 'You must be re -ordained'. Otherwise, if I think that his ordination is valid, really valid, then I have no right to repeat the sacrament.
You can find these conferences of Archbishop Lefebvre, which have previously been posted on this forum, online in both written format and audio. He delivered them in English, with a little help with the language on the side from a certain Fr Richard Williamson!
Then Msgr. Lefebvre reversed himself on the matter AS HE OFTEN DID. so much for your mighty replacement Pope, Plenus Venter. Looks to me like "The Nine" were correct in their assessment of Lefebvre.
-
Then Msgr. Lefebvre reversed himself on the matter AS HE OFTEN DID. so much for your mighty replacement Pope, Plenus Venter. Looks to me like "The Nine" were correct in their assessment of Lefebvre.
We all have to give an account.
-
An Englishman, ordained by Bishop de Galarreta, Econe, June 29, 2022: https://fsspx.uk/en/news/ordination-rev-fr-bernard-bevan-28143
I just stumbled across this review of a book written by Fr Bevan's father. Worth a read drphil if he is going to become your priest:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/new-memoir-two-families-presents-catholic-social-history-of-england-in-an-engaging-way/
-
I don't know where to post this. In Edinburgh, Scotland there is a large 2 bedroom Flat for sale. My niece and fal=mily moved from there to cuмberland. This flat is a 20 min. drive from St. Leonard's SSPX, if anyone is interested.
-
I just stumbled across this review of a book written by Fr Bevan's father. Worth a read drphil if he is going to become your priest:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/new-memoir-two-families-presents-catholic-social-history-of-england-in-an-engaging-way/
Hey thanks for that, i'll need to remember to check that out. seems like he comes from a family with a interesting history and has other siblings dedicated to the preservation of the Church's traditions