Author Topic: Worst enemies of the American brand of resistance. (Read 25064 times)

VinnyF · « **Reply #75 on:** March 16, 2014, 05:16:16 PM »

Quote from: holysoulsacademy

My dear friend who is still at the SSPX, her first reaction was shock and then outrage.

She was so ticked off and upset, feeling that she had been duped.

Can you tell us what exactly she was upset about?

Quote from: holysoulsacademy

So she decided to call her superior Fr. Purdy and ask his advice.

She was then told to study Sacrosanctum Concilium and get back to him citing what is wrong with that docuмent.

By the end of the conversation she was complaining of having a headache and now being confused and just wanting to go to Mass.

I am also a Third Order member and the response Fr. Purdy gave her sounds like what he typically tells someone who calls him up and complains that "Bishop Fellay says 95% of the Council is OK". His typical response is "Have you read the Council docuмents and disagree with the percentage or are you repeating the outrage of Fr. Hewko?". He then typically tells us to read the Docuмents of the Council, word for word, and then we can have a discussion about what you believe is not truthful and what is. Then we can arrive at least at our perception of the correct percentage . Suffice to say that the entire Council should be thrown out because of the 5% or 2% or 10% or whatever percent of the docuмents are ambiguous and I would bet that both Fr Purdy and +Fellay would rather see the lot in the dustbin than to pick through the debris of the docuмents. My experience with Fr. Purdy is that he does not want to be the sounding board for complaints against the SG but is happy to engage in a discussion of the merits of the question.

Quote from: holysoulsacademy

One day she calls and tells me about their sermon and how Fr. SSPX preached that divorce was allowed in cases of adultery and that this was taught in the bible, citing the passage from Matthew. I warned her this was a sign of modernism, but she then said ~ well, that doesn't apply to me as I am 74 and have no plans to marry.

I had to chuckle at this one because if you and/or your friend are outraged at this, then you obviously do not know what scripture says or are too lazy to look it up. Those are technically Christ's words in St. Matthew 5:32. However, the Church has ever interpreted Christ's intent that marriage is not dissolved because of adultery. Kudos to the SSPX priest for knowing what scripture says and shame on you and your friend for not. You insinuate that SSPX priest says that adultery (actually its "fornication" in scripture) is legal grounds for divorce. Really? Give us a break.

Quote from: holysoulsacademy

Then they taught about the fasting rules under the new code ~ I warned her, she said, well, that doesn't apply to me as I am 74 and do not fast or abstain (she's already a vegan). She will not see what is happening around her.

Again, shame on you for not knowing what is required by law for fasting. Like it or not, the Code of Canon Law governing fasting is the 1983 Code and it is the church's prerogative to change this as the Pope sees fit. I didn't catch whether you are a sedevacantist or not because that would be your only excuse for ignoring the 1983 Code, promulgated by JPII. If you think he is an anti-Pope, then you would be bound by the 1917 Code of Benedict XV.

You must know the Code to know if you are violating the Code. That said, Traditional Catholics typically, and with few exceptions, follow the 1917 Code wrt fasting during Lent, Fridays, Ember Days, and other days like vigils of some holy days. It absolutely brings one closer to Christ and His Passion and the reduction to 2 yearly days of fasting in the 1983 Code is ludicrous. It is always surprising to me when folks ask to be dispensed by a priest from fasting on an Ember Day. He can't do it because he can't dispense you from a law that doesn't exist. He can't dispense you from deviating from your personal choice. And of course, out of ignorance, you'll call that priest a modernist and an example of the SSPX slipping into the Novus Ordo. You insinuate by your post the SSPX priest was encouraging the parish to fast 2 times a year (according to the code). Please give us break.

Quote from: holysoulsacademy

It seems that I have to find a sign of modernism that pertains to her life before she realizes what is happening, & maybe even then she won't, because she is cozy and comfy and scared.

Well you certainly don't appear to know modernism when you see it judging by this post!! No wonder your friend stopped calling.

Nobody · « **Reply #76 on:** March 16, 2014, 06:33:07 PM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Can you give me some examples of changes that I might be missing in my chapel or that might have happened in your chapel that are mandated by the District Superior and indicate a modernistic move?

The first time I realized something was not quite right was when Bishop Williamson was persecuted, slandered and expelled. No explaination was given. In fact, no one seemed interested. "Ok, we lost a bishop, so what's for dinner ?"

So, the first and most important symptom, even at a parish level, I believe is in what they do NOT say or do. And this is also the hardest to detect, especially for people who don't look past their own little comfort zone.

There have been many scandals coming out of Rome (Assisi III, books/interviews, mosque/ѕуηαgσgυє visits, ..), but the SSPX has been silent. No more condemnations, no more reminders what we're fighting against, just silence. Even scandals in our own parish are now ignored and tolerated (I can't elaborate on this one without saying too much). Sometimes it seems the new enemy has become those "dirty contageous sedevacantists", and now also "those proud rebelious resistance bishop/priest/religous/laity". The superiors have given up the fight, the inferiors will follow the example. It sounds so much like Vatican II. No more condemnations, let's forget about our differences, let's be positive and get along with everybody.. except with those who disagree with this new direction !

There are also some secondary symptoms. For example, they recently tried introducing the Dialogue Mass, for no good reason. This caused a big stir and was thankfully thrown out. The pictures they now use on their own advertising (star wars, evil characters). Sacraments are happily administered to teenagers living in public sin. Kids in church texting, talking, obscenities, etc.. are ignored and quietly tolerated, not in theory, but in practice. There is no more 'spark' in our priests. And the laity look, live and talk like any other worldling. We know some protestants that would put most of these Traditional Catholics to shame !

I understand that when you have a good priest, the secondary symptoms will be less or even non existent. But even those good priests will have to choose sooner or later, they are on a collision course with their superiors.

And I also understand that every situation is different. Some people see things early, some see it late. But everyone who sees and then ignores it, has given up the fight and might not get any more graces after that.

VinnyF · « **Reply #77 on:** March 16, 2014, 08:14:54 PM »

Quote from: Nobody

The first time I realized something was not quite right was when Bishop Williamson was persecuted, slandered and expelled. No explaination was given. In fact, no one seemed interested. "Ok, we lost a bishop, so what's for dinner ?"

I also believe that +Williamson affair was mishandled and I would wager that +Fellay probably also believes that. However, +Williamson is not blameless in the whole affair.

Quote from: Nobody

There have been many scandals coming out of Rome (Assisi III, books/interviews, mosque/ѕуηαgσgυє visits, ..), but the SSPX has been silent. No more condemnations, no more reminders what we're fighting against, just silence. Even scandals in our own parish are now ignored and tolerated (I can't elaborate on this one without saying too much).

My experience on this is that the priests who typically brought these issues up before 2009, still do. Priests that didn't usually bring these things up still don't.

Quote from: Nobody

Sometimes it seems the new enemy has become those "dirty contageous sedevacantists", and now also "those proud rebelious resistance bishop/priest/religous/laity".

I have heard a remark only twice at our chapel concerning the resistance, one of those times by Fr. Tim Pfeiffer who distanced himself from the resistance movement. So far we peacefully coexist with the resistors in our chapel. I rarely hear a sermon on avoiding sedevacantism although I could certainly make an argument that it is as dangerous as modernism.

Quote from: Nobody

There are also some secondary symptoms. For example, they recently tried introducing the Dialogue Mass, for no good reason. This caused a big stir and was thankfully thrown out. The pictures they now use on their own advertising (star wars, evil characters). Sacraments are happily administered to teenagers living in public sin. Kids in church texting, talking, obscenities, etc.. are ignored and quietly tolerated, not in theory, but in practice. There is no more 'spark' in our priests. And the laity look, live and talk like any other worldling. We know some protestants that would put most of these Traditional Catholics to shame !

I am certainly not a fan of the Dialogue Mass and I would rather see the pre-'55 Mass offered over the '60 book. I haven't seen the texting, talking teens but would be righteously scandalized if I did and I would be vocal about it.

I will grant that in some ways, and particularly some families, the laity does appear to be more worldly. This is not a recent development but it is perceivable. Interestingly, two of the most prominent resistance families are the most obvious examples in our chapel including casual clothes and even blue jeans at Sunday Mass. I wonder if they wear the same thing at the resistance Mass?

Quote from: Nobody

I understand that when you have a good priest, the secondary symptoms will be less or even non existent. But even those good priests will have to choose sooner or later, they are on a collision course with their superiors.

And I also understand that every situation is different. Some people see things early, some see it late. But everyone who sees and then ignores it, has given up the fight and might not get any more graces after that.

When the superiors and the priests diverge, it will certainly come to a head. And I agree that we laity and priests need to be ever vigilant for abuse and loss of faith.

hugeman · « **Reply #78 on:** March 16, 2014, 08:52:52 PM »

That's cute-- when a schismatic lectures a Catholic! How quaint! Great lessons from the "we only obey Bergoglio when we want to " crowd.

Why waste your time with discourse with Satan's agents?That's how Eve got caught; that's haw Archbishop was almost caught; that's how Fellay's been caught.

These people are used car salesmen-- they'll tell you whatever you want to know to gain your confidence.

Nobody · « **Reply #79 on:** March 17, 2014, 12:15:12 AM »

Quote from: hugeman

That's cute-- when a schismatic lectures a Catholic! How quaint! Great lessons from the "we only obey Bergoglio when we want to " crowd.

Why waste your time with discourse with Satan's agents?That's how Eve got caught; that's haw Archbishop was almost caught; that's how Fellay's been caught.

These people are used car salesmen-- they'll tell you whatever you want to know to gain your confidence.

I would rather not be so generous with accusations like "schismatic" and "heretic". So many people on this forum are calling each other fool (or schismatic or heretic). It doesn't look like a good way to argue your point and win your neighbor over and it may get you into trouble on judgment day.

Nobody · « **Reply #80 on:** March 17, 2014, 12:34:01 AM »

VinnyF,

I wonder whether you are trying to go too fast. Maybe you should start by having a good and hard look at Bishop Fellay.

Has he been consistent ?
Has he been clear and unambiguous ?
Has he been open and upfront ?
Has he listened to advice and warnings ?
Has he stayed within the limits of his authority/mandate ?
Has he always acted in the common good of the SSPX ?
Has he been charitable ?

I believe anyone can find the correct answer, if he/she is honest and does the effort to educate him/herself.

Then remember that Archbishop Lefebvre told us that inferiors are shaped by their superiors. In other words, Bishop Fellay's beliefs and morals will trickle down. I would certainly not want to be like him, he's not a role model for me !

Nobody · « **Reply #81 on:** March 17, 2014, 01:59:24 AM »

VinnyF,

I am not impressed with the tone in which you replied holysoulsacademy. If he/she is getting some things wrong. maybe you should educate him/her in all patience and charity. In these times of confusion, can you claim of getting everything right ? Will you throw the first stone ?

The point holysoulsacademy was making is that often people get all excited when they find out about the errors and scandals. But then when it comes time to act, most people pull their head right back in, or worse, they start looking for excuses. I do hope you're not in this last category.

VinnyF · « **Reply #82 on:** March 17, 2014, 03:31:35 PM »

Quote from: Nobody

VinnyF,

I wonder whether you are trying to go too fast. Maybe you should start by having a good and hard look at Bishop Fellay.

Has he been consistent ?
Has he been clear and unambiguous ?
Has he been open and upfront ?
Has he listened to advice and warnings ?
Has he stayed within the limits of his authority/mandate ?
Has he always acted in the common good of the SSPX ?
Has he been charitable ?

I believe anyone can find the correct answer, if he/she is honest and does the effort to educate him/herself.

Then remember that Archbishop Lefebvre told us that inferiors are shaped by their superiors. In other words, Bishop Fellay's beliefs and morals will trickle down. I would certainly not want to be like him, he's not a role model for me !

I am sure that you have done this to your own satisfaction and you have arrived at the only correct answer and any opposing answer in +Fellay's favor is the wrong answer.

We could certainly have a discussion on each one of these topics. It would make more sense if we examine all of the players at once and ask the same question of each. I would include +ABL and +Williamson in the list also to prove a point.

There are instances where +Fellay has been inconsistent and ambiguous. I could give examples of those same failings with +ABL and +Williamson. The point is that none of these men are supermen - they are all fallen sinners just like you and me.

You have to discern where their heart lies and what their primary goals are. And then make a personal choice for your soul and the soul of your family where you will follow.

VinnyF · « **Reply #83 on:** March 17, 2014, 03:38:25 PM »

Quote from: Nobody

VinnyF,

I am not impressed with the tone in which you replied holysoulsacademy. If he/she is getting some things wrong. maybe you should educate him/her in all patience and charity. In these times of confusion, can you claim of getting everything right ? Will you throw the first stone ?

The point holysoulsacademy was making is that often people get all excited when they find out about the errors and scandals. But then when it comes time to act, most people pull their head right back in, or worse, they start looking for excuses. I do hope you're not in this last category.

That is what I tried to do. I do tend to get a bit frustrated with posters who take pot shots at priests (like fr Purdy) without knowing or even trying to understand all of the details behind an event. In this case,hsa had what he/she thought were 3 rock solid examples of blatant modernism coming from the SSPX and having no clue what scripture says, what canon law says, or why Fr Purdy said what he said. Just parroting the Resistance line without any desire whatsoever to understand the truth.

Nobody · « **Reply #84 on:** March 17, 2014, 07:43:24 PM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: Nobody
VinnyF,

I wonder whether you are trying to go too fast. Maybe you should start by having a good and hard look at Bishop Fellay.

Has he been consistent ?
Has he been clear and unambiguous ?
Has he been open and upfront ?
Has he listened to advice and warnings ?
Has he stayed within the limits of his authority/mandate ?
Has he always acted in the common good of the SSPX ?
Has he been charitable ?

I believe anyone can find the correct answer, if he/she is honest and does the effort to educate him/herself.

Then remember that Archbishop Lefebvre told us that inferiors are shaped by their superiors. In other words, Bishop Fellay's beliefs and morals will trickle down. I would certainly not want to be like him, he's not a role model for me !

I am sure that you have done this to your own satisfaction and you have arrived at the only correct answer and any opposing answer in +Fellay's favor is the wrong answer.

The question is, have YOU done this, to your own satisfaction ?

Quote from: VinnyF

We could certainly have a discussion on each one of these topics. It would make more sense if we examine all of the players at once and ask the same question of each. I would include +ABL and +Williamson in the list also to prove a point.

There are instances where +Fellay has been inconsistent and ambiguous. I could give examples of those same failings with +ABL and +Williamson. The point is that none of these men are supermen - they are all fallen sinners just like you and me.

Ok, let's try and prove our point. Let's start with the first question on the list.

Please give me some examples where +ABL or +Williamson were inconsistent. And then show me why that particular example is important to you.

I'll try and prove my point. When +Fellay wears blue socks today and green ones tomorrow, that's inconsistent, but I don't care. When +Williamson says the stock market will crash tomorrow, and then tomorrow says it will crash next week, that's inconsistent. But, it does not affect me or any other souls in my or their care.

But when +Fellay first says "No practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement" and then a bit later says "No doctrinal agreement, therefore a practical agreement", then that is inconsistent. But in this case, it DOES affect me and many other souls. And everyone in the SSPX should care too !

If +Fellay no longer believes in the mission of +ABL, then he is free to leave and start his own mission. But do you believe he has the authority/mandate/state of grace/integrity/wisdom/etc to change the SSPX around ? Against the explicit directions of +ABL ? Against the advice of the other bishops and many priests ? Against the warnings of those who have tried the same before and got bitten badly ? Do you really honestly believe this ?

If only you would look at ALL the evidence, you would come to the same conclusion with regards to the fact that there is a SERIOUS problem, and that it affects everyone in the SSPX (and many beyond).

Quote from: VinnyF

You have to discern where their heart lies and what their primary goals are. And then make a personal choice for your soul and the soul of your family where you will follow.

Is this modernism at work ? Would you excuse the Conciliar Popes because they "had a good heart" ? Ok, let's all stand by and watch while the bad shepherds scatter and kill the flock, after all they have a good heart !?

No, we don't judge them, only God can do that. But we can and must judge their actions and try to stop them if necessary.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #85 on:** March 20, 2014, 04:39:25 AM »

We need to pray for all Catholic priests.

AJNC · « **Reply #86 on:** March 20, 2014, 10:40:18 AM »

Two of the main players of "The American brand of the resistance"were involved in the then newly established Vasai Priory near Mumbai, which after a year or so, was shut down. A layman like myself had waited 15 years for this priory.

An SSPX priest recently announced at a chapel, the modus operandi of the Resistance on his patch. "The venue is a secret, the timings are secret, the identity of the priest is secret, people are invited in secret. Since when has Mass become a secret?".

In the absence of Resistance Masses, the organizers turn up for the SSPX ones.

BlackIrish · « **Reply #87 on:** March 20, 2014, 11:42:05 AM »

secret . . . since the time of the catacombs. Password: Deo Gratias.

BlackIrish · « **Reply #88 on:** March 20, 2014, 02:17:17 PM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

We need to pray for all Catholic priests.

What wretch would give a thumbs down on the above statement?

Frances · « **Reply #89 on:** March 20, 2014, 02:43:13 PM »

Quote from: AJNC

Two of the main players of "The American brand of the resistance"were involved in the then newly established Vasai Priory near Mumbai, which after a year or so, was shut down. A layman like myself had waited 15 years for this priory.

An SSPX priest recently announced at a chapel, the modus operandi of the Resistance on his patch. "The venue is a secret, the timings are secret, the identity of the priest is secret, people are invited in secret. Since when has Mass become a secret?".

In the absence of Resistance Masses, the organizers turn up for the SSPX ones.

No mystery! The two priests at the failed priory were FRS. Joseph AND Tim Pfeiffer. The closing was out of their control, and out of the control of the SSPX. Only Fr. Joseph is an " American Player." Fr. Tim is still with SSPX as of Monday! So far as "secret" masses, there are none, at least in the US. They DO tend to be held on short notice, but everybody is welcome.