.


But........... who is Fr. Altamira?  





Recommended Reading!






Available (here) is an English translation of Fr. Altamira's final letter to Fr. Bouchacourt, refusing a false "obedience" to the neo-SSPX which would have compromised his doctrinal integrity and with it the welfare of the souls in his care.

.

Also now available (here) is the text of Fr. Altamira's sermon of 22nd December, 2013, in which he condemns the infamous second intention of the latest bogus Rosary crusade. Amongst other things, Father says:



    "In 'the World of Tradition' we now have a new Rosary "crusade". The second intention of this “crusade” is wrong or at least ambiguous (as always: ambiguous language), and as such, it is not acceptable. Which is this point number two or the second intention?   We should pray: “Pour le retour de la Tradition dans l’Eglise”: “for the return of Tradition within the Church.”

    (A) If we understand the word "Tradition" in the strict, theological sense: "Tradition" is the set of Truths that God reveals in oral form, it forms THE DEPOSIT OF THE FAITH. We cannot ask for “the return to Tradition within the Church.”

[The Districts of Great Britain, USA, and (English version) Asia have had "...to Tradition..."]

    The Catholic Church can never lose Tradition, because Tradition cannot ever be outside of her. To be truly “The Catholic Church”, she must have, as she always has had, the written DEPOSIT (written Revelation: Sacred Scripture) and oral DEPOSIT (oral Revelation: Tradition). It cannot be asked, “the return to Tradition within the Church.”

    Once again: it is wrong then to ask for the return of Tradition within the Church: Tradition has never gone; Tradition can never leave the Catholic Church.

    B) If, in the second intention of the Rosary Crusade, the word “Tradition” means us, the SSPX, then we cannot ask for the “return to Tradition within the Church” because WE HAVE NEVER LEFT THE CHURCH, because we have never changed one iota of Catholic Doctrine, of the Faith of always, of the Popes’ Teaching prior to Vatican II. This council did change the Faith, did change our Catholic religion, and created a false church "THE CONCILIAR CHURCH” as Archbishop Lefebvre called it.

    This expression, with AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE, implies our return to “The conciliar church of Francis” to “the church of Vatican II.” Also implied is -perhaps- making an agreement with the conciliar Rome, once again ...

    And all this instead of asking for: The return of ROME (Modernist Rome) to Tradition, her return to the true Catholic Church, which neo-Rome has really has left, thanks to the Vatican II and the things that followed it. It is necessary to speak clearly, we must speak out.

    All this instead of asking for: The return of the Roman authorities, Francis, to the Catholic Faith, the True Catholic Church."


Read the full sermon here.

Both docuмents, and many others, can be found on our Reference Materials page.


.
.
.


[Remember:  this is Colombia, where the District of South America officially listed the Second Intention as "Por el retorno de Roma a la Tradición católica” (“For the return of Rome to Catholic Tradition”).]


.

Again, you are nit picking over nothing with your mindless ramblings.
The SSPX obviously believes that they can change the church from within, since they recognize Francis as pope and the conciliar church as the Catholic church.

Are you trying to say that any "Catholic" outside the SSPX is not a Catholic?
If not, why don't you have the balls to say so?

You nit pick over a slight misunderstanding of words and you read an entire world view from a single word. I think you are delusional. Someone said once that there was 20 priests who left the SSPX over this statement. That is ridiculous. They were rebels who were looking for their moment, and they chose the moment of an action from the SSPX hierarchy to do it in order to spoil the image of the SSPX. You really have nothing to go on. The SSPX have not made an agreement with Rome and are unlikely to. +Fellay calls Francis a genuine modernist. What you are on the other hand is a genuine conspiracy looney who is carrying out calumny against the SSPX. You claim the SSPX have lost the faith, you dont know what you are talking about, and yet you repeatedly make long winded abstract posts, or ramblings, as if your brain is connected to your computer.

Listen, if you dont have anything productive to say, or if you dont want to learn, then refrain from posting your rubbish. I dont see you as a threat if thats what you think, because I go to the SSPX, and I have spoken to their priests, and they have the faith.

No doubt you will diesect my posts for spelling mistakes or call me an apostate for putting a small "A" where there should have been a big "A" in your opinion.

You talk like a fool, and you discourage me from the resistance.

.


soulguard,  STUFF IT.


.

You responded right away after my criticism and question, but now you fall silent.
O blissful silence! If only it could be like this more often.

You hardly make me want to join the resistance. I am not against the Resistance per say, but it seems to me to live off the strength of a personality cult of its priests. It will still end up in the same recognize Rome predicament in time they are not Sedevacantists. You solve nothing by breaking away from the SSPX. You have never illustrated WHY people ought to support the Resistance other than the rumours of a deal with rome.

And by the way,
If the SSPX does make a deal with Rome, so what?
Are they not your church?
is Francis not your pope?
will you not have more hope of restoring tradition from the inside?

You have answered nothing but only rambled on and on.
I think the reason you dont answer is because you cant.

There was nothing confusing or disturbing in that statement. It did not confuse or disturb me, in fact I think it was a very noble statement. The agenda of its author was clear. I know people are anxious to justify the resistance, but this is just ridiculous to fall out over the grounds that neil obstat is proposing. You will never hope to build a rebellion against Fellay on those grounds.

I say it again, the resistance lives off the strength of a personality cult.

You people get so high on emotion and so indignant when someone is perceived to insult your dear priests that you disregard all reason and try to silence me, but I did not insult your priests, I asked what basis you have for your calumny against the SSPX. You are essentially spreading lies about them and calling the SSPX apostates. If you want to call yourselves "Catholic" Stop doing this right now, give me lots of thumbs up, and thumb down neil obstat for his ludicrous assertions.

I'm sure that arguing for the sake of arguing is probably not a good pursuit, but soulguard, I would love to get together and just argue with you.  :smoke-pot:
I think it would be great fun, and neither of us would take any disagreement as a personal conflict. Unless you don't like coffee. ;-)

The SSPX obviously believes that they can change the church from within, since they recognize Francis as pope and the conciliar church as the Catholic church.

Are you trying to say that any "Catholic" outside the SSPX is not a Catholic?

I have not heard anyone say people attending the XSPX are not Catholic, only that Menzingen has given up the fight for restoration. At best, they kid themselves that God will reward their surrender to Vatican freemasons. They falsely equate submission before men to the meekness of Faith. If your plan of reforming the hierarchy from below had merit, why have the conservatives and indulturers already attempting that failed so dismally? Perhaps you believe that God interprets surrender of the priests and faithful to freemasons as a sacrifice of faith.

No doubt you will diesect my posts for spelling mistakes

That should be "dissect."