["The die is cast." The content is relatively accurate, based on a longer raving, "War Aims by Fr. Chazal," at Ignis Ardens]
THE NEO-SSPX SPLIT BEGINS:
Priests Break away to Found an “SSPX of the Strict Observance”
From: TRADITIO.com
September 27 [sic; actually 24], 2012
Frs. Francois Chazal and Joseph Pfeiffer Founding the SSPX of the Strict Observance
Based Strictly upon Archbishop Lefebvre’s Traditional Catholic Principles
Which They Say Have Been Abandoned by Bernie Fellay and His Neo-SSPX
Three Other Leading SSPX “Resistance Priests” Have Joined as Founding Fathers
Groups around the World Have Applied to Them for Help and to Offer Help
On September 21, 2012, the announcement came forth like the trumpet of the Apocalypse: a new Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance was founded on August 10, 2012, by the Vienna (Virginia) Declaration. The founding members are five leading priests of the SSPX. 25 more SSPX “resistance priests” have been identified so far and are expected to form the core of the SSPX-SO.
Described in the words of the Declaration as a “united core of priests faithful to the position always maintained by Archbishop Lefebvre,” Frs. Joseph Pfeiffer, Ronald Ringrose, Richard Voigt, David Hewko, and Francois Chazal, coming from various areas around the world, signed the founding documents. Joining the priests in the SSPX-Strict Observance are a number of SSPX religious and laity, to name just a few: Mother Ann-Marie Simoulin, Dom Thomas Aquinas (Benedictines of Brazil), and Dr. David White, who has previously given classes at the SSPX seminary in Winona, Minnesota.
The five founding fathers have elected Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer as their leader for a term of two years (compared to Fellay’s dictatorial 24 years). The fathers have refused to give up the name “Society of St. Pius X” because “we did not change the message; the official line of the [Neo-]SSPX has changed.” Although the founding fathers note that Fellay has not yet signed any “sellout deal” with Newrome, they publicly “withdraw the exercise of obedience to him for motives of Faith until this crisis is over,” in order for the priests to maintain obedience to God in their sworn Anti-Modernist Oath. Ironically, this was the same Anti-Modernist Oath to God that Fellay himself swore when he entered Major Orders with Archbishop Lefebvre.
The Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance has set up its headquarters at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in the United States, with permanent resident priests and a bank account to receive financial support. The SSPX-SO plans to start a traditional Catholic school at the headquarters and organs of communication. For further information, click on the TRADITIO Network’s Official Traditional Catholic Directory department, and locate the contact information in the chapter, “Traditional Catholic Organizations.”
In addition to the 25 other priests whom Fellay has expelled or threatened to expel from his Neo-SSPX, the SSPX of the Strict Observance has announced that it will welcome “all the priests that Fellay sends them” — sardonically referring to the nearly three dozen priests whom Fellay has expelled, with more to be expelled, from his Neo-SSPX. Frankly, it is wonderful to see that the SSPX-SO has a sense of humor, as Our Lord had so often in Sacred Scripture, instead of the dictatorial, autocratic, humorless Fellay, who is more reminiscent of the corrupt leader of the Jewish Temple, Caiphas, who persecuted the Lord and took a cut of the Temple treasury, or more reminiscent of Judas, who stole from the apostles’ purse and betrayed the Lord.
The founding fathers indicate that anti-Fellay groups have appeared from everywhere, calling for help from the SSPX-SO and offering help to the new organization. The fathers say that it is not easy to cast them out of places that do not belong to Fellay and that they now understand Fellay’s adamant machinations to take legal possession of more and more properties away from the local NSSPX groups. It may well be that Fellay brought in the Jewish fund-raiser and Dresden lawyer Maximilian Krah to give him legal advice on how to do this. The founding fathers are prudent enough to expect that the autocratic Fellay will unleash lawyers against them at some stage, but they say that they are prepared for this.
In a Declaration dated August 10, 2012, the founding fathers of the SSPX-SO stated that the Neo-SSPX crisis remains as long as its head, Bernie Fellay, teaches errors and allows errors to spread, thus dividing the flock. Fellay is “excusing” the Modernist Vatican II Council instead of rejecting it. This Council’s chief advocate remains Benedict-Ratzinger, who, the fathers state, is praising Vatican II continually, insisting that Mohammedans stay Mohammedans, preparing to Novus Ordo-beatify the successor of Josemaria Escriva (the Opus Dei cult leader), continuing to support the Focolari and other Modernist movements, et al.
The unCatholic teachings of the Modernist Vatican II Council are still raging in the person of one of its leaders, “Fr.” Ratzinger. Even if the “sellout deal” is off for the moment, Fellay remains committed to it. The fathers conclude by reminding Fellay’s Neo-SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre’s direct words: “Had I signed [the sellout] agreement, we would have been finished in one year.”
Good to see that traditio hasn’t lost its snide attitude.
Although it has been cited elsewhere on this blog (just can’t remember where) for completeness I added the ‘declaration’ below.
I do find it interesting that after this ‘declaration’, based on some of the later writing they, at least Fr. Pfeiffer, still believe themselves to be members of the SSPX with no intention of ‘leaving’ so to speak. Very puzzling.
Need to pray for all of them and I would add especially Fr. Couture who has to deal with the mess of confusion these priests have created.
+“ONLY SHE CAN HELP YOU”+
Vienna, Virginia, 10th August 2012 Priest Meeting.
TODAY’S SITUATION
1. The Society of St. Pius X declaration of July 14th, 2012, while proclaiming the notion of the Divinity of Christ and His Kingship, actually moves in the opposite direction by using ambiguous language and by preparing to place the SSPX under the authorities of “the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies.”(1974 Declaration)
2. There has been a longtime slide in the SSPX towards Vatican II and a growing silence about Novus Ordo scandals against the Faith.
3. There is an illusion that one can join the Vatican II Church without accepting Vatican II.
4. There is a need to assure souls that the combat for Catholic Tradition, maintained by Archbishop Lefebvre against Modernist Rome, will continue.
5. A new attitude favoring compromise has infected the leadership of the SSPX.
6. This new attitude now prevails in publications, websites, seminaries and pulpits.
7. The priests who resist this new attitude are being punished or threatened with punishment and in all cases are being silenced. The present crisis demands a public response of priests and faithful against this compromise with Modernist Rome.
8. Many priests are personally disillusioned with Menzingen for doctrinal reasons but are unsure, cowed or do not know what to do.
9. Many independent priests trust the SSPX less and less. They hope to pass on their parishes to doctrinally reliable priests.
10. There is a replacement of the original Fatima solution, which is the consecration of Russia by the pope united with the bishops, by a belief that the SSPX can negotiate Modernist Rome back to the Catholic Faith.
11. The imprudent and reckless willingness to agree to a “suitable condition” of abandoning the flock to the “wolves” of the diocesan bishops.
DECLARATION
The heart of the Faith is the Divinity of Christ and his Kingship over all nations: “Oportet illum regnare”. The errors of Vatican II are an indirect attack against his Divinity and a direct attack on his Social Kingship. They will forever remain the Revolution of 1789 within the Church.
Today’s Vatican has only changed for the worse since the Council (more damage, more new heresies, more effective semi-modernism), to such an extent that we can repeat the Archbishop’s words of 1974 and 1976: “The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (June 29, 1976)
The Pope has allowed the True Mass, but only within the Pantheon of modernist liturgies. Further, he has made clear his espousing of the false doctrine of Religious Liberty by preaching it to be the model of how the Church and State are to relate one to another. Lastly the doctrine of Ecumenism has been widely and consistently professed by the Pontiff in his visits to protestant temples, synagogues and mosques and Assisi III confirms that the spirit of Assisi is alive and well. It was this spirit that moved the Archbishop to undertake an “Operation Survival”, that is now itself in great peril.
Today’s SSPX clearly wants to place itself under this Conciliar Church, mitigates the poison of Vatican II, is more and more silent in face of the abuses by the conciliar hierarchy, uses ambiguous language referring to two opposite Magisteria. At the same time that it is ever ready to believe in a constant debate with obdurate Roman officials, it uses strong arm tactics toward those standing against wicked reconciliation.
We must wait for Our Lady to convert the Pope and inspire him to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart in union with all the bishops and we must persevere in the Charity of the Truth and the Truth of Charity, organized in a united corps of priests faithful to the position always maintained by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, Fr..Ronald J. Ringrose, Fr. Richard Voigt, Fr. David Hewko, Fr. François Chazal
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Fr. Pfeiffer is being kicked out. Not leaving as you say.
“Fr” Morrison can’t contain his glee. He’s a destroyer, a bleep. I had the misfortune of getting on his early email discussion list, almost 20 years ago. Live and learn.
These splits are inevitable, I suppose. I pray that Bp. Fellay holds the course. What will happen if another 24 years go by? What will happen if more bishops are consecrated apart from the pope? What of all the faithful who also carry the weight of the irregularity of the situation? It’s a heavy burden on the bishop.
Yes, a heavy burden to see the crisis in the Church through a clear pair of lenses.
Of course it’s a burden. What else do we mean when we speak of the Crisis of the Church?
Crisis: “1.A time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger” (Google search)
Of course there will be those who will “snap” from the stress, possibly because they cannot resolve a apparent conflict in their own minds, or because they get stuck on a single non-essential point. So they don’t like all of Bp. Fellay’s decissions. Do they really expect any man on the face of this Earth to be perfect? That hasn’t been seen since Our Blessed Mother Mary was assumed into Heaven (may She pray for us in this trial). How many of the Saints since haven’t been accused of being hypocrites and sinners? St. Bennedict’s food was poisoned by monks, for crying out loud … OK, so much for venting.
In refutation: These priests, from what I have read on this blog, seem to have an issue with H.E. Bp. Fellay holding the office of Superior General for a term of 12 years. Didn’t the superiors of monasteries (at least of certain orders) historically keep this office for life following their election? These priests seem to prefer terms of two years, which seems to me to be a waste of time and energy. They will need to have a general meeting every two years to hold the election, which meeting will be almost useless for accomplishing anything else. If they elect a new superior at such a meeting, I’d estimate that the time required for him to get fully up to speed would be around, oh, four months. If they elect the same superior, they will only have wasted time on the election.
They also seem to take issue with Bp. Fellay’s leadership style, which I guess they find too authoritarian, firm, decisive, or whatever. Would they prefer a push-over superior? He is chosen to lead, and if he won’t tolerate confusion and insubordination in the ranks and the spreading of opinions which are not in conformity with sound doctrine and which undermine the faith of the faithful, then I’d say he’s doing his job well enough. I mean, calling a Rosary Crusade a measure of the gullibility of the faithful, or something to that effect, is a lot more than just imprudent.
Was the “deal” with Rome this summer (which never happened) perhaps not the best-case-scenario for the SSPX and the Faith? Maybe not. Was Bp. Fellay sincere in his good intentions? Yes, I think that’s morally certain. Did God prevent this “deal” which He saw to be detrimental to the Faith from taking place by means of the added conditions which Rome inserted at the last moment and which Bp. Fellay obviously saw as being unacceptable? A resounding YES.
Bishop Fellay will continue to receive me support and prayers, and I will continue to pray for these others as well.
PS: I guess the second part ended up being a bit of a rant as well, eh?
It’s not the ” 12 year term” thing…it’s the corruption, the bad associations and the unjust expulsions..Do you people read anything beyond sspx.org and angelqueen?
Democracy is alive and well within the SSPX . Some don’t like the leader so they are off to start another party with their own leader, of 2 year duration because their temperaments can’t take any more than that. Politics has always been a thorn in the side of the Society and the biggest obstacle to vocations. Nobody is immune to the havoc created by modernism and communism . The only thing we can do is pray , pray ,pray and beg Our Lord that the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph soon. Only Our lady can help us end this crisis.
A word to all the priests who think they can do a better job than Bishop Fellay. Forget the politics , show our children the love of Jesus Christ .
I suppose this is the same Dr. White who is such a stubborn and uncritical fan of Flannery O’Connor, in spite of her liberalism. I hope this causes our high schools to reconsider their placement of her work at the center of the English curriculum!
That is not the point of all this, of course, but it’s been a sore spot with me, since it’s so blind. And it does cause me to consider the whole liberal-trad spectrum in the struggle. Could you think about it this way, that these guys are more liberal than the Bishop Fellay ‘side,’ let me call it that for a second. Because they apparently feel free to stay ‘outside’ as long as they like, as long as the Church makes any mistakes, as long as things aren’t perfect, as long as there’s no risk. They feel free to do so, and isn’t that the genetic marker of liberalism? Whereas Bishop Fellay knows that he must take every opportunity, however slim, because we are NOT ‘free’ to stay outside the Church as long as we like. We are bound to the Church. He bet that forces, graces, were working on Benedict that might change him enough to let SSPX challenge the Council. Bishop Fellay HAS to make that bet. It proved wrong this time. It might prove wrong the next time, too. But as Fellay said in that heartwrenching Candlemas sermon, we will stand at the door knocking for as long as is necessary. These guys are going off. And actually, that’s liberal. Just as is their idolatry of O’Connor. And dumb. Can’t read well, apparently. Strict observance? Really?
Jan B.,
We are not “outside” the church. Not sure why you think that.
I didn’t say we were, Michael. We are not outside. But presently we are not ‘in’ either, or we woudln’t be discussing this struggle over recognition, so please stop splitting hairs.
Ah yes, that question. The SSPX has often been compared to a life raft, with the “Church” being the mother ship. I’ll refer you to the cover art of the booklet “Liturgical Shipwreck” by Michael Davies. The analogy implies that we are apart from the Church in a certain way, while remaining linked to it as to our proper home from which we come and to which we hope to return as soon as possible. We cannot survive long on the high seas in a life boat, and we only remain as we are until the Ship (the Church) is repaired and it is safe to get back on board.
The analogy is imperfect, and we can not read too much into it or take it to extremes. We are not truly separate from the Church, for we are neither heretical, nor schismatic, nor hethens, nor infidels, etc.. We hold to the Church of all time and recognise the hierarchy in Rome as legitimate authorities, even though we may be forced to reject many of their actions and teachings since they are contrary to the true Catholic Faith, which must be universal throughout historical time since the Church’s founding. Nevertheless, the analogy does have a certain merit, and I’m sure that is what Jan B. was referring to above.
Yes, that’s a fine image to remember, the liferaft and the ship. thanks for it (and I just pulled the book from the bookshelf yesterday, to re-read!) We cannot survive forever in a liferaft, and thank God that Bishop Fellay recognizes it and does not lead us to protestantism. I apologize for getting so testy with Marcel (and would like to point out I misread his name due to the low contrast of the print, ahem). But one just can’t explain the nuance each and every single time, first of all, second it’s not the point of the original post, so why derail the discussion? I put ‘outside’ in single quotes, to indicate I didn’t want to get into it. That’s what the single quotes mean.
I am trying to find some link between SO and *sede* because that’s what this initiative by Pfeiffer is. Yes, the bishops are wolves, as they say. So what? We have the obligation to fight them in close combat (I think Bishop Fellay used that image).
They’re not sedevacantists…..Really, why don’t some of you people go to Youtube and actually listen to the ” Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. chazal 3rd October Conference in Singapore…” Or listen to any recent sermon fm Fr. Hewko…Why is it the ONLY people you’ll listen to are Bp Fellay, Pflueger and their local gatekeepers?
The Church has been making some “mistakes…” Letting seminaries be taken over by sodomites? Communion in the hand? Eucharistic ministers? Rank immodesty at Mass? Covering up for pedophiles and selling 150 yr old Churches to pay for lawsuits? Lay people bum-rushing the priest through the “sanctuary” during Mass? Inviting an atheist to Assissi and letting him get up and say, ” Id like to thank the Holy Father for allowing me to come here and represent the unbelievers” Giving the Jews the impression that the old Covenant is still in effect?-in their Temples no less….these are just some “mistakes”….Ignoring Our Lady of Fatima…..good grief….these “guys are liberal…” Evidently you don’t know anything about either “these guys” or liberalism..
I forgot to subscribe to further comments is why I’m posting this. Now I have.
Oh I forgot to say–I like the new Angelqueen format but not the color of the font. It’s too low contrast and harder to read than if it were darker. On my screen, in Explorer 9, it almost looks ‘greyed out,’ like those items on a site that are not ‘hot.’
Agreed. A good hard black would be a better text colour. Tom, any possibility of getting this changed?
One other small thing–I clicked on ‘subscribe’ but I’m not getting emails for new comments, so Tom, could you check this feature?
Dissent breeds dissent. As the French say: “les extrêmes se rencontrent.” How can we be surprised at the fundamental ‘protestantism’ of such break away groups? As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia!
www.mauricepinay.blogspot.com www.cathinfo.com Do some research people, find out how bad this Sup Gen is!! even my good friend Dick W. on LI…he says ” this has done a lot of damage..” but it’s not a “this” ( we’re not talking about Hurricane Sandy here ) it’s a “who”…It’s the corrupt Sup Gen and the clique around him…Obviously the Gutman family was assigned a task; ‘CONVERT’, CONTRIBUTE, CONTROL AND CORRUPT…well, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED…The SSPX used to be something special to me…Now it’s just something else owned by the enemy,,,( along with our central bank, our media, our entertainment industry, our politicians…) The SSPX was all we had..just a little crumb…but the enemy couldn’t let us have our little crumb….The enemy has to control everything…the Gutmans, Rothschilds, Koch bros, Murdochs of this world..And they do it with our approval and acceptance in some cases…THAT’S what’s sad…
Bp Fellay is no longer “serving the Lord…” Bp Fellay-” Some things we taught were errors of the Council are noot errors but misunderstandings….” ” we can accept a little religious liberty…”….7/14 ” We have determined and approved the conditions for an eventual canonical regularization…..” Do you know the six conditions accepted 7/14? Find out and THEN criticize these priests!!
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Fr. Chazal is “rubbish”? Find out about the six conditions Bp Fellay was willing to accept…( before the backlash which he is “correcting” by expelling priests ) ..Find out about his shameful asociations….www.mauricepinay.blogspot.com then talk about “rubbish”!
www.mauricepinay.blogspot.com sorry about the …before it louses it up and www.cathinfo.com have been covering the compromising associations Bp Fellay has been keeping…
Are you familiar with the conditions Archbishop Lefebvre was willing to accept in the 1988 Protocol he signed?
Was willing then only to reject later. That is the key Vinny.
Yes, Fr. Chazal is ‘rubbish’. Fr. Chazal, like Fr. Joe Pfeiffer, has a history of being in trouble. They were renegades before they left and they are renegades now. Fr. Chazal and Fr. Joe Pfeiffer have both been linked to untrue internet rumors.
Maurice Pinay is not Catholic and is nothing more than an infiltrator tryig to destroy the Catholic Church by destroying the Traditional Catholic movement. He depends on off balance Traditional Catholics to assist him. He knows the trigger words to stir such people up and get them to react. He should not be linked to or read by any real Catholic, any where.
This is not CathInfo. The stuff you are posting here may fly there but it doesn’t fly here. I susspect your tenure here will be short lived if you continue to post such garbage here.
Truth is truth wherever you find it…This bishop is guilty of shameful associations…Max Krah-our new asset mgr.. A Jewish lawyer who rubs elbows with Meir Dagan and goes to IDF terrorist training sites….The Jaidhofer Foundation and their control of the SSPX .trustee Max Krah, the same one who picked a lawyer for Bp Williamson…What the Koch Bros did to the Tea Party ( by design after all, I mean they funded it in the first place ) the Gutmans are doing to the SSPX…If Bp Fellay was caught in a brothel I would have more respect for him than his associations with-and control by-these people…Destroy the Traditional Catholic movement? Bp Fellay, Fr. Pflueger and Max Krah are doing a fine job of that….
Fr. Pfeiffer has had many shameful associations. Bishop Williamson is also known for his shameful associations – some are still ongoing and yet there are others that left a trail of scandal.
Name these shameful associations….Name them…No doubt they’re only shameful to someone who thinks that Max Krah ” isn’t a Zionist”!!
Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity for one. It was Bishop Williamson who protected him for quite sometime. In addition, Bishop Williamson has many connections with the far right such as Derek Holland. A few google searches and you will find others. A read through the various SSPX threads on Catholic Truth Society will reveal much info about Bishop Williamson’s associations.
That is 100% false. Bishop Williamson is the one who got rid of Fr. U. Bishop Fellay sent Fr. Urrutigoity to Bishop Williamson so he could keep an eye on him due to some accusations at the time. Why do you spread falsehoods NeelyAnn?
Wrong. Lots about this situation all over the internet. Bishop Williamson protected Fr. Urrutgoity for quite sometime. When the entire situation came to ahead, Bishop Williamson said he did so because he did not think the accusations were true but thought it was related to a politcal battle with the seminary rector. Check the stories.
Just for the record, I don’t like to post this stuff about Bishop Williamson or the renegade priests. However, if you are going to make accusations about Bishop Fellay and various priests, then you need to understand that there are years of accusations against Bishop Williamson and the renegade priests. Many of these accusations are readily available online. A lot of the accusations against Bishop Fellay have been made against other Bishops in the SSPX in times prior and even against the Archbishop, himself. Priests have come and gone since the beginning. They all make similar accusations and then they leave for their own endeavors. It is only this recent buch that keeps trying to hold on and has a set their mission as one to try to destroy the SSPX.
Fr Chazal is a holy priest..What trouble has Fr Chazal been in? Reaching out to the Mexicans in Farmingville and having a procession down Broadhollow Rd. with their statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe? Or Fr. Pfeiffer spending the building fund money in Farmingville? Of course if the building hadn’t been improved the bldg inspector was going to condemn it..He took an old dress factory and made it look like a chapel…but some people wanted a new Church and a school….Yeah ok..Believe me; some of these chapels are mission impossible…Please everybody? The poor priest can’t please anybody!
They both have a history of trouble in multiple places – in and out of the US. Lots of people, no relation or connection to one another, have lots of first hand experiences to share. Is your faith strong enough to stand when your ‘heroes’ fall?
I don’t understand how these people don’t see the fact that their actions are no different from those of Luther and Henry VIII.
Luther? Henry VIII? That’s ridiculous…….These are some of the best priests in the SSPX ousted by an utterly corrupt Superior General who is working with the enemy in so many ways…investments, legal services, Jaidhofer foundation, his Mossad-connected lawyer….www.mauricepinay.blogspot.com is a good spot to find out how dirty this Sup Gen has gotten…..Good grief…..Luther? He left Rome…these priests criticised a sell-out that was in the works….Luther?!
Very sad really! They want to hold on to the purity and position of Archbishop Lefebvre’s but not the Catholic Churches old canon law which the Archbishop was so careful to follow. I think they call these priest, vague-es priest. Where is there ordinary, ie. Bishop or canonically recognized superior. Your right Cephas very similar to Luther and Henry VIII. To also use the SSPX name is misleading as they have put themselves out of the Society of SSPX. Falsity and lies only come from one father and that is not GOD
Given the avalanche of falsity and lies that have emanated fm Menzingen over the past couple of yrs, accelerating over the past several mos, it’s incredible to read that from you…For now on these brave priests…Fr. Pfeiffer ( it was good to have him in Charlotte 11/24-11/25 ) Fr. Chazal and Fr. Hewko and the 20 plus other recently expelled priests have ALL my support….No support for the SSPX until bp Fellay resigns…Fr. Pflueger resigns….Max Krah is gone and the Jaidhofer Foundation stops pulling the strings in the SSPX!
Very sad indeed. I love hearing Fr. Hewko preach, and he’s a grindy hockey player to boot. Much prayer needed for all involved.
Fr Hewko is a a real man and a great priest because he sees himself as a servant of our Lord FIRST and not an employee of this corrupt Sup Gen.!!
Put a lid on it already, Bill.
“In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith… If they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey…. It is because we judge that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies, that we have the duty to disobey and keep the Tradition. Let us add this, that the greatest service we can render to the Church and to the successor of Peter is to reject the reformed and liberal Church … I am not of that religion. I do not accept that new religion. It is a liberal, modernist religion…. Christians are divided … Priests no longer know what to do; either they obey blindly what their superiors impose on them, and lose to some degree the faith, or they resist, but with the feeling of separating themselves from the Pope…Two religions confront each other; we are in a dramatic situation and it is impossible to avoid a choice.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1986, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, chapter 18, “True & False Obedience”)
It’s only gotten much worse in the last 26 years, Jack. The program to undermine the Society is of long standing and the pope himself has said, in writing, that these integralistes cannot be too strongly withstood. As many SSPX attendees write of it, the foundational fire in the belly has gone out under present management. Now, to oppose what the Society always opposed, formally and firmly, as it is slowly and methodically dissolving right before people’s eyes, is considered “treachery”.
I suggest that a theologian is not even required to determine the answer. A good opthamologist and some copies of unexpurgated, un-disappeared material from the old SSPX websites is all that is necessary.
Just out of curiosity…@gpmtrad…were you ever a member of the Society ?
Yeah, ” a lid on it”…the “party-line” SSPX’ers want to keep the lid on this corrupt Sup Gen. and his shameful associations…Mossad-connected lawyer… a set-up interview….25 yrs or so ago the bishop made some comments on this forbidden subject…in a pvt setting…some journalist tried to make something of it..but then? There was unity..The Archbp treated the anti-Catholic media with total disdain…this Sup Gen? He played to the gallery…
Bill,
You were a Marine … are your associations any less shameful?
Guilt by association doesn’t cut it.
The USMC isn’t the SSPX….The crux of my frustration is the new dogma: the Personal Infallibility of the Sup. Gen….I’m begiining to believe that Bp Fellay and Max Krah could sacrifice my infant daughter at Passover and most of you would defend them….” Well, he’s got the state of grace Bill, you have to respect that..”
Vice may show itself as an inordinateness in the craving and eagerness to learn the truth. This may be in four ways. One way is when this eagerness withdraws a person from another pursuit, which is his bounden duty. In another way, when one is eager to learn from an unlawful source. The third way is when one seeks to learn the truth about creatures without reference to the due end, which is the knowledge of God. A fourth way is inasmuch as one is eager to know that truth which lies above his knowledge; for thereby men easily fall into errors. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Ethicus)
We often criticize the entertainment world for turning away souls from their duties and especially from God. Chief among these distractions which ensnare souls are the continually-changing landscape of digital media (such as blogs, social networking tools, YouTube, apps, texting, Internet newsfeeds, etc.) which perhaps comprise today’s greatest means of distraction.
These technological means – with their temptations towards distraction and most especially towards that curiosity St. Thomas warned us about earlier – are often used in a way that undermine authority, whether in the family, business, city, state, or even religion.
This is usually the consequence of a modern day falsehood which we could call the “democratization of knowledge”. This common liberal error stems from the false ideology of democracy, that authority is “of the people and by the people”, rather than “there is no authority except from God.” (Rom. 13, 1). Through this falsehood, modern man believes he has the right to knowledge of all things and considers himself responsible for all decisions. Ultimately this democratic way of thinking lapses into deceptive pride and even practical atheism: because no longer having confidence or hope in God, one no longer considers oneself beholden to His Providence.
The mindset that I have a right to all knowledge regardless of duty of state or position in life, originates in the liberal perspective, and feeds itself from the tremendous amount of information circulating worldwide and at the dizzying speed of the Internet. But this attitude is motivated more by the spirit of envy and revenge (that is, a liberal sense of “justice”) than by the love of Truth. Thus this mentality seeks to free itself from any bonds of authority, while seeking to destroy any distinction amongst men – even daring to equate man to God. And so feeling threatened by any authority than himself, this person views any manifestation of external authority as an injustice to his individual will.
Ultimately from this modern spirit of an unbalanced desire for information and an insistence on a “right to know”, souls will be led away from Christ’s peace – a peace which worldly things cannot give. It will also imbue the mind to question and criticize everything and according to its own reasoning. Another more subtle effect of this false ideology is to focus blame on an individual – e.g., a “scapegoat complex” – when expectations (sometimes unreasonable) of “informational transparency” are not fulfilled.
Unfortunately, examples of such defects were witnessed amongst even traditionally-minded Catholics concerning recent events affecting the Society of St. Pius X – with the legitimate exercising of authority being the preferred target. But how could this occur with Catholics who adhere to the True Mass, the True Sacraments, and the True Faith?
Precisely because the underlying spirit of those disturbed was one of a lack of submission to authority, fed by an incessant “need” to know, and a “need” to be informed about all information, regardless of their state (e.g., non-SSPX members do not have a strict right to be kept informed about the internal affairs of the SSPX, which is a religious congregation).
The inability to obtain the information they “needed” and which they felt they had a “right” to, led to resentment and thence the scapegoating of persons (authority) from who they felt slighted by, through misunderstandings, buzz, rumors, suspicions, detractions, half-truths, and calumnies – and then fed upon by other disenchanted “I’ve must know!” information-seekers.
We must beware this diabolical tendency that perpetuates Lucifer’s “I will not serve”, which leads to a loathing of obedience and respect to authority, particularly when it does not yield to opinions, either of the world or from subordinates. Such a mentality is disastrous to the spiritual life – let alone Catholic; cue the destruction wrought by Martin Luther and the Protestant revolution.
Those who adhere to such an attitude reveal a lack of fortitude and constancy – obsessed by security, they see danger everywhere every time. Their prudence is frequently faulty in counsel, judgment and action. Justice is blinded by a great moral confusion and concern for truth is more or less restricted to an abstract field, and only so long as that “truth” fits their pre-conceived notion. This in turn leads to practically adopting the error that the end justifies the means.
In the end, through the person’s ever-growing bitterness (which Archbishop Lefebvre specifically warned traditionalists about), the person develops an obsessive mind thereby losing his balance of temperance in the social life – but in the use of his time, devices and even creatures. The worst effect though is his terrible lack of trust in God and His Grace which endangers the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.
Archbishop Lefebvre once remarked that all of us in this modern age have been affected in some way or another by the errors of liberalism and thus must make a close examination of ourselves to see where. The “need” (nay, addiction) for information – continually and instantly – is just one practical aspect of liberal ideology that we can be prone to.
But with purified minds infused by the Catholic principles, we can continue to steadily advance in the way of perfection and sanctity to Heaven, where all things will ultimately be revealed.
in the course of your years of service in the used did you ever befriend a protestant,Jew or Muslim or were you off with the white supremacist crowd in the corner.
I sparred with a former idf commando in the hall at work when he threw a punch (in fun) at me. Does that make me a Zionist collaborator?
It does not.
So before you accuse people of various sins based on information from dubious sources, such as mauricepinay( who a. Is not Catholic, b. Spews forth conspiracy theory mixed with grains of half truths and innuendos, ) you better check the background and see if they are reliable.
If you yearn to hear about conspiracy theories about the sspx, vatican2,jews, illuminati, ,etc from the pulpit to support your ‘spiritual life’ , well soldier you have already lost the battle.
a. Where is the SG ‘infallible’?
b. How is the sspx-so any different from a squad of marines rebelling against their c.o.?
c. What makes the sspx-so infallible?
Not sure if anyone is still reading this post but I can tell you that from personal experience the Society under Bishop Fellay does act as if it’s infallible. A strong B. Fellay supporter Fr. Burfitt placed penances on my brother under “pain of mortal sin” and he condemned all sedavancantist priests and bishops informing me that my confirmation was invalid. He told me that I had to have confirmation in the novus ordo or the society to be married. When I asked him why I had to be confirmed to be married at all he said the Church doesn’t require you to be confirmed to be married but he does. He also told me I had to sign a piece of paper saying I should be married in the novus ordo parish nearest were I live but I was opting out to be married in the traditional mass. I would not get re confirmed and would not sign there paper saying the novus ordo was the church so I left the parish. I found an independant priest to marry my wife and I.
catholics have to be married in the Church.
The line of reasoning is that the SSPX is in the Church, recognizes the Pope and operates under supplied jurisdiction.
The key element is that sedevacantist by rejecting the Pope are in schism (outside the Church) and there would be doubt about the sacrament of marriage being received.
With respect to your confirmation, the sede bishops are almost all thuc line and there is doubt about his intention and state of mind at the time he performed the elicit consecrations.
Penances given in confession have to be fulfilled they are not optional. If you did not fulfill them, you have to confess that next time you confess.
further saying that you would not sign a paper saying the n.o. Is the Church indicates that you are in a position of material schism. This is a very dangerous place to be.
The no is a very dangerous place to be.
I think you’re putting words in Joe’s mouth. Nowhere did he say he had to sign a piece of paper “saying the n.o. is the Church”. He was actually told to admit he was not being married in the NO church because he had opted out.
LOTI: “I think you’re putting words in Joe’s mouth. Nowhere did he say he had to sign a piece of paper “saying the n.o. is the Church”. He was actually told to admit he was not being married in the NO church because he had opted out.”
vs
Joe: “I would not get re confirmed and would not sign there paper saying the novus ordo was the church so I left the parish”
I didn’t think I was taking Joe’s words out of context. I assumed he meant the Church headed by Pope Benedict XVI.
Bill,
Just an observation but we are amongst liberal leaning Catholics me thinks. You wont make much headway here.
Sorry Marcel, but methinks your perception may not be exactly accurate. All anyone has asked for is proof of that which is being asserted. That is neither unreasonable nor liberal-leaning.
This type of in-fighting is neither constructive nor conducive to the sanctificationof souls, which is the goal of everyone involved in this melee.
Quite frankly, if someone is so strongly, or obstinately (whichever adverb is more appropriate), convinced that the Society has lost her way, why doesn’t that someone follow Our Lord’s advice to “shake the dust from their sandals” and move on?
That would seem the most reasonable thing to do. Or if someone just can’t let go, then at least converse with others with dignity– which absolutely includes providing proof for one’s allegations.
Should the Pope be punished for the errors of Vatican II or should he be “allowed” to simply correct them?
I may be reading between the lines too much, but it seems to me that those who most strenuously object to what (they think) Bp. Fellay is doing or will do and accuse him of “compromise” are really objecting to what he will not do.
The objections looks like they stem from Bp. Fellay’s apparent refusal to demand an abject apology from His Holiness for the errors of Vatican II. He seems unwilling to demand that the Pope acknowledge that the Council actually taught falsehood, but instead seems willing to allow him to save face, so to speak, and state that those who actually imposed the errors were mistaken and mis interpreted the council documents.
Is it really beneficial to insist on an apology? I do not know, but I fail to see any practical benefit. As gratifying as it might be to see His Holiness undergo some sort of public penance, will it serve any purpose other than vindication?
Tradical said:
“…the mess of confusion these priests have created.
+“ONLY SHE CAN HELP YOU”+
Vienna, Virginia, 10th August 2012 Priest Meeting.”
Charlotte NC Bill says:
“Fr. Pfeiffer ( it was good to have him in Charlotte 11/24-11/25 ) Fr. Chazal and Fr. Hewko”
THE
HABITUAL
HEIST
“I am the Mother of fair love, and of fear and of knowledge, and of holy hope.” (Ecclus. xxiv)
She’s not just hope
But holy hope
Of love and fear
That’s fair
Knowledge for
The sheep to Pope
Pretentions
She’ll not bear.
So when a priest
Came from the east
Non-Asian
Known as Pere
Joined wests
Coast-east
St. Phily’s Feast
To draw up and declare
Against the day
Shout, “Viva…Rey!”
They call them “brave-priest
Fighters!”
But Mother sees
The cash they squeeze
Will help them buy
Some mitres –
And yes it’s bad
The times are sad
For One, True
Church of Christ –
But some mad Trads
Have turned to fads –
Our inheritance
Their habitual heist!
Righteous anger can be appropriate….Neely is the one who told me that Krah ( our Sup Gen new Jewish fundraiser ) wasn’t a Zionist…Said that Fr Chazal was rubbish..So, as far as accuracy goes, the author mauricepinay is scoring a lot higher than she is….www.sossaveoursspx.com and www.inthissignyoushallconquer.com are good…This Sup gen has obviously put money ahead of brotherhood and unity….That’s more than obvious….But listening to some of you it seems as though the Sup Gen owns the SSPX…He can sell it, he can pawn it, he can pimp it out to the demands of world Jewry…..And some of you party-line SSPX’ers are obviously Americanists and American exceptionalists who just want your bells and incense and Latin but you certainly don’t want to hear a homily that challenges you to think…Not to worry, the SSPX is being scrubbed of any real Catholic militancy as I type.
A photograph does not make one a Zionist. Max Krah privided an explanation and unless you can provide documented proof that his explanation is a lie, then you are spreading gossip and slander.
As for SOSSaveOurSSPX – even the other ‘Pro-Rebellion’ supporters acknowledge he is nuts. Even Matthew at CI has spoken out against him. It has been documented that he has lied and twisted information.
Maurice Pinay is not a Catholic and he is working to destroy the Catholic Church. You are just assisting him by foolishly assisting him.
NeelyAnn, dearest!
If you research the matter, the attorney in question has taken a position FOR modern Israeli “rights” and on a number of levels, in the practical order. He went to some lengths to make that very point, very publicly, recently, and on a very anti-accord web site in England. I am sure you read his remarks.
I am also sure you are aware of the rather scandalous “likes” he also made public via his own social media site. Yes, we all make booboos and I don’t make that much of it. However, as the single most influential and powerful individual in the entire Society, in the practical order, inasmuch as those matters have not been scotched by the Society’s own SG ( in other words, he’s getting away with it ) – so far and after substantial time has elapsed – the Society’s management, as I have so often argued, does owe an explanation to pious souls it demands follow its own example and commands – or else!
And, as I am also ABSOLUTELY sure you know, St. Pius X himself told the Zionist rabbi seeking His Holiness’ “blessing” on his efforts to found a “new Israel”, the Jews have no such “right” and showed him the door. There are a number of Jewish
rabbis who, to this day, maintain exactly the same stance as did St. Pius X.
How do you explain that?
Yes, righteous anger can be appropriate, but is is it righteous if it is based on false “facts” and pure speculation? Sorry, Bill, you’ve made an untenable leap of logic. You’ve gone from one fact- Max Krah was photographed with the IDF – and speculated (and presented your speculation as “fact”) – that The SSPX is now controlled by a zionist cabal.
It’s time to put up or shut up. Prove this assertion of yours. And no, links to traditio or other agenda-driven, unreliable websites will not cut it.
Simply name one decision that caused harm to the SSPX or the Church that expressley benefitted “Zionist interests” and show that reason could know that the decision would cause harm.