Wednesday, 25 April 2018

CONFLICT


By Tradcatresist

Due to the actions of Pope Francis (and arguably Bishop Fellay's trajectory i.e the refusal of the SSPX to loudly condemn those actions) sedevacantism has made great gains throughout tradition over the last couple of years.

Personally, I have never known as many people question a Pope's legitimacy, and never expected that even conservative Catholic's would be asking the same thing.

Perhaps due to a combination of a conspiratorial nature, and ahem "quirkiness" that one finds in the resistance, the question of sedevacantism has now begun to divide cleric and layman alike. This is only to be expected, if one has left behind a "comfortable" existence with the SSPX for 'refusing to compromise with error' then one can hardly blame people for 'blowing a gasket' when they find themselves fighting needless arguments within a remnant of a remnant.

The question of how to deal with this problem is difficult indeed. Some obviously believe that to argue publicly helps sedevacantists achieve their aim. There is a logic to this, many traditionalists are historically open to easy black and white solutions Also, many laymen are ignorant of the issues involved and susceptible to those with convincing reasoning.  I myself was shocked when I left the SSPX by the quite incredible lack of understanding of basic SSPX arguments by the average member of the laity. To give one example, supplied jurisdiction. (Indeed, many people attending should not be, as they are only doing so for geographical reasons, rather than a necessity for supplied jurisdiction. They would be just as content at a local diocesan Latin Mass.)

On the other hand, how are people ever going to be convinced of error if they are not debated. I hope that this is the aim of Fr Chazal's new work and concede that forums are not always the best avenue. Particularly, when they seem to attract people with a seemingly limitless time to cut and paste but not enough time to reflect that what one says to another member of Christ's mystical body is there for all the world to see now and forever. However, without such forums would we have been made aware of GREC, Krah, the letter of the three Bishop's etc etc? The moderator of the most popular resistance forum rarely says something I disagree with, indeed I sometimes am shocked at the response he gets when he simply states truths that were common place in every SSPX parish fifteen years ago. However, some regular contributors need to ask themselves what is in their heart when they argue their point, love for souls or destroying an opponent?

Possibly, a part of the problem is a lack of direction from above. Small positive initiatives can often distract laity from their 'bug-bears' and I do believe that not enough is being done to encourage laity in this way. In Ireland one such small initiative is streaming a fortnightly Mass by Fr Edward MacDonald. This will enable those unable to attend Mass that day to unite with those in attendance. (see here) Only a small initiative but a positive one to help souls in need.Could we not put sermons onto audio CD's for others? Could we ourselves not print off interesting articles for non-internet savvy elderly parishioners? Could we offer to help a large family struggling with the demands of small children? Even a lift somewhere, a meal or a kind word can be all that is needed. Or perhaps a fund raising drive for a missionary effort can often unite those in conflict. I am sure that a certain Brazilian monastery, or a bamboo seminary would not say no.

One of the most charitable clerics in these situations is perhaps the most hated and vilified by those who do not know him (and sometimes by those who do, to their shame) Bishop Richard Williamson. Whilst publicly disagreeing with their non-una cum position he still recognises souls in need and will help them in his capacity as Bishop if necessary.

Fr Roy, one of those misguided in conflict over this unnecessary issue, recently said -
"Of course, making the decision to leave the Society of St. Pius X is something serious. Despite the very serious reasons that convinced the various priests to take this step and probably because of the inertia of so many other confreres, we always wonder a little if we made the right decision. As time passes and in front of a situation that has been worsening within the fraternity in recent years, it is clear that this was the right thing to do. In fact, if you speak with most priests who have left, they will tell you that they consider their departure as a great grace.

Providence does not fail to give us clear signs either. A few weeks ago, for example, the ceremonialist who was assisting me in Montreal at the Mass on April 17, 2016 (the date of my first compromising sermon), was getting married in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in front of the modernist priest of the Novus Ordo parish, before the amazed eyes of the priest of the Society of St. Pius X, serving as a flower pot and preparing to celebrate the Mass under the eyes of the amazed modernist priest. The marriage of two young traditionalists, but the marriage especially of two churches. Alice in Wonderland! Priest of the Brotherhood tell me who you frequent, I will tell you who you are . Nothing really surprising about this is the arrangements made by Pope Francis and accepted with boundless gratitude by Bishop Fellay. The principle being accepted, the practice will gradually follow, when the spirits will get used to it. Nothing new under the sun. The mechanisms of the revolution are known. Only those who will oppose the whip will survive as always. The others will become accustomed to this umpteenth compromise, the compromise in these domains being a lack of love for God and his Church, and the lack of love being always punished by the blindness of the mind and the lukewarmness of the heart.

Like all those who have lived in closed worlds, the fact of being outside also allows us to consider things with a little more hindsight and to make a more just judgment. Many, seeing us leave the Society of St. Pius X, behave with us as if we had left the Church. In fact, we have left a religious congregation and continue to serve the Church where Providence guides us. The Fraternity is a means permitted by God and not an end, and if this means is corrupted and becomes an obstacle to the good of Tradition and souls, we must know how to detach ourselves from it. It is Ignatian indifference: I will only use creatures to the extent that they guide me towards the end that God has given me, and I will detach myself from them to the extent that they become an obstacle to this end. How many priests should practice what they preach in the Spiritual Exercises!

The fact of leaving the Society also brings us into contact with a small world that abounds outside of it and allows us to open our eyes to a different reality: no, the Brotherhood is not the Church and is not Tradition, contrary to what many members seem to preach. She is one of them, but the flock of the Lord is at this moment truly scattered all over the earth, and everywhere are souls of good will who remain faithful to God as best they can. There is no shortage of rising voices or gestures that arise within what is called "Resistance" and that tend to recreate a small world just as cloisonné and impervious. This could only be done to the detriment of the souls of the faithful and we pray Providence to give everyone "a heart as wide as the sand that is by the sea." 1 Kings, 5.9" (End quote)

A good point well made. Let us all make an effort to act with charity towards one another and recognise what this crisis has done to us all. I end this article with the words of a former sedevacantist, Don Curzio Nitoglia,  talking sense as always, who all should listen to due to his experience and love of souls. here

Tuesday, 24 April 2018

Holiness

Excellent, hard-hitting article (here)


Here is a taster
"..a Tradition that seeks to live unmolested within the walls of the perfidious Modernists, in peaceful coexistence with the accursed Second Vatican Council and the liberals who incense it, a tradition without risk, dialoguing, fearful, lukewarm, bourgeois and at the same time proud of itself: there we find the conservatives, the line-media and the groups Ecclesia Dei (IBP, IVE, ICR, FSP, Le Barrou, Campos, etc.)., all of them Benedictine or Ratzingerian, to a greater or lesser extent, and of course, “St John Paul-ists” to whom now the FSSPX is added, which may well be called Neo-FSSPX: In these times of decaffeinated coffee and non-alcoholic beer, a “de-lefebvrized” version of the FSSPX is now offered, more concerned with its aesthetic aspects than with the fight against faith: see the last Cor Unum where in the midst of these calamitous times Mons. Fellay is always talking about “colours and typographies” to comply with the corporate branding policy that builds and sells a commercial image of the company….sorry, of the religious congregation, well dressed up and with the necessary decorations and shavings so as not to scandalize the Roman hierarchies and the whole world, widely satisfying their desire to please. Their only concern is that they will be left “as they are”: soon we will see them singing the Beatles’ “Let it be” chorus, while on the other side Francisco responds “All you need is love”, sweetening their ears with such a slimy melody"

 The original article is (here) but Mr Johnson's translation is a little better.

Monday, 23 April 2018

More revisionist history from the SSPX

In this quite shocking article from Fr Simoulin we see more of the revisionist history making seen lately from Fr Robinson. One sympathises with laity who have supported the SSPX for longer than ten years, to have to witness arguments put forward by a Society Priest which resemble ones we have had to tolerate from Ecclesia Dei clerics for so long! 


"The real question, in fact, is whether we have reasons to be afraid of the ostrich, fear of the future, fear of not holding and falling apart, fear of being betrayed or led to misfortune or betrayal, fear of being accomplices of the ostriches ... all absurd and without any foundation! And that's why some are restless!"

Why on earth did we attend the SSPX over others all these years if it were not for the fact that we doubted that we would receive the Faith in its entirety from Ecclesia Dei? The Society is signing its own death warrant with such articles, as how can it continue to warn people away from other "approved" orders if they do not believe that there is a substantial threat to ones faith by attending? Is such an attitude (in attending) not the "fear" that Fr Simoulin disdains so much? And what of those married by the SSPX? The more articles written the more scruples are encouraged not allayed. We are now in the quite incredible situation where Ecclesia Dei could be a better option than the SSPX regarding weddings! 

Read and weep (and excuse google translate)

Sunday, 22 April 2018

Wednesday, 11 April 2018

More conciliar compromises.

The recent news documented here by the excellent revamped tradidi site mentions the SSPX in Australia encouraging its laity to join the conciliar Dominican Friars Rosary Crusade in Queensland. Of course, this is in preference to the Dominicans in Avrille, whose Rosary Confraternity SSPX laity were until recently, encouraged to support.
Oh please Holy Father let us in, we've changed!

It has also been revealed that the SSPX in France will no longer marry laity who refuse to adhere to the ‘new marriage guidelines’ ie being married by a Diocesan presider whilst the SSPX Priest stands (as Fr Roy says) “like a flower pot in the corner”. How many more instances will it take before more laity and Priests say “enough is enough!” and join those resisting the compromising neo-SSPX?

We now hear that the SSPX Legion of Mary in Canada have appealed to its conciliar counter-parts for permission to join its ranks under their conciliar control. Can anyone really claim that this is entryism? That this is an attempt to convert their misguided masters? Of course this is nonsense and instead is yet another attempt to be seen as relevant by the modernist authorities and of the SSPX having shed their polemical past.

Thursday, 5 April 2018

Starting to wake up?

The following is from Andrew Senior (son of the late, great John Senior) and Professor at St Marys College (SSPX)

"I just read this article by Fr. Robinson, and my head is still spinning. He is very clever, but his reasoning is faulty; it is tautological and circular. Once having assumed the conclusion he finds ways of arguing for it. He sets up several false dichotomies, making it seem that he is arguing for the only possible via media.
He says that Archbishop Lefebvre did not use the term "Conciliar Church." Perhaps he should read the Consecration Sermon: "This Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ is disappearing everywhere in the Conciliar Church. They are following roads which are not Catholic roads: they simply lead to apostasy."
He says that Archbishop Lefebvre did not resist the authority of Rome, when it was acting in accord with Tradition. Again, in the Consecration Sermon, the Archbishop states explicitly that the Roman authorities are doing the exact opposite. He clearly says that they have made a break with Tradition, that they can no longer be trusted, that there is an extraordinary State of Necessity:
"Indeed, since the Council, what we condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. . . . Thus, we find ourselves in a case of necessity. We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome. We have tried by these talks, by all these means, to succeed in making Rome understand that, since the Council and since aggiornamento, this change which has occurred in the Church is not Catholic, is not in conformity to the doctrine of all times. This ecumenism and all these errors, this collegiality—all this is contrary to the Faith of the Church, and is in the process of destroying the Church. . . it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the Conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world!"
 

The Archbishop never advocated any halfway measures: the Roman authority should be obeyed in some instances and in others not obeyed. He never makes the case that as long as they let him be then everything else is just fine. He wouldn't even get in the car they sent the night before! Fr. Robinson is in the car, and more than halfway across the Alps on a dark night!
By a not so strange coincidence, I received in the mail today a fundraising letter from Fr. Wegner. It begins by saying: "It was tumultuous year, filled with great expectations and great confusion. . . Indeed it was a year in which so much confusion emanated from Rome that our own Bishop Bernard Fellay signed a public filial correction of the Pope for the grave errors presented in Amoris Laetitia." So far so good, but then he goes on to add to the confusion by saying: "In March, we received the surprise announcement that Pope Francis had taken the steps to remove all doubt concerning the validity of marriages celebrated by priests of the Society." 
 

I contend that this announcement was not a surprise at all, it was a pre-arranged trap. And there never was any doubt about the validity of marriages, or confessions (or the bogus excommunication!) certainly not in the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre! It is indeed a very confusing situation, and intentionally so, when the faithful are being lead to believe that we should all be waiting breathlessly for the wonders of "canonical regularization." That is never what Archbishop Lefebvre sought. He said very clearly that Rome needs to explicitly reject its errors and return fully to Tradition.
Pope Francis is in no way returning to Tradition, except by way of appearances as part of the diabolical dialectic. He is leading the way to the Great Apostasy. It is more obvious now than ever. To wish to be "recognized and regularized" by him is to join the ranks of the Masonic traitors who have infiltrated the Church. Pope Leo wrote the famous prayer to St. Michael the Archangel more than a century ago: "These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where the See of Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth has been set up as the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety." And one of the first acts of the Conciliar Church was to eliminate this prayer! 
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the battle and in the terrible warfare that we are waging against the principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, against the evil spirits.
God help us all!
In Christo Rege,
Andrew Senior
St. Mary’s, KS



Taken from the Remnant newspaper combox.  
 https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/3807-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-a-new-spirit-of-cooperation

Monday, 2 April 2018

Wanting To Help You Hate Facebook And Cohorts

https://www.rt.com/news/422268-facebook-data-download-phone-messages/

I always told you I hated Facebook and such other gismatic fling-flang, and I feel vindicated now, following the scandal revealed last week about Facebook.

Instead of Facebook and such other sites, people should meet in person or at least phone or write.
Moreover, this kind of social media encourages people to be prideful and to try to attract the attention and “likes” of other people. Facebook users are in fact trying to create a group of fans who will follow them and “like” them. What they want, in reality, is to become some kind of little stars. This is really nothing less than a form of “Cult of Man”, where one is worshiping oneself and wants to have as big a group of “faithful” as possible…

Not a Christian attitude at all. Just think of Our Lord who has humbled himself to the point of becoming a man, taking our sins on His shoulders, and dying on the Cross in our stead. The same Our Lord who said we had to learn from Him (and imitate), that He was “meek and humble of heart”.
Can you imagine the most humble Blessed Virgin Mary on Facebook (or other such sites), showing virtual “friends” pictures of her new blue veil? Or telling them what she ate last night? Or showing them the recipe for the cake Her Son likes most? Or telling them what she is going to buy next time she goes to the big market in Jerusalem? No, really! What nonsense!

Let us not be like Paul VI and Vatican II! Let us have the Cult of God instead of the Cult of Self!!
I have to stop here, as Facebook and other such sites are raising my blood pressure… Not good…
Let us all be real, and be serious in trying to please the Father by imitating His Son. Let us pray the Blessed Virgin Mary to obtain us the grace of humility!
Have a Holy Holy Week!

Fr. Girouard

Original here
Facebook

Sunday, 1 April 2018

Easter Eleison Comments.

Church Resurrection?

The Church will rise again if every man
Will, in his state of life, do what he can.

And the day before Easter should be a good moment to think of how Mother Church is going to rise from her present stricken state. By our Catholic Faith we know with absolute certainty that she will rise again, and that she will last to the end of the world (Mt. XXVIII, 20). But it is a great mistake to think that she will rise this time by human means, because then I start believing for instance in human means to come to her rescue, like for instance “theological discussions” or diplomatic negotiations with her present masters in the Vatican.
Thus the theological discussions of 2009–2011 led nowhere, which is why we have heard almost nothing of them ever since, because they proved that the doctrinal gulf between Conciliar Rome and Catholic Tradition cannot be bridged. And diplomatic negotiations can lead at most to the mere appearance of a rescue for Tradition, because today’s Romans have 2000 years’ experience of diplomacy, and they do not want Tradition, because it is a serious obstacle in the way of their New World Order, where Our Lord Jesus Christ has no business to be doing any more reigning. The problem is a wholesale rejection of God on the part of mankind in general, and on the part of His own churchmen in Rome in particular.

Therefore the problem is not going to be solved by merely human means. As Cardinal Villot (1905–1979), a former Secretary of State in the Vatican under three Conciliar Popes (1969–1979), admitted on his deathbed, “Humanly, the Church is finished.” And it is a great lack of supernatural spirit, not without some arrogance, on the part of the present leaders of the Society of St Pius X to argue as they do that the Society must negotiate some settlement with the Church officials in Rome because there is no other solution for the crisis of the Church. Do these men really think that the Lord God is short of means to come to the rescue of His Church? Do they really think that the arm of God is shortened by the wickedness of men? Here speaks His prophet Isaiah (LIX, 1–3):—
1 Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; 2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear. 3 For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness. 4 No one enters suit justly, no one goes to law honestly; they rely on empty pleas, they speak lies, they conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.

Men’s iniquities are the problem. And is it likely that God has no solution? No. And is it likely that
He wants men to play no part in His solution? No. And is it likely that what He wants them to do to save His Church is specially difficult or compli cated? No. But is it likely that it will require some humility? Yes, because “God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble” (James IV, 6). And will it require some faith? Certainly, because “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb.XI, 6). And is there any chance that God will not have told mankind, on the brink of destroying itself, what humble means He wants men to believe in and to apply, for Himself to step in and save them from destruction? There is no such chance at all. Then what has He in fact told mankind for His Church to be able to rise again?

He said it through His Mother, at Fatima, in 1917, in Pontevedra in 1925, and in Akita in 1973. In Fatima: Russia must be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope with all the Catholic bishops. In Pontevedra: Catholics must practise the Devotion of the First Saturdays. In Akita; Catholics must pray the Rosary, for the Pope, for bishops, for priests. Are these three points humble? Yes. Ar e they supernatural, requiring supernatural faith? Definitely. Are any of them too much to ask, for the Church to rise again, and for mankind to come back from the brink of destruction? Definitely not. Then let nobody complain that there is nothing they can do!

Kyrie eleison.