Videos below. Thoughts?
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC7MMuCvrXSbn98K7tSU_USA
How many has Bp. Consecrated so far?
Zendejas and Fauré
Fr. Zendejas is the Cathinfo priest? Originally from Conn.?
Quote from: Bonaventure on May 13, 2017, 03:46:48 PM
Zendejas and Fauré
And Dom Thomas de Aquino O.S.B. Prior of the trad Monastery of Benedictines in Brazil.
There are now four resistance bishops.
What is the difference between the "Resistance" and the regular SSPX? Why don't they get along?
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 14, 2017, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: Bonaventure on May 13, 2017, 03:46:48 PM
Zendejas and Fauré
And Dom Thomas de Aquino O.S.B. Prior of the trad Monastery of Benedictines in Brazil.
There are now four resistance bishops.
What would we do without your precision! Thought there had been a few.
Quote from: Heinrich on May 14, 2017, 03:10:31 PM
What is the difference between the "Resistance" and the regular SSPX? Why don't they get along?
Briefly: The regular SSPX believes that if Rome offers them the chance to be regularized without having to accept the errors of Vatican II, then they should accept this offer. The resistance believes that any deal made with unconverted Rome i.e. That still holds to the errors of Vatican II; is a mistake and will endanger the faith of both the priests and faithful.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 14, 2017, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: Bonaventure on May 13, 2017, 03:46:48 PM
Zendejas and Fauré
And Dom Thomas de Aquino O.S.B. Prior of the trad Monastery of Benedictines in Brazil.
There are now four resistance bishops.
Being a "resistance" monastery, can he in good faith actually put OSB behind his name? I find it hard to believe that they're actually a part of the Benedictine Confederation.
Either way, always sad to see this particular crack widen.
I met Fr. Zendejas once or twice, he seemed like a solid priest.
Welp, I accidentally quoted myself. Please ignore (or delete?) this post guys...
Quote from: ABlaine on May 14, 2017, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 14, 2017, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: Bonaventure on May 13, 2017, 03:46:48 PM
Zendejas and Fauré
And Dom Thomas de Aquino O.S.B. Prior of the trad Monastery of Benedictines in Brazil.
There are now four resistance bishops.
Being a "resistance" monastery, can he in good faith actually put OSB behind his name? I find it hard to believe that they're actually a part of the Benedictine Confederation.
Either way, always sad to see this particular crack widen.
There are also two Benedictine monasteries associated with the SSPX; one in the U.S. And one in France. The trad monasteries are not associated with the Benedictine Confederation; but if St. Benedict would come back to Earth, which group of monasteries would he identify as his true sons, the N.O. Federation or the trad monasteries? I would think it would be the trad monasteries.
Like the One in Clear Creek, OK.
Quote from: Heinrich on May 14, 2017, 09:06:39 PM
Like the One in Clear Creek, OK.
Clear Creek has the approval of the local bishop; I could also name other monasteries, such as Le Barroux, Fontgamboult, etc. That use the traditional liturgy; but these are not associated with the SSPX.
Bishop Williamson has been excommunicated twice.
What is the world record?
Twice has to be fairly rare.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 14, 2017, 09:01:43 PM
Quote from: ABlaine on May 14, 2017, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 14, 2017, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: Bonaventure on May 13, 2017, 03:46:48 PM
Zendejas and Fauré
And Dom Thomas de Aquino O.S.B. Prior of the trad Monastery of Benedictines in Brazil.
There are now four resistance bishops.
Being a "resistance" monastery, can he in good faith actually put OSB behind his name? I find it hard to believe that they're actually a part of the Benedictine Confederation.
Either way, always sad to see this particular crack widen.
There are also two Benedictine monasteries associated with the SSPX; one in the U.S. And one in France. The trad monasteries are not associated with the Benedictine Confederation; but if St. Benedict would come back to Earth, which group of monasteries would he identify as his true sons, the N.O. Federation or the trad monasteries? I would think it would be the trad monasteries.
There are trad monasteries that are a part of this congregation, as you yourself mentioned (for example much of the Solesmes Congregation which is itself part of the Benedictine congregation as a whole). I think it is disingenuous to put OSB after a name when they are clearly in conflict with the organization that that abbreviation refers to. Obviously they follow the Rule of St Benedict but that isn't what OSB is signifying.
At least in the email newsletters I don't think I've seen the Silver City monks put OSB after their names when they write the introduction letter, etc.
Either way, I don't think that the last question is really legitimate as there is no way of knowing on Earth and it is an awfully big assumption to make. What I have wondered, though, is when the SSPX finally reconciles, what will happen to their monasteries? Will they join the respective organizations for each of their orders or will it be kind of split between SSPX and the normal order?
re. What would happen to the other trad communities associated with the SSPX once the SSPX was regularized? That is a good question. In 1988, the plan was for the other communities to associate with their corresponding N.O. Counterparts; but these trad communities did not want to have anything to do with this arrangement. There has been talk that the trad communities would have their own commission set up in Rome to deal with them; but I haven't seen anything concrete.
It's simply not going to happen. Look at the official statement last July from the SSPX superiors. They clearly are not thinking about how they can cooperate with the Modernists, and they're not idiots, so they know they cannot put out a statement like that then negotiate a deal in secret. That kind of behavior would blow everything sky high.
In order to head for a cooperative arrangement with the Modernists, they first have to announce that it's now a good idea, and give plausible reasons, then proceed with discussions.
In trying to analyze this situation IGNORE everything the Vatican says, then consider only what the SSPX leadership has said, in total isolation from anything the Vatican or the Resistance has said. That way you will get a completely different picture, and maybe the lights will come on. I don't say this as if naivety is the best analytical tool, but because I've been observing, as well as discussing these things with the principals, for decades, and the only reason anybody thinks that the SSPX leadership is disingenuous and untrustworthy is because of obvious propaganda. The propaganda might be well-meaning, but it's wrong-headed, and I think obviously so. They haven't betrayed us yet, despite numerous prophecies to the contrary, and they're clearly not about to do so. There would be CLEAR signs if they were. Instead, all we have is divide-and-conquer tactical PR from the Vatican, and sucker reactions from the Resistance.
Don't get sucked in, people, just watch and pray.
Nazianzen, glad you decided to continue posting here.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 15, 2017, 08:15:27 AM
re. What would happen to the other trad communities associated with the SSPX once the SSPX was regularized? That is a good question. In 1988, the plan was for the other communities to associate with their corresponding N.O. Counterparts; but these trad communities did not want to have anything to do with this arrangement. There has been talk that the trad communities would have their own commission set up in Rome to deal with them; but I haven't seen anything concrete.
What was discussed in the mid-2000's and based on some conferences I attended, the proposed structure would incorporate all the trad communities that want to join under the 'SSPX' prelature and they would also be able to found new trad communities.
Not certain how that would work in practice ....
Quote from: Nazianzen on May 15, 2017, 10:08:12 AM
It's simply not going to happen. Look at the official statement last July from the SSPX superiors. They clearly are not thinking about how they can cooperate with the Modernists, and they're not idiots, so they know they cannot put out a statement like that then negotiate a deal in secret. That kind of behavior would blow everything sky high.
In order to head for a cooperative arrangement with the Modernists, they first have to announce that it's now a good idea, and give plausible reasons, then proceed with discussions.
In trying to analyze this situation IGNORE everything the Vatican says, then consider only what the SSPX leadership has said, in total isolation from anything the Vatican or the Resistance has said. That way you will get a completely different picture, and maybe the lights will come on. I don't say this as if naivety is the best analytical tool, but because I've been observing, as well as discussing these things with the principals, for decades, and the only reason anybody thinks that the SSPX leadership is disingenuous and untrustworthy is because of obvious propaganda. The propaganda might be well-meaning, but it's wrong-headed, and I think obviously so. They haven't betrayed us yet, despite numerous prophecies to the contrary, and they're clearly not about to do so. There would be CLEAR signs if they were. Instead, all we have is divide-and-conquer tactical PR from the Vatican, and sucker reactions from the Resistance.
Don't get sucked in, people, just watch and pray.
An astute friend of mine who also attends the SSPX pointed this out to me a while back. Since then I have watched this issue more closely, and it's true.
All the media beat-ups that appear in Catholic news are consistently one sided. The rumors that a Rome-SSPX "deal" is imminent usually/always come from some Ecclesia Dei source.
Every now and then some prominent conservative or pseudo-trad blogger, journalist or Vatican commentator puts out an opinion or something to say the same. Sure, they will quote something Bishop Fellay has said, but the source they quote him on is always old, never current or specifically related to the moment.
Like clockwork, trad Catholics react by scrambling over blogs and comment boxes claiming that "Bishop Fellay has sold us out!". This is precisely the reaction the impostors in Rome want. They want division, confusion, suspicion and fracture among those left who practice the Faith and receive Sacraments that are certainly valid.
Cardinal Mueller (or whatever he is) comes out and says to the SSPX "help me fight the modernists". The gall is beyond belief. This man publicly denies several core dogmas of the Faith and then says something like this, as if to get the SSPX on "his side".
He actually does them a favor, showing himself to be a duplicitous collaborator in the goal of destroying what's left of the resistance (small r) to the conciliar revolution.
So, ignore the media beatups and the modernists, whose cunning and spite know no bounds. They know that Catholics generally are of good will, and they cynically play on this and use it to their advantage.
Bishop Fellay hasn't exactly helped with his secret preambles and generally behaving like a Swiss banker. Knowing the SSPX was choc full of conspiracy nuts, he should, if he understood his audience, have played it with a very straight bat from the get go.
Had he explained what, when, why, how, where and who, like any decent salesman does, he would have kept supporters onside and potentially have won MORE supporters from conservative ranks. He's running a religious society, not MI6.
The deal hinges on 1 thing. Trust. No SSPX supporter trusts Rome.
If you are trying to build trust the last thing you do is behave like Secret Squirrel.
Quote from: Nazianzen on May 15, 2017, 10:08:12 AM
In trying to analyze this situation IGNORE everything the Vatican says, then consider only what the SSPX leadership has said, in total isolation from anything the Vatican or the Resistance has said. That way you will get a completely different picture, and maybe the lights will come on. I don't say this as if naivety is the best analytical tool, but because I've been observing, as well as discussing these things with the principals, for decades, and the only reason anybody thinks that the SSPX leadership is disingenuous and untrustworthy is because of obvious propaganda. The propaganda might be well-meaning, but it's wrong-headed, and I think obviously so. They haven't betrayed us yet, despite numerous prophecies to the contrary, and they're clearly not about to do so. There would be CLEAR signs if they were. Instead, all we have is divide-and-conquer tactical PR from the Vatican, and sucker reactions from the Resistance.
Don't get sucked in, people, just watch and pray.
The last line I agree with, but the previous paragraph I do not. Why would 9 priors of France take a stand without consulting leadership? Because they don't trust the leadership and it's obvious, very very obvious why this is so. If those 9 priors said the the very same thing 13 years ago they would have been applauded, now they hide and pounce to tell the truth at once knowing they would fall like dominoes if they tried it alone.
There is something seriously changing in the SSPX and everyone who has gone for years sees it. When the Synod was out destroying the family the SSPX in St. Marys never once criticized the dangers in the document. Instead they gave a 3 week series of sermons on marriage. Only during the procession did we pray for the Synod before it happened, but never once criticized the dangers therein, just that God's will is not always done in these synods.
I'm no longer in St. Marys and the priest we have now where I live thinks the NO is ok, Vatican II is misinterpreted, and other things that are bizarre. Fr. Vassal gets St. Nicholas Church and taught dogmatic theology in the seminary after he led the debacle in Post Falls with terrible advice to the families and leadership. Madrid has a modernist church so bad even modernists would cringe. I know many good priests in the SSPX and they are worried. One got so red in the face in anger at what's happening I felt I wasn't an alien living on a weird planet anymore.
Quote from: Greg on May 15, 2017, 01:17:30 AM
Bishop Williamson has been excommunicated twice.
What is the world record?
Twice has to be fairly rare.
5 times to be exact. Each are automatic by canon law for every illicit consecration. Although since one cannot be excommunicated while already in that state, I guess it is twice.
Archbishop Thuc consecrated a bevy of bishops so he has +Williamson beat in that department.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on May 16, 2017, 02:26:31 AM
When the Synod was out destroying the family the SSPX in St. Marys never once criticized the dangers in the document.
So you are saying that for the better part of a year you attended every one of the 8 or so Masses offered every Sunday at St. Mary's and can attest to the fact that no priest EVER criticized the Synod?
You sound a bit like many "resistance" folks who think that if an SSPX priest does not bash the Novus Ordo, altar girls, and CITH at least once a month he is losing his faith or sliding into modernity.
As a Trad, how often do you need to hear a priest tell you that the Novus Ordo is bad before you cannot resist the temptation to go and try it out? Do you know anyone in Trad-dom who does not know that the Synod was/is evil? So now St. Mary's sin is that they give a Traditional Catholic conference on marriage?
This is messed up.
BTW, I have never been to St. Mary's.
Yes, but wasn't Bishop Williamson excommunication lifted and then he was excommunicated again?
Quote from: Greg on May 16, 2017, 12:16:16 AM
Bishop Fellay hasn't exactly helped with his secret preambles and generally behaving like a Swiss banker. Knowing the SSPX was choc full of conspiracy nuts, he should, if he understood his audience, have played it with a very straight bat from the get go.
Had he explained what, when, why, how, where and who, like any decent salesman does, he would have kept supporters onside and potentially have won MORE supporters from conservative ranks. He's running a religious society, not MI6.
The deal hinges on 1 thing. Trust. No SSPX supporter trusts Rome.
If you are trying to build trust the last thing you do is behave like Secret Squirrel.
I would bet that if +Fellay had a do-over, he would have changed course on a few things. One of them is how +Williamson was handled.
But Secret Squirrel or not, I predict that a deal will not be made if not ratified by the SSPX General Council of Superiors and Elders.
Remember that he is making decisions based on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Order members of the SSPX. John Q. Public is not directly affected by his decisions unless John Q. attends one of their chapels. And in that case, there is no contract or promise that the laity will get a vote in priestly decisions. One votes with one's feet, in that case.
Quote from: Greg on May 16, 2017, 10:48:13 AM
Yes, but wasn't Bishop Williamson excommunication lifted and then he was excommunicated again?
Right .. 4 consecrations since his original excommunication was lifted.
Quote from: QuaeriteDominum on May 16, 2017, 10:53:06 AM
Quote from: Greg on May 16, 2017, 12:16:16 AM
Bishop Fellay hasn't exactly helped with his secret preambles and generally behaving like a Swiss banker. Knowing the SSPX was choc full of conspiracy nuts, he should, if he understood his audience, have played it with a very straight bat from the get go.
Had he explained what, when, why, how, where and who, like any decent salesman does, he would have kept supporters onside and potentially have won MORE supporters from conservative ranks. He's running a religious society, not MI6.
The deal hinges on 1 thing. Trust. No SSPX supporter trusts Rome.
If you are trying to build trust the last thing you do is behave like Secret Squirrel.
I would bet that if +Fellay had a do-over, he would have changed course on a few things. One of them is how +Williamson was handled.
But Secret Squirrel or not, I predict that a deal will not be made if not ratified by the SSPX General Council of Superiors and Elders.
Remember that he is making decisions based on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Order members of the SSPX. John Q. Public is not directly affected by his decisions unless John Q. attends one of their chapels. And in that case, there is no contract or promise that the laity will get a vote in priestly decisions. One votes with one's feet, in that case.
How does a priestly union have "second and third orders"?
;)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
does anyone know if there is a Resistance SSPX in North Carolina?
Quote from: QuaeriteDominum on May 16, 2017, 10:46:51 AM
Quote from: bigbadtrad on May 16, 2017, 02:26:31 AM
When the Synod was out destroying the family the SSPX in St. Marys never once criticized the dangers in the document.
So you are saying that for the better part of a year you attended every one of the 8 or so Masses offered every Sunday at St. Mary's and can attest to the fact that no priest EVER criticized the Synod?
You sound a bit like many "resistance" folks who think that if an SSPX priest does not bash the Novus Ordo, altar girls, and CITH at least once a month he is losing his faith or sliding into modernity.
As a Trad, how often do you need to hear a priest tell you that the Novus Ordo is bad before you cannot resist the temptation to go and try it out? Do you know anyone in Trad-dom who does not know that the Synod was/is evil? So now St. Mary's sin is that they give a Traditional Catholic conference on marriage?
This is messed up.
BTW, I have never been to St. Mary's.
There is no way to imply much of what you said without exposing a deep ignorance of the matter at hand and myself. Yes, for the better part of 2 years no public scrutiny of the Synod except to make mention that it doesn't have to do the will of God so we have to pray, which is true, but incomplete.
I'm the exact opposite of the resistance types who need an anti-NO sermon or "why the pope is evil" frequently or if at all. I do think there should be a public exposing of dangers that are relevant. I don't think the only solution is to present the positive side, but to also expose evil when and if the time permits itself without becoming cynical. I do think people should know the dangers of the New Mass every so often (once or twice a year), and more so in a scholarly way presented in the form of talks, but not in a sermon.
Also, they used the same priest for all of the sermons about marriage during the synod so I didn't have to attend all of the Masses. They rotated 3 priests who presented a different aspect of marriage each week. Also, St. Marys is small, very small. I asked my friends who go to Mass at a different time "Did you get Fr. X as well?" or I would ask if they went to a different time "Have you heard anyone speak about the synod at all?"
I notice how you avoided the issue of WHAT has happened and focused on personal issues you could attribute to me or what's wrong with trad-dom. That's an exceptionally poor reasoned argument.
Quote from: Older Salt on May 16, 2017, 11:11:28 AM
does anyone know if there is a Resistance SSPX in North Carolina?
Why?
To be fair, there really wasn't that much insofar as substance in your argument. It boiled down to complaining that they didn't complain enough about what Rome was doing. They're in the SSPX, the Synod would affect them in all of no ways. If you could have a positive and constructive sermon about the importance of marriage, or more moaning about modernism which would you prefer to listen to?
Further, you mention that your current priest holds the opinion that NO is valid, etc. And? The Church is ancient, if it takes 100 or 200 years to totally replace the NO with the EF again, so be it. But it is mostly going to have to happen from the inside of the hierarchy not the outside.
I had dinner with a diocesan priest (gasp, I know) here two days ago and, despite saying mass mostly in Romanian and Hungarian, came in on our side in mostly every major recent dispute. They synod, the FFI, the Order of Malta coup thing, the reintegration of the SSPX à la Opus Dei, etc and so forth. Extremely critical of Francis in general. There are a lot of guys on the other side of the aisle who are basically on our side and are strongly against modernism, etc.
My point is that we have a lot of allies that might be driven away if all we do is bitch and moan non stop. Nonconstructive antagonism is going to be the downfall of the resistance folks and they are going to try and drag the rest of us down with them.
I imagine that everyone at St Marys is of the same opinion concerning the Synod. How often do you need your world view reaffirmed?
The resistance are too small and fragmented to drag anything down. They are also spending far more energy resisting each other than the SSPX; and have been for the past 2-3 years.
Many of them go to SSPX masses. That's how much they are resisting.
I would have thought at this stage of the game Fellay's best bet is to wait for Frank to die and see who the next Pope is. The likelihood is he will be a more stable character than Frank. We've waited five years, why not another five, by which time Frank will almost certainly have snuffed it.
Quote from: Greg on May 16, 2017, 12:44:56 PM
The resistance are too small and fragmented to drag anything down. They are also spending far more energy resisting each other than the SSPX; and have been for the past 2-3 years.
Many of them go to SSPX masses. That's how much they are resisting.
I would have thought at this stage of the game Fellay's best bet is to wait for Frank to die and see who the next Pope is. The likelihood is he will be a more stable character than Frank. We've waited five years, why not another five, by which time Frank will almost certainly have snuffed it.
To think that Fellay just has to out wait Francis until his one lung quits working is naïve. Francis probably has another three to five years to go. By then the College of Cardinals will be a creature of Francis and Cupich, Maradiaga, Schönborn, or of like ilk will be elected pope i.e. another Francis.
I believe Fellay is anxious for a deal but the uproar against his MI6 maneuvers has put the brakes on it. A deal with Francis/Rome now would crack a certain portion of the SSPX off and sent it spinning off into the wide blue yonder and he knows it. Then within the next 5 years comes a new conclave, and viola another Francis. Fellay is in a tough spot and it is only going to get tougher.
Maybe, maybe not.
The bigger problem is that regardless of what Francis agrees with Fellay, the next Pope can reverse it and shaft the SSPX. He can do this because the SSPX and other conservatives are hated minorities who are seen as intolerant and homophobic. So the MSM, Catholic media and the talking heads can always justify a censure or break-up.
Quote from: ABlaine on May 16, 2017, 11:42:39 AM
To be fair, there really wasn't that much insofar as substance in your argument. It boiled down to complaining that they didn't complain enough about what Rome was doing. They're in the SSPX, the Synod would affect them in all of no ways. If you could have a positive and constructive sermon about the importance of marriage, or more moaning about modernism which would you prefer to listen to?
Actually that wasn't close to my argument. My point was the priors of France were censured because of an ideological change in the SSPX that is alarming; that a priest in the SSPX thinks there is nothing wrong with the NO is alarming (not just that it's valid); things that were once condemned by the SSPX in their publications are watered down are now reasons for attacking priests who say what they used to say is alarming; that they have taken a priest who should be punished for allowing terrible things to happen in Post Falls (things he knew about) and then give him a teaching job in moral theology at the seminary and then transfer him to St. Nicholas in Paris is alarming; and that they built a modernist chapel in Madrid for millions of dollars (that I've seen with my own 2 eyes) is alarming.
I do want to add a close to 20 year teacher at a Society school was fired because he saw new books being introduced he knew were dangerous to kids souls. They chose to fire him instead. His brother, also a wonderful faithful man, has voiced his concerns to me that things are changing. Then another teacher in St. Marys asked his kids how many of them knew who Archbishop Lefebvre was and only 30% of the class knew who he was.
I'm arguing a change that appears to be substantive, that has some of their own priests have concerns, some have left, and people with eyes to see (even Michael Matt noticed) that something has changed. If you want to believe this all boils down to needing more criticism of evils go ahead if that's how you want to see this, but people like myself and priests in the SSPX will disagree with you based on overall substance. There is more than mere anecdote at this point.
They've been behaving like that for at least 30 years. Read the story of Fr. Rizzo. He was treated abysmally by the SSPX leadership when he reported dodgy goings in in Post Falls. I know, since I was there in MN, KS and MT with him the whole time so I experienced that story first hand I must have seen him several days per week on average so as the events happened to him I saw the effect.
Nobody who knows Fr. Rizzo would describe him as a trouble maker or an angry man. When he served in London he was universally liked and admired. He was also very committed to the SSPX as a young priest. That they pushed him out is an absolute travesty.
I have a strong suspicion that the Church has behaved ruthlessly like that for hundreds of years though. Probably because they can get away with it - there's no impetus to change.
Quote from: Greg on May 17, 2017, 04:11:05 AM
They've been behaving like that for at least 30 years. Read the story of Fr. Rizzo. He was treated abysmally by the SSPX leadership when he reported dodgy goings in in Post Falls. I know, since I was there in MN, KS and MT with him the whole time so I experienced that story first hand I must have seen him several days per week on average so as the events happened to him I saw the effect.
Nobody who knows Fr. Rizzo would describe him as a trouble maker or an angry man. When he served in London he was universally liked and admired. He was also very committed to the SSPX as a young priest. That they Bp Williamson(?) pushed him out is an absolute travesty.
I have a strong suspicion that the Church has behaved ruthlessly like that for hundreds of years though. Probably because they can get away with it - there's no impetus to change.
tweaked it...
Quote from: bigbadtrad on May 17, 2017, 01:53:35 AM
Quote from: ABlaine on May 16, 2017, 11:42:39 AM
To be fair, there really wasn't that much insofar as substance in your argument. It boiled down to complaining that they didn't complain enough about what Rome was doing. They're in the SSPX, the Synod would affect them in all of no ways. If you could have a positive and constructive sermon about the importance of marriage, or more moaning about modernism which would you prefer to listen to?
Actually that wasn't close to my argument. My point was the priors of France were censured because of an ideological change in the SSPX that is alarming; that a priest in the SSPX thinks there is nothing wrong with the NO is alarming (not just that it's valid); things that were once condemned by the SSPX in their publications are watered down are now reasons for attacking priests who say what they used to say is alarming; that they have taken a priest who should be punished for allowing terrible things to happen in Post Falls (things he knew about) and then give him a teaching job in moral theology at the seminary and then transfer him to St. Nicholas in Paris is alarming; and that they built a modernist chapel in Madrid for millions of dollars (that I've seen with my own 2 eyes) is alarming.
I do want to add a close to 20 year teacher at a Society school was fired because he saw new books being introduced he knew were dangerous to kids souls. They chose to fire him instead. His brother, also a wonderful faithful man, has voiced his concerns to me that things are changing. Then another teacher in St. Marys asked his kids how many of them knew who Archbishop Lefebvre was and only 30% of the class knew who he was.
I'm arguing a change that appears to be substantive, that has some of their own priests have concerns, some have left, and people with eyes to see (even Michael Matt noticed) that something has changed. If you want to believe this all boils down to needing more criticism of evils go ahead if that's how you want to see this, but people like myself and priests in the SSPX will disagree with you based on overall substance. There is more than mere anecdote at this point.
You assume you know why they were censured and therefore it becomes fact for you. It is more likely they were censured for beach of protocol/obedience. The SSPX is not a democratic organization where priests get to publicly publish there own petitions and manifestos. Priests can say what they will in their sermons but to sign on to public chastizements above and beyond the SG of their order is out of line. That was also Fr Pfeiffer and +Williamson's issue ... more obedience than message. +Fellay needs to reign in the cowboys in the SSPX who feel they can spout off as the whim hits them in a public and published way.
To conflate the issues of Frs Rizzo and Vassal and your friend who determined a book would be damaging to childrens souls into this is typical resistance-speak. Do you infer that the SSPX has become 'evil'? No one is going to argue that over the last 47 years, the SSPX has been free of mistakes. +Lefebvre lamented that 50% of the priests he ordained left him. I guess statistically he had pretty poor judgement, right?
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.picturequotes.com%2F2%2F179%2F178756%2Fhistory-is-written-by-the-victors-the-strongest-the-most-determined-truth-is-found-most-often-in-quote-1.jpg&hash=5a324b0be28f4b7cff63399c2451d70de59a3fb1)
Quote from: QuaeriteDominum on May 17, 2017, 05:35:31 AM
You assume you know why they were censured and therefore it becomes fact for you. It is more likely they were censured for beach of protocol/obedience. The SSPX is not a democratic organization where priests get to publicly publish there own petitions and manifestos. Priests can say what they will in their sermons but to sign on to public chastizements above and beyond the SG of their order is out of line. That was also Fr Pfeiffer and +Williamson's issue ... more obedience than message. +Fellay needs to reign in the cowboys in the SSPX who feel they can spout off as the whim hits them in a public and published way.
To conflate the issues of Frs Rizzo and Vassal and your friend who determined a book would be damaging to childrens souls into this is typical resistance-speak. Do you infer that the SSPX has become 'evil'? No one is going to argue that over the last 47 years, the SSPX has been free of mistakes. +Lefebvre lamented that 50% of the priests he ordained left him. I guess statistically he had pretty poor judgement, right?
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
You know it's funny for so many Catholics who are so big on the "truth" none of that matters when it comes to protecting the party. We bash liberals for the terms "phobic" or "ist" instead of arguing facts, but when facts get in the way of the party we use labels like "resistance" "Jansenist" "extremist" to avoid facts. Shouldn't shock me, reason is dead. It might interest you to know I don't know any of the resistance priests with the exception of Fr. Hewko who I haven't talked to in 12 years and that the only reason I don't mention the priests I speak of is to protect them from reprisals.
But go ahead believing I'm part of the resistance therefore I must be wrong. It makes a pleasant fiction.
I'm beginning to see why Greg's Kung Fu answer is the only answer that makes sense more and more by the day. This is sectarian thinking, not Catholicism.
Quote from: Greg on May 17, 2017, 04:11:05 AM
They've been behaving like that for at least 30 years. Read the story of Fr. Rizzo. He was treated abysmally by the SSPX leadership when he reported dodgy goings in in Post Falls. I know, since I was there in MN, KS and MT with him the whole time so I experienced that story first hand I must have seen him several days per week on average so as the events happened to him I saw the effect.
Nobody who knows Fr. Rizzo would describe him as a trouble maker or an angry man. When he served in London he was universally liked and admired. He was also very committed to the SSPX as a young priest. That they pushed him out is an absolute travesty.
I have a strong suspicion that the Church has behaved ruthlessly like that for hundreds of years though. Probably because they can get away with it - there's no impetus to change.
I know Fr. Rizzo Greg, he's a good man. It's a shame he's not part of the resistance because then it would be more convenient just to brand him as an outcast unworthy of discussion. I know what happened to him and I know you were there. The difference I suppose is that was bad leadership, which I can handle. Now the ideas are changing and that's a different bird altogether.
"Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me."
? George Orwell, 1984
I am not going to do anything with you: not if you mean by that "do something to you" without your leave. We might do some things together. I don't know about sides. I go my own way; but your way may go along with mine for a while. ... Wizards are always troubled about the future. I do not like worrying about the future. I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me: nobody cares for the woods as I care for them, not even Elves nowadays. Still, I take more kindly to Elves than to others ... And there are some things, of course, whose side I am altogether not on; I am against them altogether: these — burárum" (he again made a deep rumble of disgust) "— these Orcs, and their masters".
-- Treebeard.
The big difference now, to the rest of human history, is that stories of the little people can survive and outlive them. Some evil English landlord throws out some Irish tenents in 1884 and nobody ever gets to read the specifics or their suffering and starvation and his greed. It just becomes lost to history.
Come the mid-1990s and the Internet and you can not only get the Fr. Rizzo story written up, but people who were there can add their thoughts to it years later, such that, if it is a powerful narrative,it lives on and can be found by anyone doing a Google search and spread around an interested group.
Data retrieval tools are going to get better and more intelligent over time and organisations won't be able to behave like this. History won't be written by the victors as much as it was in the past. Calumny and detraction are going to need to be redefined to adjust for the Internet since data will be able to be pieced together and meta-data checked for fraud.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on May 17, 2017, 07:04:29 AM
Quote from: QuaeriteDominum on May 17, 2017, 05:35:31 AM
You assume you know why they were censured and therefore it becomes fact for you. It is more likely they were censured for beach of protocol/obedience. The SSPX is not a democratic organization where priests get to publicly publish there own petitions and manifestos. Priests can say what they will in their sermons but to sign on to public chastizements above and beyond the SG of their order is out of line. That was also Fr Pfeiffer and +Williamson's issue ... more obedience than message. +Fellay needs to reign in the cowboys in the SSPX who feel they can spout off as the whim hits them in a public and published way.
To conflate the issues of Frs Rizzo and Vassal and your friend who determined a book would be damaging to childrens souls into this is typical resistance-speak. Do you infer that the SSPX has become 'evil'? No one is going to argue that over the last 47 years, the SSPX has been free of mistakes. +Lefebvre lamented that 50% of the priests he ordained left him. I guess statistically he had pretty poor judgement, right?
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
You know it's funny for so many Catholics who are so big on the "truth" none of that matters when it comes to protecting the party. We bash liberals for the terms "phobic" or "ist" instead of arguing facts, but when facts get in the way of the party we use labels like "resistance" "Jansenist" "extremist" to avoid facts. Shouldn't shock me, reason is dead. It might interest you to know I don't know any of the resistance priests with the exception of Fr. Hewko who I haven't talked to in 12 years and that the only reason I don't mention the priests I speak of is to protect them from reprisals.
But go ahead believing I'm part of the resistance therefore I must be wrong. It makes a pleasant fiction.
I'm beginning to see why Greg's Kung Fu answer is the only answer that makes sense more and more by the day. This is sectarian thinking, not Catholicism.
BBT,
I'm not accusing you of being part of the neo-resistance. But you are using the exact justifications they use for rejecting ordinary jurisdiction from the Pope.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaesekopf on May 16, 2017, 11:05:20 AM
Quote from: QuaeriteDominum on May 16, 2017, 10:53:06 AM
Quote from: Greg on May 16, 2017, 12:16:16 AM
Bishop Fellay hasn't exactly helped with his secret preambles and generally behaving like a Swiss banker. Knowing the SSPX was choc full of conspiracy nuts, he should, if he understood his audience, have played it with a very straight bat from the get go.
Had he explained what, when, why, how, where and who, like any decent salesman does, he would have kept supporters onside and potentially have won MORE supporters from conservative ranks. He's running a religious society, not MI6.
The deal hinges on 1 thing. Trust. No SSPX supporter trusts Rome.
If you are trying to build trust the last thing you do is behave like Secret Squirrel.
I would bet that if +Fellay had a do-over, he would have changed course on a few things. One of them is how +Williamson was handled.
But Secret Squirrel or not, I predict that a deal will not be made if not ratified by the SSPX General Council of Superiors and Elders.
Remember that he is making decisions based on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Order members of the SSPX. John Q. Public is not directly affected by his decisions unless John Q. attends one of their chapels. And in that case, there is no contract or promise that the laity will get a vote in priestly decisions. One votes with one's feet, in that case.
How does a priestly union have "second and third orders"?
;)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
The Sisters of the SSPX and the Third Order. They are allowed under canon law.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
The society is not an order, though. They are a priestly union.
Laity might be able to join lay associations, but the sspx does not have a third order.
Also, citation needed on the canon law bit.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaesekopf on May 17, 2017, 03:54:33 PM
the sspx does not have a third order.
Yes, they do. You might question it's validity, but the simple fact of reality is that the SSPX Third Order does exist.
http://archives.sspx.org/third_orders/sspx_third_order/sspx_third_order.htm
http://sspx.org/en/sspx-third-order-explanation
Quote from: Maximilian on May 17, 2017, 08:14:13 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on May 17, 2017, 03:54:33 PM
the sspx does not have a third order.
Yes, they do. You might question it's validity, but the simple fact of reality is that the SSPX Third Order does exist.
http://archives.sspx.org/third_orders/sspx_third_order/sspx_third_order.htm
http://sspx.org/en/sspx-third-order-explanation
Right. What I mean, of course, is that what the SSPX calls "Third Order" is not an actual Third Order, but rather an association of the lay faithful.
I can call my group the Knights Templar but that doesn't make it any such thing. :lol:
Kaese is correct; the SSPX is officially a "pius union."
Quote from: Kaesekopf on May 17, 2017, 08:32:16 PM
What I mean, of course, is that what the SSPX calls "Third Order" is not an actual Third Order, but rather an association of the lay faithful.
The SSPX doesn't seem to agree with you about that.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on May 17, 2017, 08:32:16 PM
I can call my group the Knights Templar but that doesn't make it any such thing.
If you form a group, and you call them "Knights Templar," and they are in fact Knights Templar, then that does make them that thing.
http://archives.sspx.org/third_orders/sspx_third_order/sspx_third_order.htm
Third Order
of the Society of St. Pius X
Third Order chaplain
Rev. Adam Purdy, Chaplain
SSPX Third Order
Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God Priory
2656 Warners Road Warners, NY 13164
SSPX Third Order FAQs
1. What is the Third Order of the Society of St. Pius X?
The Third Order is the fifth family of the Society of St. Pius X. You probably know that the first family in time was the priests and seminarians. This is the most important family of the SSPX, since the latter is a "priestly society of common life without vows." The priesthood is indeed the main concern of the Society. Our faithful know of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, MN, which is one of the five major seminaries of the SSPX, a Society which now has worldwide nearly 500 priests and nearly 200 seminarians.
The second family is the sisters of the SSPX, which has over 200 hundred members, including professed, novices, and postulants. They are the helpers of the priests by their daily prayer life (Mass, Rosary, Divine Office, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament), by their active apostolate (sacristy, catechism, visits to the sick), and their practical work (kitchen, washing, etc.). Their formation house in the United States District is the Sacred Heart Novitiate located in Browerville, MN.
The third family is the brothers. Presently they have about 50 members who devote themselves all over the world to supporting the priests. Several young Americans belong to this family, the brothers' novitiate in the United States District is located at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, MN.
The fourth family is the oblates, persons living in common with the priests, seminarians, brothers, and nuns but without taking vows. They remain lay-persons but are nevertheless a great help in the different houses in which they are to be found.
The fifth family to come into being is the Third Order, which was founded in 1980.
2. What was the occasion of the foundation of the Third Order?
For several years, a number of Catholics had been suggesting the idea. Even pressing demands for it were not uncommon. A sample letter:
Dear Father,... often my rosary is the for the intentions of the Society of St. Pius X. In this connection, I would like to know if there exists a Third Order in the Society of St. Pius X and what its requirements are. I would like to live a more consecrated life... a more total gift of myself in the spirit of the Society. Is this possible? Please advise me.
The priests, therefore felt the need of providing the faithful with a means of living the evangelical ideals, of keeping Faith, Hope, and Charity in the midst of the unprecedented upheaval in the Church, and thus of finding the protection of an unassailable spiritual strength. They told Archbishop Lefebvre of their concerns and desires, and of the pressing appeals from the anguished faithful, abandoned without defense in the ruins of the structures of the Church, which formally secured and maintained their faith. The realization of the Third Order was the answer to the Archbishop.
3. What is the purpose of the Third Order?
The SSPX's Third Order is an "Order set up to secure for souls living in the world a school of sanctity." Sanctification of individuals and those for whom members of the Third Order are responsible for; such is the purpose of the Third Order. Like the old traditional Third Orders (Carmelite, Dominican, Franciscan...), the SSPX's Third Order is a state of life midway between the cloister and the world, or to put it in different words, a religious Order which will penetrate into Christian homes in the midst of the world.
Do you think that it is important for someone who is able to fulfill the obligations of the Third Order to decide to become a member?
Definitely yes. Listen to this story:
St. Pius X had a deep understanding of the needs of the Church and therefore often had penetrating insights. Happening to be one day amidst a group of Cardinals, the Holy Father said to them "What is the thing most necessary at the present time to save society?" 'Build Catholic schools," one said. "No." "Multiply churches," replied another. "No again." "Increase the recruiting of the clergy" said a third. "No, no," replied the pope. "What is most necessary at the present time is to have in each parish a group of lay persons at the same time virtuous, enlightened, determined, and really apostolic." (Soul of the Apostolate; Dom Jean-Baptiste Chautard, OCSO)
To save the world, St. Pius X counted on fervent Catholics devoting themselves to the apostolate by word and action, but above all by example.
Therefore, what is the most important thing in each of our United States' missions is to have a small group of fervent souls seriously practicing the interior life. This body of elite Christians will be as the leaven and will lift up the spiritual level of the whole parish by their prayer life, by their discreet but efficacious apostolic action, but above all by their good example. The Third Order provides souls thirsting for perfection with a set of rules which can help them to attain this goal and thereby to sanctify their family and the whole mission. For instance, if ten persons in the congregation were to stay after Mass for the thanksgiving (because they are members of the Third Order), I am sure that within a few months the whole parish would be making a proper thanksgiving!
4. What is the spirit of the Third Order?
It is centered on the devotion to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is nothing else than the Sacrifice of the Cross renewed on the altar in an unbloody manner. The members of the Third Order unite themselves to Our Lord, the Divine Victim, offering Himself up out of love for His Father and for souls. In this they find the strength that they need on the difficult path to holiness. Devotion to Our Lady of Sorrows, to St. Joseph, and to St. Pius X are also present in the soul of the member of the Third Order.
5. What are the main obligations for a member of the Third Order?
Some may be called negative: for instance, habitual abstinence from television. Why? Not only because most of the shows are near occasions of sin by their indecent pictures, but also because even when not featuring sex or violence, TV remains essentially imbued with the spirit of the world. This spirit is a spirit of love of self, of pride, of comfort, of self-enjoyment, of earthly pleasure. This spirit is quite opposed to the spirit of Our Lord, which is a spirit of love for God, of humility, of sacrifice, of the Cross, of true spiritual joy. Radio and newspapers are sufficient means to keep oneself aware of the news.
6. But are there other positive obligations?
Yes, for instance morning and evening prayer, daily rosary, confession once a month. But since these obligations are common to all good Catholics, some other obligations are proper to the members of the Third Order: 15 minutes of mental prayer every day (or daily Mass where it is possible) and a retreat every two years (see the retreat schedule for a listing of dates and locations in the United States District).
7. How can I become a member of the Third Order?
Once you have read and meditated upon the Third Order Rule, just fill out the application form and send it back to the address noted. Dear reader, God is expecting your generosity. God took upon Himself a body and a soul to die for you out of the excess of His love. And you, what do you do for Him? "Let us therefore love God, because God first hath loved us." Pray to God so that He may give you the courage to enroll yourself in the SSPX's Third Order, for the glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and for the salvation of your soul and of many others! God bless you!
Quote from: Maximilian on May 18, 2017, 01:42:52 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on May 17, 2017, 08:32:16 PM
What I mean, of course, is that what the SSPX calls "Third Order" is not an actual Third Order, but rather an association of the lay faithful.
The SSPX doesn't seem to agree with you about that.
The Third Order newsletter recently had an entire issue dedicated to the question whether it is an actual Third Order. The short answer is: No. So the SSPX would agree that the Third Order is not an "actual" Third Order.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on May 17, 2017, 03:54:33 PM
The society is not an order, though. They are a priestly union.
Laity might be able to join lay associations, but the sspx does not have a third order.
Also, citation needed on the canon law bit.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Sorry, my mis-speak on the Canon law comment. it would be found in the Modus Procedendi of the Sacred Congregation Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.
As to whether or not the Third Order of the SSPX is canonically erected - it can only be canonically erected by either a diocesan bishop within his diocese and under his oversight or as an association of Pontifical Right under the authority of the Sacred Congregation. In reality then, it is a public association of the faithful which the initial founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, erected to include laity who aspire to a more fervent prayer life and discipline, and who wish to share in the combined prayers and graces of the priests and contemplatives associated with the SSPX.
Quote from: Lynne on May 16, 2017, 11:32:34 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on May 16, 2017, 11:11:28 AM
does anyone know if there is a Resistance SSPX in North Carolina?
Why?
If they offer Mass close to us we shall go.
Quote from: Older Salt on May 20, 2017, 08:37:05 AM
Quote from: Lynne on May 16, 2017, 11:32:34 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on May 16, 2017, 11:11:28 AM
does anyone know if there is a Resistance SSPX in North Carolina?
Why?
If they offer Mass close to us we shall go.
You would have to be more specific. Are you interested in the resistance group that thinks Bishop Williamson is a modernist and heretic, or the resistance group that thinks Fr. Pfeiffer is an egomaniac, or the resistance group that thinks both Bishop Williamson and Fr. Pfeiffer are heretics? Let me know and I'll send you the appropriate website URL.
Quote from: Heinrich on May 14, 2017, 03:10:31 PM
What is the difference between the "Resistance" and the regular SSPX? Why don't they get along?
It's the Jews... ;D
Quote from: Inquisitor on May 28, 2017, 06:58:28 AM
Quote from: Heinrich on May 14, 2017, 03:10:31 PM
What is the difference between the "Resistance" and the regular SSPX? Why don't they get along?
It's the Jews... ;D
<sigh> :rolleyes: Is your point that they are not subversive and destructive, and that Church hierarchy has not united with them in some kind of diabolical spiritual union where they no longer need salvation and Christ's torture and death was for nothing?
QuoteYou would have to be more specific. Are you interested in the resistance group that thinks Bishop Williamson is a modernist and heretic, or the resistance group that thinks Fr. Pfeiffer is an egomaniac, or the resistance group that thinks both Bishop Williamson and Fr. Pfeiffer are heretics? Let me know and I'll send you the appropriate website URL.
QD, you make a great point.
To the bolded part, for those who've followed the sad developments in Boston, Ky, it's way more serious than just egomania. They have all the hallmarks of a cult. The apostate amateur exorcist who runs the 'seminary' and that outrageous scandal with the phony bishop who was not even an ordained priest, dispatched to provide sacraments, with full knowledge of Fr. Pf, turns the stomach. It's a classic example of what can happen as the Church splinters, a la the Reformation.
Quote from: Greg on May 16, 2017, 10:48:13 AM
Yes, but wasn't Bishop Williamson excommunication lifted and then he was excommunicated again?
Arguable St Athanasius being exiled 5 times suffered excommunication as well 5 times ;)
Father Zendejas used to say Mass at my mission when I first went there, but I did not know him well. I went to no more than ten Masses said by him. I thought he was a good priest and I was very impressed by him. As he was the first traditional priest I had ever met he seemed like a real man compared the Novus Ordo priests I knew. Those at my mission who have been around long enough to remember him also thought well of him and thought that he was a good priest. A man who used to live at Ridgefield where he worked for Father Zendejas said he thought Father Zendejas was very holy and that he would often pray before the Blessed Sacrament, even in the middle of the night. I wish him well.
Quote from: Matto on June 03, 2017, 05:58:34 PM
Father Zendejas used to say Mass at my mission when I first went there, but I did not know him well. I went to no more than ten Masses said by him. I thought he was a good priest and I was very impressed by him. As he was the first traditional priest I had ever met he seemed like a real man compared the Novus Ordo priests I knew. Those at my mission who have been around long enough to remember him also thought well of him and thought that he was a good priest. A man who used to live at Ridgefield where he worked for Father Zendejas said he thought Father Zendejas was very holy and that he would often pray before the Blessed Sacrament, even in the middle of the night. I wish him well.
One time several years ago -- before there was any need for a "Resistance," or any such thing, so this is totally nothing to do with church politics -- I was having a conversation with a fellow traditional Catholic about the question of whether or not there were any really holy priests left in the world. I mentioned, for example, that when the Cure of Ars was alive the French government had to build a new train line to this small town, and when Padre Pio was alive the Italian government had to build a new airport near his small town. Was there any priest today who would be worth such a trip, I wondered?
She suggested Fr. Zendejas. That was based on her personal experience.
I've heard from several people that attended the Ignatian Exerciser at Ridgefield, that Fr. Z. Was an outstanding retreat master and a very holy priest.
I suppose also JP2 could have excommunicated himself a few times for the sacrilege of praying with pagans in a basilica, something which men and women won the crown of martyrdom rather than do (or fairly close).... :censor:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-hewko-goes-full-ape-insane-against-bp-zendejas/
Kentucky goes bonkers.
I predicted the resistance would resist itself. Not much of a forecast, I admit, but I did say it long ago and repeatedly.
... and for those of you who are losing track here is a handy guide.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39584.0;attach=10312;image)
Quote from: Greg on June 14, 2017, 04:53:40 PM
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-hewko-goes-full-ape-insane-against-bp-zendejas/
Kentucky goes bonkers.
I predicted the resistance would resist itself. Not much of a forecast, I admit, but I did say it long ago and repeatedly.
If someone would re-print this here so that those of us who never look there (and who also predicted) might see?
Why not click on the link?
Do you have a nut allergy?
cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/new-tactic-erosion.5632/
Try that one instead.
Interesting to read that skirt lengths in the "whole nut resistance" are 6 inches longer than in the "fruit and nut resistance".
We should have a sweepstake on the year that ankle length skirts will be proposed as the only skirts that are "modest".
Jezebel!!!!
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F09%2F12%2F00%2F2C0D8ADE00000578-0-image-m-82_1442013195283.jpg&hash=b1cca968bfc7800d1db6e25df4e0b4b85d62cabd)
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 04, 2017, 11:17:53 AM
I've heard from several people that attended the Ignatian Exerciser at Ridgefield, that Fr. Z. Was an outstanding retreat master and a very holy priest.
My first retreat was at Ridgefield. I was blown away, by both Fr. Z. and Fr. Grun. I can think of two other SSPX priests whom I put in the same extraordinary category.
Quote from: Greg on June 16, 2017, 09:17:15 PM
Do you have a nut allergy?
No comment !
;D
But I do love the beautiful portrait of the Queen.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F09%2F12%2F00%2F2C0D8ADE00000578-0-image-m-82_1442013195283.jpg&hash=b1cca968bfc7800d1db6e25df4e0b4b85d62cabd)
Quote from: clau clau on June 15, 2017, 05:58:19 AM
... and for those of you who are losing track here is a handy guide.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39584.0;attach=10312;image)
I think I posted that before, mine was a bit outdated tho, and I think one of those 3d bar charts would be needed for the Resistance.
In my many personal experiences with Fr. Zendejas, I have always considered him a very holy priest and good retreat-master. But to be consecrated as a bishop just for the hell of it smacks of Thuc-ism.
If priests can also administer the Sacrament of Confirmation, and the Bishop Williamson group has no seminary in America, what was the need for this new bishop?
W/o getting into everything involved, in the latin rite,only priests who were canonical pastors, certain missionaries excepted, could confirm in their territory when there was danger of death for the recipient, and that when a bishop was not available.
That is from before Vatican II. I know some may no longer hold that.
Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta on May 28, 2017, 11:07:54 AM
Quote from: Inquisitor on May 28, 2017, 06:58:28 AM
Quote from: Heinrich on May 14, 2017, 03:10:31 PM
What is the difference between the "Resistance" and the regular SSPX? Why don't they get along?
It's the Jews... ;D
<sigh> :rolleyes: Is your point that they are not subversive and destructive, and that Church hierarchy has not united with them in some kind of diabolical spiritual union where they no longer need salvation and Christ's torture and death was for nothing?
I was reluctant to reply your post but here you have an answer:
No it wasn't my point. But I detest the rhetorics of the Williamsonites who only dissemenate lies and half truths regarding the Jews. And then we have further the problem of Bishop Williamson who poses as an Antisemite while in reality he seems to be a Judaizer.