There is a deep division brewing within the Society of St. Pius X; an identity crisis that is effectively distancing it from its mission and threatening to drain the oil from its lamp, even in the midst of this dark Bergoglian night.
As detailed below, the crisis of which I write has been made perfectly plain to me via my private correspondence with SSPX leadership over the course of recent months.
Before we move on, let us briefly consider a relevant excerpt taken from the Society’s description of its “key concerns” as provided on its website:
Sadly, many confusing and erroneous ideas have weakened and continue to weaken our modern understanding of the truth. These false teachings draw souls away from God. Stirred by pity and compassion, the SSPX seeks to expose the grave dangers such ideas pose to the ultimate happiness both of every individual and of society as a whole.
As we proceed, readers may determine for themselves just how well the Society is living up to its identity and its mission of exposing the grave dangers that presently threaten so many souls.
On August 10, 2017, I let readers know that, earlier in the day, I had engaged in a fairly lengthy (one hour plus) conference call with two members of the Society’s leadership team at the U.S. District House.
Part of that exchange, which I did not share, concerned journalistic professionalism.
In brief, I was reprimanded (and fairly so) for publicly speculating about the Society’s position on a given matter (in this case, Peter’s Pence) prior to receiving a response to my queries from its leaders, who have nearly always made themselves available to me.
That, I was told, was unprofessional. In humility, I accepted that criticism.
At this, I was encouraged to submit questions as often as they may arise, and I was reassured that such was not a bother, but rather entirely welcome.
Having taken our conversation to heart, I proceeded in the months that followed to carefully submit detailed inquiries to the Society on several topics of great importance, not just to SSPX faithful, to my readers, and to me personally, but more importantly to Catholics the world over.
I am sorry to report that revealed in the process was not the information that I sought, but rather unmistakable signs attesting to the aforementioned crisis within the Society.
Unhappily, I will now provide what I consider to be the most noteworthy example by sharing with you the following self-explanatory email that I sent to Society leadership on December 18, 2017:
On September 26th, I requested confirmation via email [sent to SSPX leadership] concerning the Society’s “official position” on Amoris Laetitia in light of Bishop Fellay (and Fr. Brucciani) having signed the “Filial Correction;” the same stating that AL “serves to propagate seven heretical propositions.”
This charge goes well beyond that of favens haeresim made by Fr. Gleize, which at the time, I was told, represented the Society’s “official position.”
While it would seem reasonable to assume that the “Correction” has superseded Fr. Gleize’s conclusion as the Society’s current “official position,” this matter is far too important to be the subject of speculation, and I would like to inform my readers accurately.
With this in mind, I sent a second request for the same confirmation on October 18th, and a third request (this one detailing the charges made in the “Filial Correction”) on November 3rd.
I’ve since received no response.
On Dec.2nd, the plot thickened as the Holy See made known that the guidelines created by the Bishops of Buenos Aires for interpreting AL, as well as Francis’ letter approving of the same (“there are no other interpretations”), have been published (by his command) in the AAS. Also revealed was the rescript wherein it is made plain that Francis desires that these documents be received as “authentic magisterium.”
Clearly, Fr. Gleize’s theory that the Exhortation offers nothing more than material for reflection, upon which he relied substantially to reach his conclusion, is no longer defensible.
Based on all of the above, I (and certainly many others) am left to wonder precisely what presently stands as the Society’s official position on AL, and by extension, its author.
In no way do I feel entitled to a response to my questions as a writer, as a faithful Catholic who looks to the Society for clarity and conviction, however, I sincerely believe that the faithful at large deserve an answer, and it would be my privilege to convey it to my readers.
Thanks in advance for your response.
The email above was followed by yet another request (forwarding the same) on February 1, 2018, and these were sent not only to my contacts at the U.S. District House, but also, and by the Society’s own advisement, to Menzingen.
Note that these very simple, fair and important requests have now been submitted to the Society no less than five times, through official channels, over the course of more than four months.
Importantly, I can tell you with utter certainty that my queries have not been ignored, properly speaking. In other words, it is not as though they have gone unread; rather, leaders within the Society both in the U.S. and in Menzingen have acknowledged having received them, and what’s more, having considered their content.
Unfortunately, it is now perfectly clear that the decision has been made not to provide a response; not a “no comment,” not a simple “Fr. Gleize’s evaluation stands,” nothing.
Does it matter?
In a recent interview, Bishop Bernard Fellay described the Society of St. Pius X as a living witness to the Tradition of the Church according to the designs of Divine Providence.
If the SSPX wishes to live up to what it claims to be; if indeed it aims to expose the grave dangers that threaten souls, then it most certainly does matter.
It is no exaggeration to say that historians will one day note that, to date, Amoris Laetitia occupies a uniquely profound place in the post-conciliar crisis in the Church; arguably second only to the Council itself and the Novus Ordo Missae.
One of the reasons this is so is that the document speaks in an unprecedented way directly to the legitimacy of the man laying claim to the Office of Peter.
As such, is it not right to expect the Society of St. Pius X to have a ready answer to related questions, such as those under consideration here?
Is it not right to expect said answers to arrive with immediacy and clarity, and for the simple reason that Tradition is not, no more than the message of Fatima, a riddle for the faithful to solve on their own?
As noted in my request for information, the inclusion of the Buenos Aires bishops’ directives in the AAS has severely undermined the opinion expressed by Fr. Gleize in that it plainly reveals Francis’ intent.
More importantly, however, this development may also be of historic importance in light of the legitimate questions being asked by many faithful Catholics about the nature of formal heresy as it pertains to the status of Jorge Bergoglio.
And yet, at least insofar as I have been able to find, the SSPX hasn’t made any public statements of substance concerning this highly relevant development. The only thing my search of sspx.org has unearthed is a brief and anemic news item citing several neo-conservative sources; ultimately concluding, “Theologians have a lot of work to do.”
Given the utter lack of a response from Society leadership to my repeated queries, we are left to draw our own conclusions based upon what is known.
Rightly or wrongly, my sense is that Bishop Fellay has perhaps overstepped his bounds, if you will, by affixing his name to the Filial Correction. In other words, it seems he has undertaken an action that powerful forces within the Society find, at the very least, unhelpful and perhaps even embarrassing.
It appears rather certain to me now that one of the reasons I have received no response from the Society is that the men behind these powerful forces are pleased for the faithful to view Bishop Fellay’s signature on the Correction as nothing more than the actions of a private citizen of the Church, and in no way a reflection of the Society’s thinking.
If so, why not simply say so?
Could it be that admitting as much will reveal an unsettling level of internal disorganization, or worse, serve as irrefutable evidence that an intense power struggle is underway within the Society, and what’s more, that the “softer” side is winning?
Amid so much speculation, one thing seems rather certain; the “softer” side is winning.
It also appears that Bishop Fellay has gotten the message, and, for whatever reason, is subtly but surely distancing himself from the very document that he signed.
In an interview posted on the SSPX website under the title, Bishop Fellay: Why I Signed the Correctio Filialis, His Excellency said just days after the Correction was made public:
This filial approach on the part of clerics and lay scholars, troubled by the heterodox propositions in Amoris Laetitia, is very important …
Our respect for the pope remains intact, and it is precisely out of respect for his office that we ask him as his sons to “confirm his brethren” by publicly rejecting the openly heterodox propositions that are causing so much division in the Church.
The fact of the matter is the word “heterodox” does not appear in the text of the Filial Correction even once. The words “heresy” and “heretical,” however, are invoked nearly twenty times.
To be very clear, “heterodoxy” and “heresy” are not strictly interchangeable terms; with the latter being far more solemn and precise. The following taken from a Wikipedia article (yes, a secular source) sums up the difference as well as anything I’ve read:
Heterodoxy in the Roman Catholic Church refers to views that differ from strictly orthodox views, but retain sufficient faithfulness to the original doctrine to avoid heresy.
Has Bishop Fellay been urged to invoke “heterodoxy” as opposed to “heresy” with respect to the Correction so as to deliberately avoid calling attention to the chasm that lies between the charges leveled therein and the (perhaps still “official”?) conclusions drawn by Fr. Gleize, or was this done inadvertently and without forethought?
I find it very difficult to imagine that it was the latter.
So, here we are, at this historic moment in time when “Confused Catholics,” whose questions Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, in his abiding charity and zeal for the salvation of souls, never failed to answer with clarity and conviction, are looking to the Society of St. Pius X once more for a few simple answers to some very basic questions of supreme importance.
In return, we have received only silence.
Does this sound familiar?
All indications are that a problem is brewing within the SSPX and at a most inopportune time – a festering division that is not only stripping the Society of its vigor, but also causing it – by virtue of its silence in the face of important questions – to resemble Bergoglian Rome; even apart from any formal agreement toward “full communion.”
The SSPX is not alone in this regard; rather, this is part of the regrettable trend noted in this space numerous times in the past, as the voice of many erstwhile defenders of tradition has grown noticeably weaker over the last year or so.
In my view, however, the situation with the SSPX is among the most foreboding of all in that I accept Bishop Fellay’s description of the apostolate; meaning, one is hard pressed to deny that even the living witness to the Tradition of the Church, raised up in response to the conciliar crisis by Divine Providence no less, is wavering.
I will conclude as I did my post of August 10:
Let us resolve to keep the Society, its leadership, and our efforts at akaCatholic in prayer – that all concerned may serve Our Lord and His Church well in these uniquely difficult times, all under the protection and intercession of Our Lady of Fatima.
Ignoring clarification because it is inconvenient seems to be a modernist tactic. I hope you are wrong about the “softer” side winning.
In these dark days perhaps the Society is silent because at its very heart there are grave doubt that Francis is even pope. Why respond to the exhortation of a fraud? Biding its time, praying for a biological solution?
But yes, the use of the word “heterodox” is discouraging.
Keep plugging away, Good and Faithful Servant of Christ.
Several SSPX priests, whom I respect, have confided that the SSPX leadership, under Bishop Fellay, is no longer ready, willing or able to fight evil either in the “official” church or in their own chapels. Their tactic is to ignore, run from, or live with it. I know some very good priests who are waiting for the July 2018 elections for Superior General before they make their decision to stay or go. It’s going to be very interesting. We must pray that the end result will be the SSPX returning to its true mission: “To restore all things in Christ” with great resolve, determination and adherence to Tradition without compromise. Can it be done without strong “Generals” leading the way?
Thank you, Louie.
What is the mission of the SSPX? I thought the Archbishop’s original intent was to preserve the priesthood and wait for Rome to return to Tradition. I thought he specifically did not want to set up a parallel church or magesterium. Unfortunately, I fear they must.
There are prolly more than few who succor the SSPX schism (whether in the hierarchy or not) who understand that their schism has annealed and that their membership will not accept ay reconciliation with Rome with this or any future Pope.
The SSPX is a permanent schism that considers itself a petit ecclesia that has universal jurisdiction that can dispense from marriages and vows and it was revealed several years ago that the SSPX Schism has, secretly, decided that its “authority” superseded the Roma Rota.
Tha story was broken by an sspx member from South America and the news about this perfidy was reported by the Abbe de Nantes at his blog
Cover page of the special edition of the review Sodalitium for January 2001, no 51, dedicated to the dossier on the “Canonical Commission of the Society of Saint Pius X”. In the foreground: Mgr Tissier de Mallerais, one of the four bishops consecrated by Mgr Lefebvre in 1988 and the president of this commission. In the background can be made out his coat of arms, adorned with the lily of France and the Sacred Heart. Superimposed: the seal of the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota.
In epigraph, a phrase which seems to fall from the lips of the young bishop:«It is true that our verdicts replace the verdicts of the Roman Rota»,as simply as that!
Sodalitium no 51, French edition, in pdf format
MGR LEFEBVRE’S SECRET
An atomic bomb has just gone off in our Catholic society, triggering a seismic shock of incalculable magnitude, capable of disorienting minds and disturbing souls well beyond the boundaries of our traditionalism, even to shaking the pillars of Saint Peter’s. We felt its first tremors when we read number 50 of Sodalitium, June-July 2000. The editor announced that the Institute ofOur Lady of Good Counsel was putting together «not without a profound sadness, a voluminous dossier on the “canonical tribunals” of the Society of Saint Pius X.» What was it about? The rest of the editorial was going to tell us:
Since 1991, from the lifetime of Mgr Lefebvre, the Society of Saint Pius X has arrogated over its members (and potentially over all Catholics) the “power to bind and to unbind”, usurping the exclusive powers of the Holy See. A tribunal which sits in the General House of the Society in Switzerland grants dispensations from marriage impediments (which would render the union invalid), annuls marriages, grants exemptions from religious vows, lifts ecclesiastical censures, including excommunications (…). It does so in a wholly invalid manner, thereby placing men’s souls in an inextricable situation: the vows it unbinds are not unbound, the marriages it annuls are not annulled, and those which are celebrated after its “declaration” of nullity are invalid, as are those that have been celebrated with its non-existent “dispensation”.
“In other words, it seems he (Bishop Fellay) has undertaken an action that powerful forces within the Society find, at the very least, unhelpful and perhaps even embarrassing.”
If this supposition is accurate it would be very scary.
We know that Modernists MO is to infiltrate and to subvert.
-Are there Modernists in the Society?
-Are these Modernists the “powerful forces?”
But there is another plausible supposition:
-The Society is not responding to the questions because they are coming from the author of this blog who may have been identified to the Society leadership as now an “outlier” in the traditionalist movement, i.e, a “rad-trad,”, excessively polemical, a sede as he holds that Bergoglio is not Pope while the Society continues to pray for Francis at all Masses.
-To either prove or disprove this supposition, it might be good to have another blogger, etc. who is considered a “mainstream” member of the traditionalist movement to pose the pertinent questions to the Society leadership, e.g., Steve Skojec, Michael Matt or Christopher Ferrara.
Louie, in some perverse way, you should actually be grateful the Church is in as confused a state as she is today, because if there ever does come a time in history, when the Church does return to anywhere near the state she enjoyed during the ring of St Pope Pius X, life will not be good for you, as you are a very confused man.
Yes, you’re bright enough to figure things out, and you certainly possess as much book knowledge on the Catholic faith as most. But it has become increasingly clear to me over the past few years that I’ve been reading you, that notwithstanding your often informative insight into tiers of the faith, you have also been drifting to a state where the only religion that will quench your thirst is “Louie’s religion”. Anyone or anything that fails to meet your understanding of the is to be rejected. The Catholic Church will not be an exception.
The SSPX, which openly confesses that their mission is simply to hold onto and profess that true teachings of the Catholic Church, has not fallen in line with your thinking––either on this pope or on Amoris Laetitia. Moreover, they won’t even respond to your letters. How dare they snub you no doubt ask. Quite clearly, there is only one response that is worthy of that behavior in your mind and that’s to throw them overboard.
Aside from the fact that such action is simply petulant and disrespectful toward the only organization in existence that professes to offer and promote the true teachings of the Catholic Church that the Modernist leaders in Rome have long abandoned, it is sad. It is sad because you have more talent than you’re demonstrating. You will do as you wish, I’m sure, but my suggestion is that you take a break. Take a week or so to make a retreat and clear out some of that “Louie’s religion” from your head. You’ll be much better off and so will your readers.
“Several SSPX priests, whom I respect, have confided that the SSPX leadership, under Bishop Fellay, is no longer ready, willing or able to fight evil either in the “official” church or in their own chapels.”
Wow! “…not willing or able to fight evil…?”
–What evils are not being fought against?
–Who would benefit by this lack of combat?
–Is Bishop Fellay a Modernist?
–Is Bishop Fellay being blackmailed or in some other way threatened by Modernists?
–Is Bishop Fellay being manipulated, coerced, or controlled by some force, Modernist or not?
–Who else is in the leadership is compromised? De Mallerais? De Galarreta?
What is going on could be a softer version of what you’ve outlined. As everyone knows, Pope Francis had been dangling before the SSPX the possibility of greater freedoms as enticements for full reunion with Rome. As Bergoglio’s papacy now appears to be going off the rails, perhaps the leaders of the SSPX reason that it makes sense to keep quiet, grab anything Pope Francis may still offer them…and wait for whatever explosion leads to the removal of Francis from the Vatican. Perhaps the SSPX figure there’s no point to angering Pope Francis — which simply would ensure the Pope would give them nothing — if he’s not going to be around much longer anyway. Granted, this is wishful thinking on my part! However, does it not seem highly unlikely that the last five years have made the SSPX, of all people, less committed to orthodoxy? As a practicing Catholic who came to age after Vatican II and has attended only one Latin Mass, I can tell you that Pope Francis has shaken up many “moderate” Catholics like me to our cores. We are frightened by what Pope Francis is doing to the Church and we fear the Catholic religion is being gutted. If middle-of-the road people like me are alarmed, I just don’t understand why the SSPX folks would have become complacent or less passionate about Real Catholicism. No, I suspect they are biding their time.
Let’s be frank, there is a schism in the CC with a dual papacy (the administrative half of which is Marxist) & an enabling silent Hierarchy who have demonstrated they have completely lost the True Faith & are incapable of bringing anyone to the Truth as they have abandoned it themselves. They are puppets of George Soros’s NWO vision of a totalitarian godless state where everyone/everything is A-OK until they protest they don’t want to live under a dictatorship. This tyranny against God’s Word has been slowly infecting the OHC&A Church (outside of which there is no redemption) since VII, a supposedly pastoral council but which later became obligatory, similar to AL of the Synod on the Family which was written before the Synod began & was all about allowing unrepentant sinners (for starters D&R & homosexuals) to receive HC & putting the onus on individual priests to assess their intentions. It has been reported that many priests have been suspended for not complying!
The present Dictator Pope’s record of zero tolerance towards predatory priests & religious has been abysmal as has been his latest gaff towards Chilean victims, describing them as slanderers, when in fact it has been demonstrated that he had received their complaints three years ago in a letter hand-delivered by ++O’Malley. That PR disaster was closely followed by another – Abp. Sorondo describing China as the country best implementing Catholic social teaching. I cannot think of anything more like to loosen the scales from the eyes of excusers than these recent occurrences.
With such catastrophic events occurring daily I would hesitate to suggest that this was a good time for resolving the position of the SSPX & Traditional Orders within the CC. All of this degradation we have been suffering since VII will have to be resolved by a general council after the election of the next pontiff. VII will necessarily have to be revoked & Tradition brought back to the CC, together with Latin as the liturgical language. The present necessity of dealing with bad translations is altering core teaching & fostering discontent. Now is the time for the removal of Marxism, Masonry, Sodomy & Satanism from the Vatican & Episcopates. Excommunications & Exorcisms will have to be undertaken.
The SSPX have waited like the majority of us for the past fifty years, another two or three (maybe less) is hardly worth arguing over for a proper & lasting healing of wounds. The CC will rise from the ashes & that is where our prayers should be directed towards.
The Abbe de Nantes has been dead for many years. When he was alive, he had an irrational dislike for the SSPX. Your obscure sources on this topic prove nothing.
Bishop Fellay knows that the foundation stone of the Catholic Church is under the dome of Saint Peter’s in Rome. Bishop Fellay also knows that the situation will only be resolved by the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The SSPX continues its excellent works at the local level.
Love you, Louie, but the post is very, very I/me oriented as if what the SSPX does is directly related to a single blog or blogger. The reality is the the next General Chapter meeting–held every 12 (as in twelve!) years–is set for July 11-21 in Econe. Bishop Fellay has been elected superior general at two of these. He cannot be reelected again–unless it is unanimous–and he has said he does not plan to be superior general again.
Do you think it makes any sense for critically important declarations to be made in the months leading up to a General Chapter meeting when the head of the SSPX is most likely to be a different person? I would also ask if you really think Bishop Fellay would have signed the document critical of the AL “magisterium” letter all on his own, especially in the context described above? I know that was not the case. That signature is what was behind the “certain standstill” Bishop Fellay referred to in the past week regarding discussions with Rome. The SSPX never did go soft. It never was going to sell out in order “to get back in the church,” since they were not the ones who left the real Church in the first place. There is also no desire to become embraced by those who, in fact, may no longer be Catholics, much less Church leaders.
Once again, if things are not said or done when you want, in the way you want you go all postal on what should be your allies in the struggle to keep the TRUE Church on course. I was so pleased by the respite from SSPX criticism I have found here in the last few months. Oh, well.
Yes. Ask Michael Matt or Chris Ferrara if they agree with the original post? I’m quite confident they would not. And I know their sources are very reliable.
This is what I would have hoped Louie would have written. This is exactly correct. Thanks for clarity and reason, Ana Milan.
Rush, is it your opinion that legitimacy comes from title to real estate? Yes it is a key pyschological advantage that the modernists have physical possession of St Peter’s, but does that make them Catholic if they do not hold and profess the faith? To keep this on topic, it would seem that the SSPX is now struggling with the answers to these questions. They seem to be damned no matter which way Bergolio forces them to move.
Ana, I just don’t see anyone in the wings waiting to be next Pope capable or willing to accomplish the things you pray for. This article highlights the fact that the only option left to restore the CC to its proper glory may be an official schism from the modernists. The SSPX is the only trad community with enough broad credibility to attempt an enterprise of such a scale. Perhaps this is the internal divide manifesting itself in the SSPX ranks.
December 2003. Fr. Niklaus Pflüger:
“But more than the attacks from the outside, it is our own inner weakness that we need to fear. Because a prolonged fight is tiring. It is discouraging for a small group to constantly have to fight against the all-powerful current of the masses and of public opinion. For Monsignor Lefebvre, it seemed logical that the church crisis would last for a long time and that we had to prepare ourselves for a long battle against modernist doctrines. […] Today […] we are tired, we are tired of always being different and we yearn for unity, peace and tranquillity. It is for this reason that on a regular basis, not only some priests, but also the faithful, who had stood firm for a long time in turmoil, suddenly become weak and give up the fight for tradition – whatever may be the reasons they give. This religious fatalism leads to a gradual reduction of expectations… and a premature agreement, i. e. a practical-only union with Rome, without tackling the causes which are at the origin of the crisis of faith, would not only be dangerous but also fake. To how many groups and communities did the official hierarchy not make promises? And all of them became disillusioned, and finally accepted the new Mass, accepted the Second Vatican Council as a whole, and even justified “the spirit of Assisi”.”
But then, here he is in an interview with Kirchliche Umschau in October 2012:
“In some [members of the Society who refuse a practical agreement with Rome] the long duration of separation may have led to theological confusion. Basically these people oppose faith to the law, and act as if union with the Pope, and his primacy were only a matter of secondary right. It is a great danger that manifests itself when the legitimacy of the Pope is separated from the faith, and regarded as something purely legal. Ultimately, this is a Protestant vision of the Church. The Church is visible. The Papacy is the domain of the Faith. We, Catholics faithful to Tradition, are also suffering – in a double sense – from the crisis. We too play a part in this crisis, even though it is, in my opinion, in a completely different and much better way. The obligation to work actively to overcome the crisis cannot be disputed. And this work begins with us, in trying to overcome our abnormal canonical situation.”
Very good questions, Catholic Kingdom! Why has the SSPX lost the will to fight the very obvious and perverted evil in the Vatican? Why? Why?
Rush, I fear that the foundation stone of which you speak is buried very deeply under the dome of St. Peter’s. I also believe that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will come about much sooner if the SSPX continues its excellent work without being concerned about recognition or acceptance from Modernist Rome.
tradprofessor. Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara would be very prudent in their response. I am not suggesting they would be dishonest. But I believe they realize their serious responsibility in the Traditional Catholic movement and would take a “wait and see” attitude before being as forthright as Louie. I’m sure others would disagree with this which only proves the devilish confusion caused by the evil Modernists.
ABS, I wonder if you are the person who uses the same moniker to disparage Fr John Gallagher who showed great courage to turn in his fellow priest who was grooming a fourteen year old boy with pornography in his Palm Beach County Church?
FYI, your defense of Bishop Barbarito holds no weight since both the County Sheriff and a Detective praised Fr Gallagher for sounding the alarm and turning in CC footage despite the Diocese telling him not to offer any corroborative evidence to the police. A man who identified himself as “Amateur Brain Surgeon ” is all over Catholic blogs saying this whistleblower priest is insane.
If it is you sir, I suggest you pick up a copy of Randy Engel’s
book ,”The Rite of Sodomy” and inform yourself on this Bishop and the pederast history of the Diocese. Also, again if it is you, I warn everyone to take your posts with a very small grain of salt. Bishop Barbarito has stated on the record that he does not believe the name of any pervert priest’s name should ever be in the News (guilty or not). Look up his interview in the News while in his previous assignment.
If this is not you in the combox linked to this article I apologize, but if it is………
Let the priest have his day in court because it has been ruled by a judge there that he can sue this Bishop for slandering his good name .Ask yourself just why the Sheriff and Detectives wrote in support of this priest for turning in an admitted pedophile with a history of the same in his native country. !
Sorry this comment appears off topic , but the real enemies of Truth and Tradition need to be identified even in comboxes.
Hard as it may be to understand , hiding child sexual abusers is NOT Catholic
Tradition , even though some clerics may wish it to be so.
Louie is correct to be upset. He had legitimate questions and asked the property authorities for clear answers that many of us have. When the SSPX Priests whom many us put our trust in, cannot answer us or dodge us when we ask legitimate questions or when we come to them for help in determining the official positions of the SSPX, then something is wrong.
Your bio is correct….. “know-it-all gaseous gadfly”
As I often say, better to have a Pope who lives in sin than a heretic who reject the faith. Popes of the Middle Ages may have been corrupt, but they respected the teaching of the Church and wouldn’t dare attack it. Much different than George. May the good Lord deliver us from this evil man.
“Wait and see” was the prudent course in the early days after the revolution. But as decades and pontificates pass, it becomes less and less tenable. At some point it must become apparent to every trad that Rome is not coming back to tradition and can no longer be considered Catholic in even the most generous of opinions. Bergolio has accelerated the speed at which modernists fall away in essence from the Catholic faith. I think all trads are coming to see an inevitable schism. Barring a Divine intervention, schism in the Roman Catholic Church is unavoidable.
Tom A–The “wait and see” I was referring to is the next step the SSPX will take toward (or hopefully, away) from the V2 pseudo-church. I am in agreement with your comment. I don’t see much hope in the conversion of Rome without Divine Intervention.
Are you a politician by any chance?
“With such catastrophic events occurring daily I would hesitate to suggest that this was a good time for resolving the position of the SSPX & Traditional Orders within the CC. ”
Then we have: “Now is the time for the removal of Marxism, Masonry, Sodomy & Satanism from the Vatican & Episcopates. Excommunications & Exorcisms will have to be undertaken.”
I cannot think of two more contradictory thoughts. Every chancery is in need of an exorcism or two, yet SSPX should not state the obvious that apostasy is the new norm in the CC?!?
I guess St. John the Baptist should have been a little more conciliatory and saved his head and Herod’s poor family the embarrassment.
This piece takes an inch of evidence and attempts to run a mile with it, a fault I have observed in L.V. numerous times. That said, however, I have also requested, on another blog, that the SSPX abandon its gentlemanly tactics and self-imposed in-house communication limitations, and deal properly with the Marxist thug who currently disgraces the Chair of Peter. I think they need to confront this Pope publicly and vociferously, much like Cardinal Zen is now doing regarding the imminent betrayal of the Chinese faithful.
I am sure my blog request will be ignored, since I am a nobody, but I refuse to chalk up their lack of Zen-like response to some “crisis” conjured up by a blogger who has become a sedevacantist – that is more “Resistance” garbage. For all we know, there are things brewing beyond the public eye. If not, well then, the Passion of the Church will continue, with a Pope playing the role of Judas.
What is now called “Resistance” garbage was SSPX policy before 2012:
“Likewise, the contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. When Tradition comes back into its own, “reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will spring back to life”. ”
At one time Bishop Fellay sounded like the “Resistance” of today:
Bishop Fellay’s Superior General Letter #63, January 2003
The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome’s own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos.
So little by little the will to fight grows weaker and finally one gets used to the situation. In Campos itself, everything positively traditional is being maintained, for sure, so the people see nothing different, except that the more perceptive amongst them notice the priests’ tendency to speak respectfully and more often of recent statements and events coming out of Rome, while yesterday’s warnings and today’s deviations are left out.[/b] The great danger here is that in the end one gets used to the situation as it is, and no longer tries to remedy it. For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted.
One may object that our arguments are weak and too subtle, and of no weight as against Rome’s offer to regularize our situation. We reply that if one considers Rome’s offer of an Apostolic Administration just by itself, it is as splendid as the architect’s plan of a beautiful mansion. But the real problem is the practical problem of what foundations the mansion will rest on. On the shifting sands of Vatican II, or on the rock of Tradition going back to the first Apostle?
To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today’s Rome clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday. When the Roman authorities have restated with actions speaking louder than words that “There must be no innovations outside of Tradition”, then “we” shall no longer be a problem. And we beg God to hasten that day when the whole Church will flourish again, having re-discovered the secret of her past strength, freed from the modern unthought of which Paul VI said that “It is anti-Catholic in nature, Maybe it will prevail. It will never be the Church. There will have to be a faithful remnant, however tiny”.
† Bernard Fellay
Feast of the Epiphany
6 January 2003
ABS, your ignorance is betrayed by both your username and your statements.
But first, succor is a noun not a verb. And annealed does not mean what you think it means. I suspect you mean that their schism, once considered temporary, was hardened over time. But annealed means *to heat* until it becomes hardened. My point is that, despite your big words, you’re full of crap.
Do you recognize Francis or Benedict as pope? If so, accept their pronouncements, both through their subordinates and their actions, that the SSPX is not in schism. If not, then what they think may not matter to you, but what giv es you the authority to declare the SSPX in schism?
I think you are being too hard on Louie. Louie laid out his concerns which dovetail beautifully with his ongoing observation that the Kingship of Christ is under attack. AL is heretical. It upends the entire Catholic moral edifice. The SSPX is seemingly promulgating that AL is nothing more than heterodoxy. This is a blow to Christ Our King who is Truth. Louie is fighting tirelessly on this front, fighting for Our King.
Great synopsis Ana!
The thing that has me most dumbfounded, most gob-smacked, is why are the bishops and cardinals, such stinking deadbeats? Schneider seems the only one with a testicle. And he has just one.
ABS you state that SSPX is guilty of “placing men’s souls in an inextricable situation”?
I’ll wager at the final judgement ABS, that the Bishops Cardinals and Popes who have covered up the sins of the sodomite sexual abusing clerics and the lost sexually perverse souls of the clerics themselves, will be shown to have placed trillions of more souls in an inextricable situation , than any chaste cleric whose moral certitude directed their conscience to join the SSPX.
How many people who considered becoming a Catholic were turned away by this rotten scandal the Hierarchy brought upon itself by their lack of vigilance over sodomite Seminary Rectors and Vocation Directors?
How many souls were lost because they were victims of these demons?
How many grandparents mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers left the Church because they saw how their loved one was treated by Bishops when he or she came forward to report the abuse?
How many nuns and good priests realized they could not speak out about perverted priests in their own rectories and schools without being punished and left the Church?
Sit down and read a few of the Grand Jury Diocesan sex abuse investigative findings. The number o victims boggles the mind and to think they are ONLY the ones who have witnesses still alive and willing to travel to testify against the abusers.
AMEN , Ana !
Trad – You’re usually balanced in your comments but this time I have to say that there is nothing wrong or selfish with Louie being disappointed, or even annoyed that Bishop Fellay et al didn’t have the common courtesy to answer even one of his questions over a period of months!
Since Louie’s questions were put, not only by him and for himself, but also for all of US who are looking for the same answers.
The Venerable Fulton Sheen was very firm in his statement that Canon Law allows ALL the faithful to ask questions and demand answers from the clergy, however overcome they are with their own misplaced sense of pride in their imagined power over us all! . Maybe the hierarchy ought to brush up on Canon Law and stop their arrogance in patronizing WE – the hoi -polloi – as if we were a bunch of witless serfs!
Where is the +Bernard Fellay of 2003? Thank you, Mr. G for reminding us of the SSPX Superior General of yesteryear. Would he say these words today?
Thank you, and very well said both Mr. G and Akita! Irishpol is speaking personally – not objectively – and lets himself down badly by doing so.
Louie has kept quiet for months about this and only informed us of the SSPX situation now because he knows that we TOO want and need answers. Louie has explained why we’re not getting answers and not LIKELY to get them either!
Thank you, Louie, for bearing with the frustration of banging your head on a brick wall trying to keep us informed. 99% of us appreciate your efforts very much. God bless you.
Great post Mr. G and it beautifully illustrates the whole POINT that Louie was trying to make!
You saw that , I saw that, Akita saw that, but the self-obsessed whiners preferred to attack Louie for it instead of thanking him for showing that waiting for Bishop Fellay to be a true leader and state the case for Christ the King is like watching paint dry!
I couldn’t disagree with you more. Louie has had a direct line on getting clarifications that suddenly dried up. Odd. Why now?
Listen, I know less about the SSPX than most of you, I’m sure. I have no access to them in my area, but can only say they seem to have been the vanguards of Catholicism, the faithful who were keeping the faith alive. About a year and a half ago, I suddenly realized, where on earth WERE they. Here we are, beleaguered Catholics, pretty battered and beaten, and, virtual silence from the organization who surely must consider itself the defenders? Then there was this “deal” about to drop, and no one could make sense of it. Now? Why now, and lots of cries of, don’t do it! Then the deal is off and we’re back to silence.
Hey, I’m no expert, but maybe I’ve become one due to the degree of I.S.H.P. I’ve earned in the last four years, the Investigative Studies of Horrible Pope degree. I minored in the identification of sellouts, and I do believe I can safely say, here are just a few more of them.
They had credibility in my mind, but it’s gone. Unless someone calls this man out by name and attaches the word “heretic” to it, their blather means exactly nothing to me. I also want to hear the word “homosexual”, because after this terrible heretic, the biggest problem we have is the nest of them infesting our church.
I know exactly of this pile of chit to which you refer. Shame on you for regurgitating such utter garbage.
Nice job, Ana! Let’s not forget that the Babylonian Captivity lasted a full 70 years, so we may have a couple more decades of years to endure! In the meantime, betake yourselves to the decades of the Rosary! God is not taken by surprise in any of this. And we were all born into such a time as this. Wait on the Lord, take courage, do manfully and God will strengthen all such hearts! We have his promise for that. Ps. 26:13-14 DRV. God’s victory in this is guaranteed. You can take it to the bank. Have faith.
Ya know, with the way the world is, do ya’ll have to add to the excrement pile? Get a life … Sheesh.
Prisca ann–If we ignore this “pile of chit”, it will all go away. Right?
A cautionary note about Bishop Fellay. His Canon Law advisor is Fr Angles.
Fr Angles was a huge admirer of Hitler even bragging that his parents were friends with Leni Riefenstahl , Hitler’s filmographer.
Friends of mine stayed in St Mary’s, Kansas when he was the pastor there.
They brought back pictures and told me what they heard from him first hand. He claimed his parents bought Hitler’s Mercedes at auction. Something I personally researched and found his story wanting. Later ,he left his personal collection of relics to the college there. They were listed in the “Angelus” online.
I went over them with a priest friend and he roared with laughter.He advised me to write to St Thomas More’s family because the Saint’s skull was on the list. I copied the pages and sent it on to them at which point they emailed back thanking me and suddenly Fr Angles generously gifted relic collection was taken off the net.
The Saint’s skull is in a chapel in England and is owned by his descendants whom my friend knew.
But perhaps they still have the hem of St Joseph’s robe in st Mary’s college.arrgh!
I would also add that several of the Resistance founders were also close to Fr Angles. Fr Hewko in particular, loved to quote him. “Hitler saved Catholic art”, blah blah.
No he didn’t , he was stealing art. The fact that art was hidden in the process of theft and preserved should not be credited to Hitler as a commendable action.
I would only add to your excellent summation that Cdl Parolin is on the same page as Sorondo. In fact his position as Sec of State wields great power. Malachi Martin told me it is the most powerful position at the Vatican carrying with it even more influence and control than even that of the Pope.
Just for the record, Chris, according to the Oxford Dictionary “succour” is both a verb and a noun. (American English leaves out the letter ‘u’ in many ‘-our’ words).
Other than that, I agree with you that SSPX are not in schism.
What rubbish! Spin, spin, spin. With a dose of gaslighting thrown in for good measure.
Bravo! Well said, Evangeline.
A far cry from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” of 1986, which was very clear and direct in pointing out specific errors, and how they contradict the perennial teachings of the Church.
No , he is all over the internet posting against Fr John Gallagher for turning in a sodomite pederast. Click on he links I provided and scroll down to his comments.
He has no answer to the fact that the Sheriff for Palm Beach Cty and the Detectives all gave detailed praise to this priest for the arrest and confession of the perp crediting him in the Press for preventing future sexual sodomite attacks on young boys in the Diocese.
ABS is a troll, possibly one of them . Note the addition of another possible troll comment near the end of this section using another moniker but generally attacking everyone who comments.
There are quite a few who do not want information and Truth coming out.
That was then and this is now. The Truth is always the same .
SSPX lost people when Urrutigoity started the SSJ and then when his close friends formed their so called “Resistance”.
One false mis statement and the climate could change again. I am sure Bishop Fellay’s less than honest counsel , Fr Angles , has cautioned him of these facts.
Can any of them rise to the same moral and Theological convictions of Archbishop LeFebvre?
The confusion deepens when power and donors are at stake.
It takes great courage to say and do the right thing when your career and livelihood are at stake.
We need more real Catholics , priests and laity ,who are willing to be martyred and stand up for the Faith as the Apostle Luke mentioned when not even a hair on their head will be touched.These are the times he was referring to and there are those who are.
These responses remind me of the blindness of the Papolaters. “Nothing to see here, move on now!” As Bergoglio hacks away at the foundations of the Church, opposes Scripture and the very words if Our Lord Jesus Christ, tells the Faithful that the Persons of the Trinity are always arguing (joke or not, it was blasphemy),the response is to rationalize his words and behavior.
I have attended the SSPX for years and about 9 years ago, noticed a change. No more warnings about New Church, no calling out heresy, their former militancy reduced to “niceness”, and a general weakening. This of course is right around the time that Bsp Fellay began his flirtation with rotted Rome. This is no coincidence. You lie down with dogs, and you contract fleas.
Do those friends of yours happen to know a fellow by the name of Rizzo by any chance?
Who is the fellow by the name of Rizzo and what is his importance?
Wouldn’t it appear that the real schism already happened as a result of Vatican II?
Bishop Williamson latest Eleison comments Defending Menzingen
Confusion reigns, descending from on high.
Pray for the Pope and bishops, ere they die!
Thanks to the directly anti-Catholic words and deeds for the last five years of the present occupant of the See of Peter, delinquencies to which the way was opened by Vatican II, it is less comprehensible than ever that the successors of Archbishop Lefebvre still want to put the Society under Roman control, but in effect they do. Does a Cardinal’s hat appeal? Are they tired of the battle? Are they desperate to be “recognised” by Conciliarists? Can they really think that the Archbishop would have approved of what they are doing? God knows. Howsoever that be, servants of Menzingen are still trying to defend its 20-year slide down from the position of the Archbishop. Here are two recent examples:—
Firstly, to defend Bishop Fellay’s policy of accepting a personal prelature from Rome, a Society priest (http://fsspx.news/en/content/34797) seems to think that such a prelature will guarantee for the Society protection from the modernists in Rome. But will Rome be in control of the prelature or not? If it is in control, it may take its time, as it did with St Peter’s Fraternity, but it will use its control slowly to strangle Tradition within the prelature. To think otherwise is simply not to have understood who these Romans are. “Only Saints believe in evil,” said Gustavo Corçao. As for the Archbishop, he called these Romans “antichrists.” And if the prelature does not put them in control, they will never grant it in the first place.
And secondly, this priest attempts to discredit adversaries of the prelature by claiming that they say that the Archbishop changed his principles when he refused the Protocol of May, 1988. The claim is groundless. As the priest himself says, the Archbishop’s change was merely prudential, following on the definitive demonstration just given by the Romans in the Protocol negotiations that they had no intention of looking after Tradition, such as the Society and the Archbishop understood Tradition. For as long as the Romans gave any sign of genuine concern for Tradition, the Archbishop was patient, and he went as far as he could to meet them (in fact further in the Protocol than he should have done, as he once admitted later). But once they had made it clear that in reality they had no such concern, then the Archbishop was inexorable – from then on doctrine would take the place of diplomacy, and the Romans would first have to prove that they were on the same doctrinal page as Catholic Tradition. That was on the Archbishop’s part no change of principles, but merely the f inal recognition that the Romans were set upon dechristianising, and not on rechristianising, as he wrote a month later to Cardinal Ratzinger.
Likewise the Catholic Family News blog of November last year serves Menzingen. The blog is intelligent, speculating that Rome’s real bait-and-trap to catch the Society is not aimed at the Society’s wholesale surrender, but at its piecemeal division and disintegration (actually, Rome is achieving both). Thus Rome makes repeated enticing offers, each of which divides Society priests so that some break away, while Menzingen gets up its hopes, only to see them dashed by another impossible demand of Rome. And the game will go on until the Society is completely undone. Therefore, concludes CFN, the Society must remain united at all costs and no Society priest must defect.
But, dear CFN, how did the Archbishop build up the Society in the first place? Certainly he too suffered from di visions and defections under him. Did he nevertheless build by crying for unity, unity, unity? That was the great argument of Rome against the Archbishop! His own great argument was the Faith, the Truth, the Faith. To plead as you do for the Society’s unity behind pro-Rome Menzingen is to plead for the Society’s destruction! Unity is always specified by that around which one is to unite. Under the Archbishop it was around Catholic Truth, the whole strength of the Society. Since 2012 it is around Menzingen, presently the division and ruin of the Society.
Take heart, dear readers. “The truth is mighty and will prevail,” with or without the Society of St Pius X.
Yes isn’t that what ecumenism is all about…Unity! But it’s always unity at the cost of something. Either or both sides have to give up something. Louie is right! I’ve only been at the SSPX for a short time and to Tradition for a short time but it didn’t take me long to see that the same things that I left the NO for are happening in the SSPX. The only time I can get any clarity is when I ask a fellow parishioner who knows more than I and is willing to speak the truth without fear of going against the current tide or when I read Louie’s or other’s posts that actually state it like it is without any ambiguity and all the niceties that have to go along with softening the truth. I have been on a long hard road back to the Truth and I am personally sick of the pandering and wishy washy gushy gutless lack of truth and clarity. I was born and raised in that crap and don’t want to wade in it any more. I thought I found the fight that was worth fighting for in the SSPX but am disappointed that the fight rests only in some of the soldiers without any direction or rallying from the leaders. I’d rather be punched in the face with the truth than be sucker punched with pretension. I thank God for Louie, this blog and his fight for truth!
Absolutely NOT ! They stayed at St Mary’s long after that debacle was written about. But they saw and heard the exact same kind of things that Tom Case wrote about for Jone’s Fidelity magazine !
What they told me was EXACTLY the same sort of account ,only they witnessed it first hand. I ordered a back copy and sent it to them because i was astounded by what the family related to me so I researched St Mary’s and Fr Angles and found the article.
They told me the only way they could describe the atmosphere was like being in the twilight zone. “After Angle’s Mass parishioner’s ran
from the church .” They asked the family they were renting from why this happened. “Because Fr Angles will accuse them of gossiping” , is what they were told. Right before they were leaving they stood in the street taking a picture . A man sitting on a porch down the street got up and started running towards them screaming “no pictures ,no pictures !”
Thy said ,”It was like a gestapo town” . SSPX members seemed to trust no one, not even each other and were afraid of the priest.
My conclusion hearing this first hand from a family who was considering moving there was that Tom Case wrote and excellent unbiased account of the situation.
Again, I stress the fact they went there long after the article was written and I only found it AFTER listening to their experience and doing the research myself.
I also had a lovely elderly Traditional Catholic friend who lived in Kansas and she told me about a friend of hers who went to live in St Mary’s and told her the same about Fr Angles and her time there.
Look up a Fidelity Magazine article entitled ,”SSPX Gets Sick” by a cult researcher and writer named Tom Case.
He also went to St Mary’s, Kansas ,spent time there and interviewed people. He wrote about what happened to an sspx priest named Fr Rizzo ,whom I assume had an altercation with Fr Angles.
BTW, both Angles and Urrutigoity come from wealthy European families . S American European immigrants brought with them the politics they were escaping from after WW2.
ABS you state that SSPX is guilty of “placing men’s souls in an inextricable situation”?
ABS did not state that as is quite clear in the post.
But, it doesn’t matter at all for facts will not pierce the impenetrable ideological wall behind which you have willing imprisoned yourself
Well, yes; they do appear to be damned as are all those who start and/or succor a schism
We are sempiternally told The SSPX preserves Tradition but the teeny SSPX could not maintain unity within its own schism.
We had the SSPX schism into the SSPV and we are all waiting for that to schism into SSP2.5
O, and the SSPX has also been caught hiding and transferring queer clergy.
By their fruits?
Nah, that is only applied to the Catholic Church not a schism that evilly usurped universal jurisdiction while hiding that grave evil from those suckers who succor the schism
The schismatic Williamson and the schismatic Fellay both harbored and hid queer clergy who had committed sex crimes against adolescent boys
By their fruits….
So ABS would contend that legitimacy derives from ones real estate holding regardless of the faith professed.
Not real estate, but the moral authority of Saint Peter contained in Canon Law as well as the promise of Our Lord that the gates of hell will not prevail.
As far as I can tell, the SSPX hasn’t skipped a beat concerning the excellent work being done. Bishop Fellay keeps promoting Rosary Crusades. Praying the Rosary is a key work of the SSPX.
The first issue that has to be resolved is the ridiculous idea of two Popes residing in the Vatican. Sedevacantists see this a Modernist non issue. However, there are 4 billion people being taken for a ride.
One scintilla of truth above ABS, but pure homosexual hypocrisy on your part !
As I stated before you are ALL over the internet with your comments defending your Bishop Barbarito who stands with so many of his counterparts in covering up his clerical pederasts and then going so far as to punish a priest of 30 years
who does the right thing and reports one caught red handed grooming a 14 year old parishioner for his own sodomite purposes.
You scream too loudly which causes one to wonder if you are one of them.
Thank you very much for letting us know this. I am sure it was hard to publish such an article. God bless you.
Let me remind you ABS that it was Randy Engel who reported on Fr Urrutigoity
with the help cooperation of Fr Munkelt , both of whom I know personally.
You would not even have a clue otherwise . So go read her book,
” The Rite of Sodomy “and learn a little about
Bishop ( coverup for the pederasts Barbarito ) whom you are all over the internet defending and praising……..BTW trust me she is being kept apprised of Barbarito’s actions against Fr Gallagher and the lawsuit against the Bishop himself for defaming the priest’s good name in his lame attempt to recover his own credibility by having a letter read at every Mass in every parish labeling Fr Gallagher a nut case, despite the proof of the pederast priest’s confession and sentencing and admission he molested children in India also.
It’s people like you who have enabled the guilty parties, Bishops and pederasts together to cover up these crimes, confuse the Faithful and continue ravishing the bodies and souls of innocents.
Yes they hide everywhere and appearing to be Traditional priests also provides a good cover.
Divine Law trumps Canon Law and it is Divine Law that one who does not profess the faith is not a Catholic. Modernists do not have the moral authority, but they do have temporal authority.
First of all I don’t think Francis will ever be relieved of the power afforded the papal office… at least not by men. It is indeed sad and discouraging to see diabolical disorientation having a field day with the Church. That includes bishops, priests, religious and lay people alike. It’s sad, but remember the Church and Her teaching have always described this as inevitable. It appears to me that Francis has compromised everyone… even those we once stood confidently behind KNOWING they would defend our Holy Faith. There is no earthly solution to this as the Church is currently experiencing its mystical passion. The scary thought, however, is to think we are only at the Agony in the Garden stage.
I spent 3 years in ‘Gestapo land’ while Fr Angles was ‘fuhrer’ in the mid 90s. I still correspond with him… he never once lapses into German. It’s odd, but I never saw any evidence of Nazi paraphernalia… and I was in a position to know… I’ve been all through the labyrinthine basements of the various buildings a SMA and could not find any evidence of a stash of assault rifles… seriously, there weren’t any.
Fr A has a very strong choleric personality which upset many and, as you have discovered, turned many to hysterics. I also bore the brunt of his choleric honesty on more than a couple of occaisions, but I guess some of us have thick enough skin to see that under the sergeant major exterior (necessary for managing a parish of 1700+) Fr Angles had a heart of gold and a largess when it came to spending his own money on needy people and his parish.
Tom Case’s article in the fidelity is perfect example of such hysterics. It was debunked by Michael Davies in a public debate he had with E Michael Jones and Tom Case. During the debate, Case was forced to admit he had no solid evidence for his article but refused to retract, stating that it was not the facts that mattered but people’s perception of the facts… so much for ‘an excellent unbiased account’
“After Angle’s Mass parishioner’s ran from the church .” ???? Never saw that. There was always a crowd of people after Mass talking… just like any healthy parish
Be careful in what you say… hinting Fr A was in league with Fr U is serious stuff.
On this thread you identify Barbarito as my Bishop but in another you say that he is not my bishop but Bishop Smara is.
You specialise in error.
You have no idea who the Priest is who was rightly refused a post at another church after his disastrous record at Holy Name in West Palm Beach.
He was not the one who called the cops on the queer cleric. It was the FAMILY.
You really should stick to spreading your errors around areas closer to where you live as your ignorance about other Dioceses is embarrassing to you (although you do not se that)
OK, after this last attempt, ABS is done responding to your libels and calumnies.
The “information” you have re there situation at Holy Name Church is so wrong as to be laughable.
What Bishop Barbarito has done with this unstable priest from Holy Name was both necessary and just and if you have any evidence that Bishop Barbarito is a pederast, produce it now or shut the hell up.
That, of course, is the truth. God has not given permission to anyone to stop preaching and teaching the Faith, which necessaruly involves condemning the evil lies of Francis and all the other enemies of God and His Holy Faith given to us for our salvation.
Souls need action on the part of bishops and priests, action that is their duty to give God His Due and to lead souls away from the engulfing evil, and to Him who is out Only Saviour.
These two things are not opposed; they are inextricably linked. All part of the whole. Now is the time, bishops, priests and layman could easily become saints if we would just be prepared to suffer the terrible persecution that comes with being a Catholic at all times. Lord, have mercy upon us.
Indeed, where have they all gone? Is there noone left to defend Christ and the Holy Faith from the constant attacks of the apparent pope, bishops, priests??
Amen. The truth is for all times, all places, for all peoples. It cannot change; God’s gifts to us of Faith and Reason cannot change.