A Contradictory Fraternity

A Contradictory Fraternity Sept 22, 2019 11:21:54 GMT

Post by Admin on Sept 22, 2019 11:21:54 GMT

A HEAD CHURCH BELOW AND A CONTRADICTORY FRATERNITY

Non Possumus [via Google translate]| September 18, 2019

No one can deny the lucidity with which the Superior General of the SSPX, Father Davide Pagliarani, in a new interview, analyzes the errors disseminated by the current Hierarchy of the Church, in particular by Francis, a necessary consequence of what was initiated in the Second Vatican Council. There is no doubt that

“ the objectively disconcerting teaching of Pope Francis does not imply a strange consequence, but is the logical consequence of the principles established in the Council. The Pope draws some final conclusions from her ... for the moment . ”

It is also true

“that everything comes down, directly or indirectly, to a mistaken notion of the Church. Once again, Pope Francis only draws the final conclusions from the premises established by the Council. ”

We also agree that those who criticize the current pontificate of Francis,

“should have the lucidity and courage to recognize that there is continuity between the teachings of the Council, the popes of the post-conciliar era and the current pontificate. Citing the teaching of "Saint" John Paul II, for example, to oppose the novelties of Pope Francis, is a terrible remedy, condemned from the beginning to failure. A good doctor cannot be satisfied with a few points to close a wound, without first removing the infection found in the wound. Far from us despising these efforts, but at the same time it is a matter of charity to indicate where the root of the problems lies . ”

The analysis of Fr. Pagliarani seems to us unjustifiable and clearly expressed. However, once again it must be said, as has been done on previous occasions, that its position falls into inconsistency due to the performance of the SSPX in relation to Rome. Let's explain.

In the interview it is said as a subtitle, that "conciliar pluralism makes all opposition structurally inefficient." This is because the ecumenist and dialoguing Church is allowed to accept all kinds of criticism or dissension, without being forced to change course. In democracy, the plurality of circulating ideas is one of its fundamental characteristics. As Pagliarani says,

“We have before us a Church that is listening and, therefore, necessarily hears voices that may differ from each other. Giving a comparison, in a democratic regime, for example, there is always a place, at least apparent, for the oppositions, which, in some way, are part of the system because they show that you can discuss and have a different opinion, and that there is space for everyone. This, of course, can foster democratic dialogue, but not the restoration of an absolute and universal Truth, and an eternal moral law. In this way, error can be taught freely, together with a real opposition but structurally ineffective and unable to put the truths in their place.”

And the Superior General wisely concludes:

“Therefore, we must leave the pluralistic system itself; and this system has a cause: the Second Vatican Council.”

Well, what did Pagliarani just say at a conference in Buenos Aires recently? That the SSPX will continue the doctrinal conversations with Rome, with Rome that does not want to leave Vatican II and modernism. Therefore, the SSPX enters fully into what Rome considers a "democratic dialogue" and not "the restoration of an absolute and universal Truth" (said in the same words of Fr. Pagliarani).

That is to say that the SSPX enters knowledge into the game, accepts a dialogue “ineffective and unable to put the truths in its place”, since present-day Rome does not accept to leave the unshakable framework of Vatican II. It is like someone who declares time and again against democracy, while forming a political party to participate in it. To the system these "committed" statements will do nothing to you.

And not only that, but the SSPX accepts in practice to collaborate with this modernist Rome, e.g. in the celebration of the marriages, or in the reception of a modernist and Judaizing bishop, Mons. Huonder, in his ranks, who has claimed to be there to contribute to Francisco's will to achieve an approach narrower between the SSPX and Rome (as someone in the French Resistance Forum says, the official arrival of Bishop Huonder within the SSPX will have a consequence that the superiors of the same may not have foreseen, and that is if the SSPX does not require them to re-consecrate them or demand a profession of anti-modernist and anti-liberal faith, and little by little they fulfill a ministry, it would not make sense that later the Fraternity would demand permission from Rome to consecrate new bishops, having already bishops with ministry within it. It is because of the “practice” that little by little it joins the conciliar church more, without any reactions to the contrary).

So that, before words, we pay attention to the facts.

As stated in this article, the FSSPX is a participant in the Vatican conciliar revolutionary praxis.

Thus it is a fact that the SSPX minimizes Francisco's responsibility - this only brings out the consequences of what the council taught him, nothing more - and thus avoids saying that "The King is naked" to affirm only that "The Council is naked." Because it is much easier to criticize a historical fact of the past than an authority of the present, which could have negative consequences for an FSSPX that, according to Pagliarani,

"has a freedom of tone that allows him to speak openly, without fear of losing the benefits he enjoys ... This freedom is indispensable in the current circumstances.”

So much "freedom" has the current FSSPX that Francisco recently defamed Mons. Lefebvre stating that he committed a schism (see here). A week later, the FSSPX has not made any statement correcting the lie spread by Francisco, not even Pagliarani has taken advantage of the interview (made by the FSSPX itself) to clarify this point and save the honor of Mons. Lefebvre. And we are talking about its Founder! Don't talk The "freedom" he proved to have when he was the famous interview with Bishop Williamson in 2009, lowering his neck before the Zionist power and then unfairly expelling one of his bishops.

In short, so much freedom to speak of "conciliar church", of modernist heretics, and even of liberals (all these, evil expressions in the SSPX since 2012, hurtful of the ears of those who love reconciliation more than Truth and the Cross of Christ).

Yes, Francisco continues what was initiated by the council and the modernist popes, but Francisco is more scandalous, more blasphemous, more progressive, more devastating than his predecessors. And if Francisco, "as is", has been doing "favors" to the SSPX "as is", it is not because Francisco is a jerk to the point of favoring Tradition, but because he seems to know very well how to embrace to suffocate your enemies. The Fraternity knows what it should not say "so as not to lose the benefits it enjoys ..."

True freedom was Bishop Lefebvre, when he said “Do not have a point of contact with him who is in charge of destroying Tradition. They don't know what to do to divide us and are surprised at so much resistance. They seem not to understand that this is a problem of faith from the beginning ”(January 10, 1989, here).

As we read in an aphorism: “Whoever is not persecuted by his enemies, suspect. Not of his doctrine, but of himself. ”

With all due respect to the endowment and according to the circumstances, the enemies of Christ and the Church must be clearly and boldly pointed out. And [did] Mons. Lefebvre himself not call the liberals and modernists who took over the Vatican "Roman antichrists"? Indeed, Saint Francis de Sales wrote:

“The declared enemies of God and the Church must be censored and censored with all possible force. Charity forces you to shout "at the wolf" when a wolf infiltrated the middle of the flock, and even wherever it is found."

Our Lord did not say that the scribes and Pharisees came to logical conclusions of his doctrine, and that is why they condemned him. Our Lord called them snakes, bleached graves, hypocrites and children of the devil, and that is why they persecuted Him and sent Him [to be] crucif[ied]. And even when Peter opposed his passion he called it "Satan."

As Sardá and Salvany said:

“Soldiers with weapons of poisoned projectiles are the authors and propagandists of heretical doctrines; Their weapons are the book, the newspaper, the public harangue, the personal influence. It is not enough, then, to tilt to avoid the shot, no; The first and most effective is to leave the shooter disabled. Thus, it is appropriate to disallow and discredit your book, newspaper or speech; and not only this, but in some cases disavow and discredit his person. Yes, your person, that this is the main element of combat, as the gunner is the main element of the artillery, not the bomb, nor the gunpowder, nor the cannon. You can, then, in certain cases take out your infamies in public, ridicule your customs, cover your name and surname with ignominy. Yes sir; and it can be done in prose, in verse, seriously and jokingly, in engraving and by all the arts and by all the procedures that can be invented from now on. It should only be borne in mind that lies are not placed in the service of justice. Not that; nobody in this one leaves a point of the truth, but within the limits of this, remember that saying of Crétineau-Joly: The truth is the only charity allowed to history; and I could add: To the religious and social defense ”( “Liberalism is a sin ”, chap. XXIII)

Some point their criticism only at Francisco, and they are wrong. But others point only to the Council, and they are also wrong. In combat, if you aim to destroy the enemy's arsenals, you must inevitably fight against the enemies that defend those arsenals. In a war, he fights. Diplomats are not free to expose their weapons, as they seek above all a peace that, at a certain moment, is not only unsustainable, but vile. War generals should not be diplomats.

Is it that the SSPX considers Francisco a friend or enemy of the Catholic Faith? We fear that this indefinite part of his declining position in the current fight against faith.

Our current duty is of unyielding resistance, without intending to collaborate with those who destroy the Church.

Pedro del Molino