Post by Admin on Sept 22, 2019 11:34:44 GMT
REVOLUTIONARY PRAXIS AND FSSPX
The FSSPX is caught in the revolutionary gear of the conciliar church.
Syllabus [via Google translate] | July 15, 2017
Mons. Lefebvre already said that "Satan's master coup" was "to spread the revolutionary principles introduced into the Church by the same authority of the Church." But what they have not come to understand what their disciples and followers say in the SSPX, is the way the revolutionaries act, to gradually involve those same principles who in theory are their opponents. Jean Ousset said (quoted in an article in our blog):
“To lead us to atheism, communism does not require believing in such or such abstract arguments, it demands participation in its action, which, in practice, is much more effective. And how many fall into the trap, under the pretext that they are not asked to explicitly deny their faith! ”(“Marxism and Revolution, ” Cruz y Fierro Editores, Bs. As. 1977).
The consummate teacher of this revolutionary praxis, Francisco does not stop saying that theology has it without care, to affirm in various ways and especially with thousands of gestures that what matters is “walking together”, “dialogue”, “building bridges and do not erect walls,” practice the “culture of the encounter,” etc.
"the end of the revolutionary technique - explains Luce Quenette , in "Revolution and Contrevolution," Lettre de la Péraudière, 2011 - is not to convince , but to accept the rule of the game , that is, the medium. The content of the discussion, the subject that will be discussed at the meeting to which you have been invited, is superfluous (Courrier de Rome, n ° 47). It is not the bottom line that matters, it is the form that will be given in front of you, what they want you to accept by your presence alone, the same if you do not say a single word. Ideas do not matter anymore, but the mechanism of the machine.”
Francisco acts as a great Reformer (even the press calls it and a book is called), and this characterization, which Maritain de Luther does in his book "Three Reformers," in the chapter "Luther or the advent of Me ”(quoted by J. Ousset in his aforementioned work):
“Today, the last assault of ultra-modernism regarding traditionalism is witnessed - says Don Curzio Nitoglia - so that, through the“ dialogue ”trap, they will come to coexistence after having recklessly and almost inadvertently accepted a hasty and reckless theological change. Mainly, Pope Bergoglio is carrying out a more or less hidden psychological war with respect to the traditionalists, which aims not to destroy but to weaken, little by little, his resistance to modernist (1900-1950), neo-modernist ( 1950-2013) and ultra modernists (2013-2016)”.
Does the clever pragmatism surprise, the clever utilitarianism of Bergoglio? Isn't it Bergoglio who has encouraged to put Luther inside the Vatican, when he took his statue and claimed the figure of the heresiarch?
“There is an amazing feature of Luther's physiognomy. Luther is a whole man and systematically dominated by his affective and appetitive faculties; he is a pure Volunteer characterized above all by the power in action ”. (…) This attitude of the soul must be naturally accompanied by a deep anti-intellectualism, also favored by the Occamist and nominalist formation that Luther had received in philosophy.”
The FSSPX entered fully, from the so-called "doctrinal dialogues", in the revolutionary trap of the Modernists, who not at all interested in clarifying their doctrine and even less putting it in question, saw with satisfaction that the representatives of the FSSPX They will sit at the same table to “dialogue.” After the sessions of doctrinal dialogues between the Roman modernist theologians and the theologians of the Fraternity, which were foreseeably a failure, the Fraternity continued to sit down to dialogue, this time on the basis of canonical benefits, favors, acknowledgments and other issues that really for Rome they didn't count too much because, for them, the important thing was that the FSSPX continue to dialogue.
Mons. Fellay affirms very glad that the council can now be discussed, which is an open question, etc. We know very well that for Roman modernists Vatican II is unquestionable and marks its road map. But the revolutionary tactic is to enter into "discussion" (dialogue is action, praxis), knowing that, as happened before, those discussions will not lead to anything else but to weaken the SSPX further, due to permanent contacts with the Modernists. “In that meeting - Luce Quenette continues - to which the vicar invites you with such gentleness and insistence, your opinion is going to be demanded of you, an“ integralist,” just as the progressive, the atheist is asked, to the communist also invited. Accept you, and that is all, you are inside the gear.”
The anti-liberal teaching that could be given in the Fraternity, the detailed and exhaustive examination of the documents of Vatican II, did not have as a correlative teaching the knowledge of counterrevolutionary combat, indispensable to understand what the revolution is and how its agents act. The SSPX is already part of the conciliar revolutionary gear, because not only did it accept to participate in the "revolutionary technique" but it also accepted everything that "generously" Rome gave it to attract it even more to its subtle yoke. The only solution he has left is to cut with the machine, break the deal with the revolutionaries, affirming what at the end of his life Mons. Lefebvre, when he fully understood who he was dealing with: Do you want to have contact with us? Accept the anti-liberal encyclicals, reject modernism. In other words: become . But this is no longer possible, since the congregation's leaders have not fully understood the nature of this combat and are imbued with the typically liberal behavior that leads them to contradiction and permanent double language. That is the product of, like Eve, having spoken with the snake, when it should have stayed away so as not to fall into the trickly revolutionary seduction.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]