Capuchins of Morgon: 2016-2017
May 3, 2018 17:48:02 GMT
Post by Admin on May 3, 2018 17:48:02 GMT
[While these words about the Study of the Capuchins of Morgon in 2016 could easily have been posted under either the Conciliar SSPX section of this forum or the True vs. False Resistance section, the later was chosen as the appropriate place for this 'Study'. This is because while the 'Study' is filled with excellent points about why no agreement with Rome is possible at this time, its final arguments against an agreement are ambiguous and feeble. Thus it exemplifies the differences between a true and false Resistance.]
Adapted from the Cor Mariae site, started by Machabees, Sep 4, 2017.
During the latest neo-sspx stint accepting a hybrid-marriage sacrament from Pope Francis and the Ecclesia Dei, the Capuchins are starting to come out of their mole hole. They first signed a conservative Letter with seven deans of the neo-sspx and two other neo-traditional communities (Benedictine monastery of Bellaigue and Fraternity of the Transfiguration). The conservative Letter didn't do anything but emphasis they do not like the hybrid-sacrament needing to share the sanctuary with a novus ordo priest just for accepting marriage vows, they stated all the other marriages are still valid when done in the [pre-2012] state of necessity, but have included interestingly enough, they desire and look forward for the proposed "rights" for a Personal Prelature with the modernists in rome.
Embarking on another conservative leaf, the Capuchins came out with this PDF 95 page study (in french) called "In the Face of the Roman Propositions: Can we accept today a Canonical Recognition on the part of neo-modernist Rome?"
mega.nz/#!cPADRIhJ!8MFVfXoev4fxcmG1ieXe1hgaJOLzL6Qq3kSUIOwuGk0
What is on paper is surely different what is in practice; like their friends in the new-sspx.
The Capuchins drafted this study in appearance of traditional clothing and to give a right reason not to accept a "recognition" with the romans until there is a doctrinal conversion, because, the pope is still doing worse things and cannot be trusted, as to say, if the modernist remain as they are, and we can trust them, then ok.
Yet the Capuchins live in actual confusion with the neo-sspx, and forced in silence by the neo-sspx administration not to speak of the workings of the Rome accord to their faithful throughout these years causing them to flip-flop, as this "study" shows again, and have caused splits in their community and their Third Order community to this day. In reality, the Capuchins practice their ministry under a conciliar stronghold and ecumenism framed by Bishop Fellay to where they cannot grow in pre-2012 tradition.
The Capuchins lack of conviction is exampled by the new postulancy of the two ex-sspx district superiors (Fr. Régis de Cacqueray and Fr. Paul Morgon) entering their monastery holding tail between leg while the faithful fall in confusion.
The Morgon Capuchins need to make a choice in the freedom of Christ or be bound by neo-tradition they mole and make excuses in.
Where is the conviction and public manifestation of the faith they write about?
[Emphasis in the original]
Morgon Capuchin: 2017 Roman Proposition Study
Adapted from the Cor Mariae site, started by Machabees, Sep 4, 2017.
During the latest neo-sspx stint accepting a hybrid-marriage sacrament from Pope Francis and the Ecclesia Dei, the Capuchins are starting to come out of their mole hole. They first signed a conservative Letter with seven deans of the neo-sspx and two other neo-traditional communities (Benedictine monastery of Bellaigue and Fraternity of the Transfiguration). The conservative Letter didn't do anything but emphasis they do not like the hybrid-sacrament needing to share the sanctuary with a novus ordo priest just for accepting marriage vows, they stated all the other marriages are still valid when done in the [pre-2012] state of necessity, but have included interestingly enough, they desire and look forward for the proposed "rights" for a Personal Prelature with the modernists in rome.
Embarking on another conservative leaf, the Capuchins came out with this PDF 95 page study (in french) called "In the Face of the Roman Propositions: Can we accept today a Canonical Recognition on the part of neo-modernist Rome?"
mega.nz/#!cPADRIhJ!8MFVfXoev4fxcmG1ieXe1hgaJOLzL6Qq3kSUIOwuGk0
What is on paper is surely different what is in practice; like their friends in the new-sspx.
The Capuchins drafted this study in appearance of traditional clothing and to give a right reason not to accept a "recognition" with the romans until there is a doctrinal conversion, because, the pope is still doing worse things and cannot be trusted, as to say, if the modernist remain as they are, and we can trust them, then ok.
Yet the Capuchins live in actual confusion with the neo-sspx, and forced in silence by the neo-sspx administration not to speak of the workings of the Rome accord to their faithful throughout these years causing them to flip-flop, as this "study" shows again, and have caused splits in their community and their Third Order community to this day. In reality, the Capuchins practice their ministry under a conciliar stronghold and ecumenism framed by Bishop Fellay to where they cannot grow in pre-2012 tradition.
The Capuchins lack of conviction is exampled by the new postulancy of the two ex-sspx district superiors (Fr. Régis de Cacqueray and Fr. Paul Morgon) entering their monastery holding tail between leg while the faithful fall in confusion.
The Morgon Capuchins need to make a choice in the freedom of Christ or be bound by neo-tradition they mole and make excuses in.
Where is the conviction and public manifestation of the faith they write about?
[Emphasis in the original]
+++
Reply #1 - Machabees, Sep 5, 2017:
Received word the Capuchins are not happy having their study become widespread and "formally ban" the distribution of their study seeing it could "increase" the discord with the Fraternity of St. Pius X and with others using it for their purpose to "help" them join the "resistance".
It seems both the Capuchins and the false resistance are exploiting the "study" for different ends.
For the Capuchins trying to retract in some way or limit their "study" doesn't give much credence to their sincerity for what they believe or stand for.
As far as Cor-Mariae attaining a copy of this study, we will continue to have it viewed as it was purported for us to believe -a stand of faith by the Capuchins- even though they now give us another appearance of cowardice (and/or flip-flop?). So was the "study" a private matter or public? Was it meant for the Church and Her restoration or just a solemn PR paper in rumblings for their benefactors?
Back to the agenda of Bishop Fellay. Say something for the traditional world...then hide from it when there is liberal blow-back.
Received word the Capuchins are not happy having their study become widespread and "formally ban" the distribution of their study seeing it could "increase" the discord with the Fraternity of St. Pius X and with others using it for their purpose to "help" them join the "resistance".
It seems both the Capuchins and the false resistance are exploiting the "study" for different ends.
For the Capuchins trying to retract in some way or limit their "study" doesn't give much credence to their sincerity for what they believe or stand for.
As far as Cor-Mariae attaining a copy of this study, we will continue to have it viewed as it was purported for us to believe -a stand of faith by the Capuchins- even though they now give us another appearance of cowardice (and/or flip-flop?). So was the "study" a private matter or public? Was it meant for the Church and Her restoration or just a solemn PR paper in rumblings for their benefactors?
Back to the agenda of Bishop Fellay. Say something for the traditional world...then hide from it when there is liberal blow-back.
+++
Reply #2- Admin [Cor Mariae], Sep 5, 2017:
Attached is the complete study albeit all in French.
cor-mariae.com/index.php?attachments/etude-morgon-accords-pdf.694/
Reply #3- Martius, Sep 5, 2017 :
How are the laity not supposed to be confused by such machinations? What a contrast between the priests now and Archbishop Lefebrve...he was always clear, forthright. How are the faithful supposed to know the Capuchins can be trusted when they do not even stand by their own words?
Attached is the complete study albeit all in French.
cor-mariae.com/index.php?attachments/etude-morgon-accords-pdf.694/
+++
Reply #3- Martius, Sep 5, 2017 :
Machabees said: ↑
Received word the Capuchins are not happy having their study become widespread and "formally ban" the distribution of their study seeing it could "increase" the discord with the Fraternity of St. Pius X and with others using it for their purpose to "help" them join the "resistance".
It seems both the Capuchins and the false resistance are exploiting the "study" for different ends.
For the Capuchins trying to retract in some way or limit their "study" doesn't give much credence to their sincerity for what they believe or stand for.
Received word the Capuchins are not happy having their study become widespread and "formally ban" the distribution of their study seeing it could "increase" the discord with the Fraternity of St. Pius X and with others using it for their purpose to "help" them join the "resistance".
It seems both the Capuchins and the false resistance are exploiting the "study" for different ends.
For the Capuchins trying to retract in some way or limit their "study" doesn't give much credence to their sincerity for what they believe or stand for.
How are the laity not supposed to be confused by such machinations? What a contrast between the priests now and Archbishop Lefebrve...he was always clear, forthright. How are the faithful supposed to know the Capuchins can be trusted when they do not even stand by their own words?
+++
Reply #4- Machabees, Sep 6, 2017 [Emphasis in original]:
Here is the objective reality lacking in the neo-tradition paradigm teased and flirting with modernist rome as if there is a real possibility, they tell us, to be "lawfully" recognized by the conciliarists.
In two parts:
1. About the Conciliar Church
ON THE SUBJECT OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH, its existence, and its nature, several studies have been published in Le Sel de la terre1.
[Editor’s Note: See also the May, 2015 article on this website: Is there a conciliar church? ]
In Le Sel de la terre 59, the Conciliar Church is described as the society of the baptised placed under the direction of the current Popes and bishops so as to promote Conciliar ecumenism, and who, consequently, accept the teachings of Vatican II, practice the new liturgy and go by the new Canon law2.
In Le Sel de la terre 97, the Conciliar Church was shown as a transition between the Catholic Church and the Counter-Church. The conclusion of this article gave, as an example of this transition, the Hellfest, Hell Feast, right at the heart of the French Vendée region, where over one hundred thousand youngsters have come these past few years during the summer in order to celebrate the devil. Between their Catholic grand parents celebrating God on feast days like Corpus Christi and these demonic grandchildren, only one Conciliar generation was enough to make the transition.
Let us also mention the “Little Vatican II Catechism” published in Le Sel de la terre 93 (Spring 2015), which shows how Conciliar teaching was influenced by masonic ideas; warnings about the Counter-Church (see Le Sel de la terre 92, Summer 2015, p. 134-138); and “News from Rome” published in Le Sel de la terre 89, 91 and 94, exposing the Conciliar Church efforts to establish a secular globalisation in concert with Freemasonry.
From these various studies, we can conclude that the Conciliar Church is being used as an instrument at the hands of Freemasonry in order to compel the Catholic faithful to work volens nolens [Editor’s Note: “willingly but at the same time involuntarily”] towards general globalisation, i.e. the building of the masonic “Temple”.
Archbishop Lefebvre had seen it and clearly explained it in his “spiritual testament“:
And he rightly drew the following conclusion:
2. May we accept a canonical recognition?
When Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X (in 1970), he obtained a canonical erection for the Society as a pious union from Bishop Charrière, of Fribourg. It remained canonically recognised by Rome for five years.
Eventually, on November 21st, 1974, following a canonical visit to Écône by two Roman envoys, Archbishop Lefebvre made a declaration expressing his refusal of “the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.“
From that moment on, a clear demarcation line had been drawn between the two “Churches”. The « Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies » would soon be called Conciliar Rome by Msgr Benelli5, a name which was to last.
The canonical “suppression” of the Society of St. Pius X was carried out by Bishop Mgr Mamie on May 6th, 1975. Archbishop Lefebvre used to say this was ”irregular and unjust anyway“6.
This “suppression” was consequently considered as null and void by the Archbishop as well as by those who follow the rules of the Catholic Church, while it was regarded as valid by those in line with the Conciliar Church.
Nonetheless, we hear more and more about a “canonical recognition” of the Society of St. Pius X by the current Vatican authorities. May this kind of recognition be accepted?
Per se, lawfulness in the Catholic Church is a good thing, and it is even necessary. Archbishop Lefebvre asked for this validation in 1970, and obtained it.
Yet, today, if a canonical recognition were to be granted, it would be according to the new Code of canon law, just like in the case of the jurisdiction which was recently granted by the Pope to the Society of St Pius X.
This would be a good enough reason to refuse such a recognition7.
Moreover such a recognition, under the current circumstances, would have other drawbacks such as:
— We would become part of Conciliar pluralism, Tradition being recognized as well as the charismatics, the Focolari, the Opus Dei, etc. It is truth put on the same level as error, at least in the public opinion.
— It would allow in our chapels a number of faithful who clearly mean to remain Conciliar, Modernist and Liberal, with all the consequences, since weakening of faith leads to bad morals.
— It would necessarily mean reducing attacks against errors professed by the very Authorities we would have to report to. It is anyway easy to realise that the superiors of the Society of St. Pius X have already reduced their criticism against current errors (Martin Luther Year, Amoris Lætitia, etc.)
— Finally such a recognition would place us directly under superiors who are themselves under Masonic influence. Divine Providence allowed that Archbishop Lefebvre and those who have followed him remain exempt from this masonic influence: it would be a serious lack of prudence to deliberately submit oneself to it. Freemasonry started exactly three centuries ago (24th June 1717). After destroying Catholic States (through revolutions from the 18th to the 20e century), and enslaving the Church (the Alta Vendita plan implemented by the Vatican II Council), will it succeed in extending its influence over Archbishop Lefebvre’s work? This would look like its victory down here on earth.
As a conclusion, a canonical solution could only be considered with a doctrinally converted Rome, a Rome that would have proven this conversion by working for the reign of Our Lord Jesus-Christ and fighting against its enemies.
_________________________________________
Notes:
See notably Le Sel de la terre 34, p. 248 ; Le Sel de la terre 45, p. 36-41 : « Jean Madiran et l’Église conciliaire » ; Le Sel de la terre 59 (Winter 2006-2007), p. 3-8 : « Une hiérarchie pour deux Églises » ; Le Sel de la terre 85 (Summer 2013), p. 1-16 : « Y a-t-il une Église conciliaire » par Mgr Tissier de Mallerais ; Le Sel de la terre 97 (Summer 2016), p. 24-44 : « Ecclésiologie comparée ».
Editorial, Le Sel de la terre 59 (Winter 2006-2007).
Abp Marcel Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey according to St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, chapter 2.
Abp Marcel Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, chapter 3.
Msgr Giovanni Benelli, 1921-1982, Substitute at the Secretariate of State, created Archbishop of Florence and Cardinal by Pope Paul VI in 1977, wrote on behalf of the Pope in a letter dated June 25th, 1976 to Abp Lefebvre: “[If the Ecône seminarians] are of good will and seriously prepared for priestly ministry in the true fidelity to the Conciliar Church, we will find the best solution for them.”
Bp Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre, Étampes, Clovis, 2002, p. 510.
“We cannot be satisfied with some particular discipline for the Society; we refuse this new Code because it is detrimental to the common good of all the Church, which we want to defend”, Fr Jean-Michel Gleize, Courrier de Rome No. 499, May 2017.
Source
Reply #5 - unbrandable, Sep 6, 2017:
From a post at Cathinfo about the Capuchin study:
"The study is over a year old so it's hardly new "news", yet it is being promoted such. The Capuchins of Morgon were present at the Econe ordinations and the SSPX Fatima pilgrimage so they're hardly with the Resistance, yet it is being promoted such. The simple fact is that the Capuchins remain with the SSPX and have now banned the distribution of their study. It seems some people are exploiting this study for their own ends.
The study itself reveals nothing. Over a hundred pages that leads to the conclusion:
"it is impossible for us today to put ourselves in a canonical solution in the hands of the neo-modernist authorities, because of their neo-modernism."
Who'd have thought it? Neo-modernist espouses neo-modernism, but now they say it, it's so blindingly obvious!"
Here is the objective reality lacking in the neo-tradition paradigm teased and flirting with modernist rome as if there is a real possibility, they tell us, to be "lawfully" recognized by the conciliarists.
In two parts:
1. About the Conciliar Church
ON THE SUBJECT OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH, its existence, and its nature, several studies have been published in Le Sel de la terre1.
[Editor’s Note: See also the May, 2015 article on this website: Is there a conciliar church? ]
In Le Sel de la terre 59, the Conciliar Church is described as the society of the baptised placed under the direction of the current Popes and bishops so as to promote Conciliar ecumenism, and who, consequently, accept the teachings of Vatican II, practice the new liturgy and go by the new Canon law2.
In Le Sel de la terre 97, the Conciliar Church was shown as a transition between the Catholic Church and the Counter-Church. The conclusion of this article gave, as an example of this transition, the Hellfest, Hell Feast, right at the heart of the French Vendée region, where over one hundred thousand youngsters have come these past few years during the summer in order to celebrate the devil. Between their Catholic grand parents celebrating God on feast days like Corpus Christi and these demonic grandchildren, only one Conciliar generation was enough to make the transition.
Let us also mention the “Little Vatican II Catechism” published in Le Sel de la terre 93 (Spring 2015), which shows how Conciliar teaching was influenced by masonic ideas; warnings about the Counter-Church (see Le Sel de la terre 92, Summer 2015, p. 134-138); and “News from Rome” published in Le Sel de la terre 89, 91 and 94, exposing the Conciliar Church efforts to establish a secular globalisation in concert with Freemasonry.
From these various studies, we can conclude that the Conciliar Church is being used as an instrument at the hands of Freemasonry in order to compel the Catholic faithful to work volens nolens [Editor’s Note: “willingly but at the same time involuntarily”] towards general globalisation, i.e. the building of the masonic “Temple”.
Archbishop Lefebvre had seen it and clearly explained it in his “spiritual testament“:
This “Conciliar Church” is imbued with the principles of 1789. These are Masonic principles with respect to religion and religions in general and with respect to civil society. It is an imposter inspired by Hell for the destruction of the Catholic religion, of its Magisterium, of its priesthood, and of the Sacrifice of Our Lord3.
And he rightly drew the following conclusion:
It is therefore a strict duty for any priest wishing to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church, so long as she will not return to the tradition of the Church Magisterium and of the Catholic Faith4.
2. May we accept a canonical recognition?
When Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X (in 1970), he obtained a canonical erection for the Society as a pious union from Bishop Charrière, of Fribourg. It remained canonically recognised by Rome for five years.
Eventually, on November 21st, 1974, following a canonical visit to Écône by two Roman envoys, Archbishop Lefebvre made a declaration expressing his refusal of “the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.“
From that moment on, a clear demarcation line had been drawn between the two “Churches”. The « Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies » would soon be called Conciliar Rome by Msgr Benelli5, a name which was to last.
The canonical “suppression” of the Society of St. Pius X was carried out by Bishop Mgr Mamie on May 6th, 1975. Archbishop Lefebvre used to say this was ”irregular and unjust anyway“6.
This “suppression” was consequently considered as null and void by the Archbishop as well as by those who follow the rules of the Catholic Church, while it was regarded as valid by those in line with the Conciliar Church.
Nonetheless, we hear more and more about a “canonical recognition” of the Society of St. Pius X by the current Vatican authorities. May this kind of recognition be accepted?
Per se, lawfulness in the Catholic Church is a good thing, and it is even necessary. Archbishop Lefebvre asked for this validation in 1970, and obtained it.
Yet, today, if a canonical recognition were to be granted, it would be according to the new Code of canon law, just like in the case of the jurisdiction which was recently granted by the Pope to the Society of St Pius X.
This would be a good enough reason to refuse such a recognition7.
Moreover such a recognition, under the current circumstances, would have other drawbacks such as:
— We would become part of Conciliar pluralism, Tradition being recognized as well as the charismatics, the Focolari, the Opus Dei, etc. It is truth put on the same level as error, at least in the public opinion.
— It would allow in our chapels a number of faithful who clearly mean to remain Conciliar, Modernist and Liberal, with all the consequences, since weakening of faith leads to bad morals.
— It would necessarily mean reducing attacks against errors professed by the very Authorities we would have to report to. It is anyway easy to realise that the superiors of the Society of St. Pius X have already reduced their criticism against current errors (Martin Luther Year, Amoris Lætitia, etc.)
— Finally such a recognition would place us directly under superiors who are themselves under Masonic influence. Divine Providence allowed that Archbishop Lefebvre and those who have followed him remain exempt from this masonic influence: it would be a serious lack of prudence to deliberately submit oneself to it. Freemasonry started exactly three centuries ago (24th June 1717). After destroying Catholic States (through revolutions from the 18th to the 20e century), and enslaving the Church (the Alta Vendita plan implemented by the Vatican II Council), will it succeed in extending its influence over Archbishop Lefebvre’s work? This would look like its victory down here on earth.
As a conclusion, a canonical solution could only be considered with a doctrinally converted Rome, a Rome that would have proven this conversion by working for the reign of Our Lord Jesus-Christ and fighting against its enemies.
_________________________________________
Notes:
See notably Le Sel de la terre 34, p. 248 ; Le Sel de la terre 45, p. 36-41 : « Jean Madiran et l’Église conciliaire » ; Le Sel de la terre 59 (Winter 2006-2007), p. 3-8 : « Une hiérarchie pour deux Églises » ; Le Sel de la terre 85 (Summer 2013), p. 1-16 : « Y a-t-il une Église conciliaire » par Mgr Tissier de Mallerais ; Le Sel de la terre 97 (Summer 2016), p. 24-44 : « Ecclésiologie comparée ».
Editorial, Le Sel de la terre 59 (Winter 2006-2007).
Abp Marcel Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey according to St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, chapter 2.
Abp Marcel Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, chapter 3.
Msgr Giovanni Benelli, 1921-1982, Substitute at the Secretariate of State, created Archbishop of Florence and Cardinal by Pope Paul VI in 1977, wrote on behalf of the Pope in a letter dated June 25th, 1976 to Abp Lefebvre: “[If the Ecône seminarians] are of good will and seriously prepared for priestly ministry in the true fidelity to the Conciliar Church, we will find the best solution for them.”
Bp Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre, Étampes, Clovis, 2002, p. 510.
“We cannot be satisfied with some particular discipline for the Society; we refuse this new Code because it is detrimental to the common good of all the Church, which we want to defend”, Fr Jean-Michel Gleize, Courrier de Rome No. 499, May 2017.
Source
+++
Reply #5 - unbrandable, Sep 6, 2017:
From a post at Cathinfo about the Capuchin study:
"The study is over a year old so it's hardly new "news", yet it is being promoted such. The Capuchins of Morgon were present at the Econe ordinations and the SSPX Fatima pilgrimage so they're hardly with the Resistance, yet it is being promoted such. The simple fact is that the Capuchins remain with the SSPX and have now banned the distribution of their study. It seems some people are exploiting this study for their own ends.
The study itself reveals nothing. Over a hundred pages that leads to the conclusion:
"it is impossible for us today to put ourselves in a canonical solution in the hands of the neo-modernist authorities, because of their neo-modernism."
Who'd have thought it? Neo-modernist espouses neo-modernism, but now they say it, it's so blindingly obvious!"
+++
Reply #6 - Machabees, Sep 7, 2017:
They same goes for those ex-"internal resistance" priests who cowardly seek cover inside the neo-Capuchins, they still go back parading in events and collaboration with the neo-sspx. See the denominator -they all dwell in neo-tradition. Yet better than going to the other neo-tradition option under Bishop Williamson's independent version.
unbrandable said: ↑
From a post at Cathinfo about the Capuchin study:
"The study is over a year old so it's hardly new "news", yet it is being promoted such. The Capuchins of Morgon were present at the Econe ordinations and the SSPX Fatima pilgrimage so they're hardly with the Resistance, yet it is being promoted such. The simple fact is that the Capuchins remain with the SSPX and have now banned the distribution of their study. It seems some people are exploiting this study for their own ends.
The study itself reveals nothing. Over a hundred pages that leads to the conclusion:
"it is impossible for us today to put ourselves in a canonical solution in the hands of the neo-modernist authorities, because of their neo-modernism."
Who'd have thought it? Neo-modernist espouses neo-modernism, but now they say it, it's so blindingly obvious!"
From a post at Cathinfo about the Capuchin study:
"The study is over a year old so it's hardly new "news", yet it is being promoted such. The Capuchins of Morgon were present at the Econe ordinations and the SSPX Fatima pilgrimage so they're hardly with the Resistance, yet it is being promoted such. The simple fact is that the Capuchins remain with the SSPX and have now banned the distribution of their study. It seems some people are exploiting this study for their own ends.
The study itself reveals nothing. Over a hundred pages that leads to the conclusion:
"it is impossible for us today to put ourselves in a canonical solution in the hands of the neo-modernist authorities, because of their neo-modernism."
Who'd have thought it? Neo-modernist espouses neo-modernism, but now they say it, it's so blindingly obvious!"
They same goes for those ex-"internal resistance" priests who cowardly seek cover inside the neo-Capuchins, they still go back parading in events and collaboration with the neo-sspx. See the denominator -they all dwell in neo-tradition. Yet better than going to the other neo-tradition option under Bishop Williamson's independent version.
