First, I'll let you read Patric's spiel:
It has been a while, but I do stop by from time to time to see what chaos and madness is stirring in the Resistance world. It seems division and infighting are just a couple of the fruits of The Resistance. How many groups are there now and one is the one ordained by God; how do I choose? Meanwhile the Society carries on her merry way neither falling to the right (into sedevacantism) or the left (into indultarianism).
How many ‘non una cum’ priests are there now in the Resistance, seems they’re in the majority. Fr. Chazal is now essentially a sedeprivationist and Bp. Williamson is a sedevacantist in all but name; his actions are no different and it’s only his pride – the wagging fingers of Fr. Cekada and Bp Sanborn saying “told you so” – that stops him going the final step.
I get the feeling some Resistance clerics get some sort of enjoyment from the crisis. They want the end times. Could you image a sudden, overnight miracle where the Church was restored, no more crisis, what would Resistance clerics do? They’d be lost.
Could you image Fr. Pfieffer spending out his days as a parish priest of a small town in KY? He’d leave the priesthood. Or Bp. Williamson submitting to a diocese bishop? Or pope? His excuse would be ‘yes they may be traditional but they still believe in the 6 million’ or ‘they deny 911 was an inside job’ ‘hence they don’t have a grip on reality, ergo we cannot submit to their authority’. The Resistance hate obedience as is evident in their behaviour.
I see your website has gone through yet another transformation. I remember your first one ABLF3. And also a thread named Gobsmacked started by Needleduck. It discussed the revelation of one Fr. Tetherow but moved on to discuss other similar cases like that of Fr. Roberts. Remember how Sean Johnson jumped to the defence of Roberts furnishing an e-mail from Fr. Chazal? In it he stated he had met and discussed the matter with Fr. Perez, who stated there was nothing of substance to the allegations. Strange how he gives a completely different account here.
What changed? Ah yes, Fr. Roberts went over to Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal’s memory had played tricks, but he’s now recovered. Perhaps you and Johnson, in the interests of Justice, would like to go over to CI and lay before the readers what Fr. Chazal said of Fr. Roberts prior to him joining KY. I won’t hold my breath.
So Johnson has quit the forum sphere and the blog sphere. He and McDimwit are practically at each other’s throats. Another split on the way. But this is all from God, right? This is his plan. We’re in the End Times, embrace every conceivable conspiracy theory. Buy yourself a small holding, bunker down, don’t go to Mass, learn to live without the sacraments, and wait; the mentality of a Resistor. Very sad, but very dangerous.
How much chaos must there be for you to finally see how wrong the Resistance are?
And here is my reply:
Thank you for this opportunity to put a few things in perspective.
Divisions and Infighting
You claim that the Resistance cannot be “ordained by God” because of the divisions and infighting that seems to plague them.
Well, according to the same logic we can say that the SSPX was never “ordained by God”, since the Archbishop himself in 1988 admitted that the history of the Society is “like the history of separations”1, and in 1989 he wrote a letter to bishop De Galeretta lamenting “yet another crisis in the SSPX”, and “yet another haemorrhage” and “a new division.”2 At some point the Archbishop even lost as much as half his seminarians together with the seminary rector. No doubt the Archbishop would have had his own Patric whispering in his ear that his work could not be "ordained by God".
Likewise, using the same faulty logic we would have to conclude that Tradition cannot be “ordained by God” since we have so many factions, divisions and infighting among Traditional Catholics. Can you count how many different groups there are, between the SSPX, it’s allies, it’s offshoots, the sedevacantists, the indultarians and the freelancers? Shall we conclude then that Conciliarism is the only group “ordained by God”?
I hope you can see the silliness of such an argument.
You claim that “meanwhile the Society carries on her merry way neither falling to the right (into sedevacantism) or the left (into indultarianism)”.
What you failed to mention though is that such an apparent peace was only obtained by exiling or expelling each and every priest who had the courage to speak up against Menzingen’s operation suicide. Sure, the body seems at peace now, but only because all life has left it and what remains is only a corpse, peacefully waiting in the morgue to be buried in the Conciliar cemetery, next to all the other inert bodies that thought they could avoid the good fight and make peace with the revolution.
Enjoying the Crisis
You said that you “get the feeling some Resistance clerics get some sort of enjoyment from the crisis”.
I’m sorry to hear your “feelings” are getting the better of you. How would you “feel” about being exiled to Timbuktu, or worse, expelled from your comfy priory, without a pension to fall back on, having no fixed place to call home, having to live out of a suitcase while constantly traveling all over the world to say Mass for a handful of people, in a basement instead of a beautiful cathedral, and being looked upon as an outcast by your “brothers in the Faith”? Does such a fate appeal to your “feelings” as well?
Are you old enough to remember that not too long ago such was the fate of those who wished to remain faithful to Tradition? It is precisely because these priests and bishops made such heroic efforts back then that you are now able to enjoy the comforts of your beautiful chapels, priories and schools and a generous pension to boot.
But what I really wonder is what you in your turn will leave behind for the “enjoyment” of those who will come after you? Free tickets to the Conciliar zoo maybe?
You asked whether I could “image Fr. Pfieffer spending out his days as a parish priest of a small town in KY”.
No, I can no longer imagine Fr. Pfeiffer being obedient to anyone else but himself. But what has Fr. Pfeiffer got to do with the Resistance? Fr. Pfeiffer is as representative of the Resistance as Dom Gérard is of the SSPX.
But following your imaginary miracle restoration of the Church, I can indeed imagine a Fr. Chazal, or a Fr MacDonald, or a Fr. Valan, or a Fr Picot, or a Fr Pio and no doubt many other Resistance priests to quietly spend out their days as a parish priest, tucked away in some small town, being obedient to their Catholic bishop, simply because these priests have a much better understanding of the virtue of obedience, neither erring on the side of defect (like a Fr. Pfeiffer) nor on the side of excess (like the members of the corpse of the SSPX).
Have you perhaps forgotten how the Archbishop too was accused of disobedience, for refusing to obey his legitimate superiors, when these superiors ordered him to join Conciliar Rome and to betray Eternal Rome? Have you forgotten how bishop Fellay himself has not (yet) fully obeyed his own legitimate superior in joining the revolutionaries (at least not openly and formally)? How can bishop Fellay expect a blind obedience from his subjects, while at the same time wishing to get away with disobeying his own superior? Are there two measures then?
If you have any respect left for the Archbishop, then you may want to pay attention to what he had to say in 19883 to his priests about faithful who were “faced with priests who are encouraging them to put themselves under the modernist authority of bishops”. He was stupefied by their lack of resistance, stupefied that “despite the things they surely see, and despite what they surely know, no... they stay! They don’t make this decision to move on or to found another monastery [Society], or to demand the resignation of Dom Gérard [Dom Fellay] so he can be replaced, no, nothing.. they just obey.”
Were the Archbishop alive today, he would demand the resignation of these traitors in Menzingen, and he would encourage people to resist and to disobey them. And a little further he added that “it is lamentable to see with what ease a monastery [Society] that was with Tradition is placed under the authority of Conciliar and modernist authorities. And the whole world is quiet. It’s a pity and really sad to see this”, while on the other hand he rejoiced seeing in others “the courage to resist and to persevere”.
I hope you can see that you are simply pulling the short string by playing the obedience card.
It is not hard to see that you have spent too much time loitering on questionable forums. If only you had bothered reading Fr. Chazal's book, you would have been able to avoid copycatting the silly claim that he has embraced sedeprivationism. In his book he explicitly refutes this error as one of the many flavors of sedevacantism. It is beyond me how any sane and honest person can therefore claim he embraced the error he in fact refuted?
What about bishop Williamson's alleged secret sedevacantist tendencies? Once again, I think you are hallucinating. Oh yes, he sometimes throws the sedevacantists a little bone, and he is not as antagonistic to them as some people wish he would be, but to say he is secretly wanting to join them, if only his pride would let him? Did you perhaps get this from a Pfeifferite forum?
My own attitude towards sedevacantism, and I believe most Resistance priests and faithful share this, is that just as we do not have the authority to judge that the Pope is no longer a Catholic on account of his Conciliarism, neither do we have the authority to claim sedevacantists are no longer Catholic on account of their sedevacantism. On the other hand, just as we wish to remain separate from the Conciliar Church in order to avoid catching their errors, we also must try to avoid those who hold the erroneous opinion of sedevacantism in order not to become infected with their errors and the bitter spirit that often comes with them.
Where exactly lies the line between "avoiding" and "tolerating", that is indeed the question, and no doubt an opportunity for the sowers of dissensions (like yourself) to exploit.
No surprises here, considering that you have been waging war on this man for a long time now, from the shadows of your anonymity of course. He has been a thorn in your side for quite a while, hasn’t he? But your attempt to accuse him of dishonesty is simply ridiculous. Of all the faults he may have, I can think of two faults he does not have, both of which are in my opinion the main reason he is feared (and stalked) by Menzingen’s shills.
One, you are never left guessing what he really thinks, as he always speaks his mind freely and openly, including admitting his mistakes and apologizing if or when necessary. Can the same be said of you though, you who are too much of a coward to reveal your real name, who anonymously go on different forums to fan the flames of division between them, and who speak with a forked tongue? I find it ironic that of all people, it is you who accuses a man of being dishonest.
Second, he will never have to fear being “vomited” out of Our Lord’s mouth because of lukewarmness. He has done a lot to help expose Menzingen’s traitors and to warn others about their operation suicide. And Menzingen knows this quite well. If only Menzingen had the same zeal in exposing the Conciliar rot in Rome as Sean has in exposing the Conciliar rot in Menzingen, the Archbishop today would still have reason to be proud of his SSPX.
Unfortunately, some of his former "friends" have now joined the ranks of those bitter zealots who have completely lost their moral compass. Does this please you then, seeing a man stabbed in the back by his former friends? Would you like to give him a stab yourself, anonymously of course?
To put it as mildly as I can, I believe there are some good reasons to believe that CathInfo has failed to live up to the proud boasts of it's owner, and that the Resistance has quietly moved on. In fact, I personally can't think of anyone I know within the Resistance who has of lately much good to say about that forum. And I put at least part of the blame at the feet of it's owner, on account of his willingness to give error the same rights as truth. It reminds me of the Resistance a few years ago distancing itself from that other proud rooster from the UK with his trashy tabloid.
If anything, we should say a few extra prayers for these people to overcome their enormous pride, as God has been known to resist the proud and to give His graces to the humble instead.
But I admit, both of them are painting a poor picture of the Resistance to the ignorant spectator looking for an excuse to remain within the mystical corpse of the SSPX.
So, yes, it looks like another division and another haemorrhage. So be it. In this battle there will be casualties, and when one falls, another will take it’s place. But just like we never judged the SSPX by it’s casualties, neither should the Resistance be judged by it’s casualties.
The Real Problem
If I were to list you all the faults I could find with a Ford, would that make Holden a good car?
It is quite interesting seeing how much time you spend trying to discredit the Resistance. How long have you (among others) been sending me such taunting emails now, as well as posting snide remarks on any forum that would tolerate you? And if my memory serves me, you never ever bothered dealing with the real raison d’être of the Resistance. The accusations you level against the Resistance are the same bogus accusations that were once leveled against the SSPX. And the answers are the same as well. As bishop Williamson put it: "the dogs bark and the caravan moves on".
But sooner or later, you will have exhausted all the dirty laundry you can find (or fabricate), and you are going to have to deal with the real problem.
Do you believe that it was wrong for the Archbishop to disobey Rome when they suspended him a divinis and commanded him to close his seminaries? Do you believe the Archbishop was wrong in advising anyone who wished to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church? If you truly believe the Resistance is wrong now, would you at least have the guts to clearly state that you believe the Archbishop was wrong too back then, and that likewise the SSPX was wrong for so many years afterwards?
Or do you perhaps believe that today’s Rome is no longer Conciliar, that Rome has come to it’s senses and is heading back towards Tradition, that “the pope really has the good of Tradition in mind”? Bishop Fellay told us that he believes this, so what about you Patric, do you believe this? Do you believe pope Francis has the good of Tradition in mind? That the man who tells sodomites that God made them like this, who tells the whole world that there is no Catholic God, who calls Traditional Catholics all kinds of nasty names, and who closes down any order that still has any semblance of Tradition, do you believe that this man has the good of Tradition in mind? Do you agree with bishop Fellay that we should trust this man and that despite the Archbishop warning us about such little concessions being traps, that surely this one cannot be a trap, because "Francis the destroyer has the good of Tradition in mind"? Such naivety is truly embarrassing, both for the one suffering from it as for the one quietly tolerating it!
Or maybe you believe that Menzingen has not changed it’s direction at all, and that they are only doing what the Archbishop himself would have wanted them to do. You may want to have another think. At least Fr. Pfluger had the honesty of telling the world in 2012 already that the Society’s direction had changed, from Archbishop Lefebvre’s “no practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement” to Fr. Pfulger’s “the Pope is so much interested in a canonical solution that we can no longer refuse”, to bishop Fellay’s “as long as they accept us as we are.”4 If the superiors of the SSPX have the occasional lapse of honesty to admit their new direction, can you still deny it?
Would the Archbishop have kindly stepped aside to let his faithful be married by a Conciliar priest? Did the Archbishop ever beg the modernists to “lift” their excommunication, or did he instead regard it as a badge of honor to be excommunicated by the enemies of the Church? Did the Archbishop ever indicate that he was happy to settle for a little cage in the ecumenical zoo, to simply be accepted “as we are”? Was he ever praised by the Jews for his anti-Semitism, like the toothless and lukewarm SSPX is now being praised by them, and even collaborates with these Judaizers at the highest levels? I could go on and on, but you should get the picture by now.
Be Careful What You Wish For
If you were to ask your fairy godmother to wave her magic wand and to make the Resistance instantly and permanently disappear, you would still be left to deal with a toothless and lukewarm SSPX, on it’s merry way to claim it’s “rightful” place among the other compromised Traditionalists in Conciliar Rome. The only difference being that you would “feel” much better about joining the Conciliar Church, and, having no one to bother your conscience, your trip would be all the more pleasant and swift.
Personally, I don’t think it is impossible that your wish may one day be granted. God knows.
But I do firmly believe that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, and that “it is a strict duty for every priest [and layman] wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith”.
And with the grace of God, this is what I intend to do.