Long ago, the SSPX’s Angelus magazine used to do good work in helping souls understand Tradition.  Although always enjoying a somewhat undeserved reputation for “hard-hitting articles”, in reality, most of its articles even in the good days were too short and lacked sufficient substance to warrant that praise.  But it may be the magazine kept the articles short because that was precisely what its audience wanted.

In November, 2020, the Angelus Online did not hesitate to print a particularly poisonous piece called An Apostate’s Journey Back.[1] Its author is a certain John McFarland, father of SSPX priest Mark McFarland (about whose scandals as an SSPX priest we could write a separate article).  In this article, Mr. McFarland, a self-described fighter against the Resistance,[2] first describes his journey to “Tradition”.  It is, however, clear from what he tells of his story, that he never truly found Tradition, but instead, only a softened, watered-down idea of who Archbishop Lefebvre really was, and thus a false “Tradition”.

First, to his credit, early in his “conversion”, Mr. McFarland correctly identifies the problem.  He says,

I didn’t go more than 50-75 pages into [a book called] “Iota Unum” before I recognized the crucial fact: the Church’s terrible problems did not stem primarily from Rome’s being disobeyed.  They stemmed from Rome’s being followed [by Catholics] in its failure to oppose and its supporting the modernist offensive during and after the Council.

McFarland, who tells us that he is an amateur philosopher and a lawyer, then began to assist at Fr. Ringrose’s St. Athanasius chapel in Northern Virginia.  [To our readers: Fr. Ringrose was a long-time friend of the SSPX until the SSPX’s liberalism and treachery became very apparent.  He broke with the “new” SSPX afterwards, and the “new” SSPX condemned him for it.  He now is affiliated with Bp. Williamson’s group.]

McFarland goes on to say that his newly-ordained son was home in 2012 when he and his son learned of Fr. Ringrose’s signing what McFarland calls the “foundational document” of the Resistance.   McFarland’s reaction was to immediately stop attending that chapel:

He [newly-ordained Fr. McFarland] was home on vacation when I came home from Holy Name Sunday Mass and discovered online its [i.e., The Resistance’s] foundational document, whose signatories included the pastor of St. Athanasius. I told [my son, newly-ordained] Father, he said “Well, you can’t go back there [i.e., to Fr. Ringrose’s chapel].”

We have seen this knee-jerk reaction before, in otherwise-good men who continue to support the liberal “new” SSPX, and will hear nothing of the Resistance’s claims that the SSPX has become increasingly liberal.  We think such men long ago made the tremendous mistake of placing their loyalty firstly in particular men or organizations (such as the SSPX or particular priests they admire), instead of giving unwavering loyalty first to uncompromising, unadulterated Catholic Tradition.  This principle is exemplified in McFarland’s case, where he did not ask Fr. Ringrose (who had a better “nose” for liberalism than McFarland) to carefully explain his decision for his break with the SSPX.  The McFarlands seem instead to have simply left because Fr. Ringrose objected to their group, viz., the SSPX.  If the McFarlands did give Fr. Ringrose a chance to explain, McFarland does not mention it, and thus leaves off all of Fr. Ringrose’s substantial reasons, which in justice he should have mentioned.

McFarland goes on to say he got involved in polemics with Resistance websites, and that the Resistance was, in general, uncharitable.  McFarland does not give any evidence to support this claim but, of course, it is always possible for individuals to overstep civility or charity.  In any case, the Angelus Online article allows McFarland to vent his poison by going on to say,

Most of those who consider themselves traditional Catholics and attack the SSPX refer to themselves as the Resistance. From the time that I first learned about them, it was obvious that they had no proof and that their thinking was incoherent.

Even Bishop Williamson, who must have a great deal of SSPX internal information from before his break with the Society, has never offered testimony for any of the charges against Bishop Fellay circulating in the Resistance.

In regards to thinking [sic], in 2012 Bishop Williamson condemned what he styled the SSPX’s wishing to put itself under the authority of the pope.  But if Bishop Williamson does not accept the authority of the pope, then His Excellency and those of his followers who agree with him look to be schismatics.

 

Let us take three of McFarland’s assertions, in the order he makes them.

McFarland’s first assertion:

1.    “From the time that I first learned about them [viz., the Resistance], it was obvious that they had no proof and that their thinking was incoherent.”

Is it not rash (and uncharitable) for McFarland to conclude it was “obvious” at his first learning about the Resistance, that they had “no proof” and that their “thinking was incoherent”?  How often does it ever happen that when receiving the initial information about any group, a person can prudently conclude that it is “obvious” that the group as a whole both has no evidence and also is illogical?

Further, McFarland’s hasty conclusion of “no proof” is shown by his overlooking a very long catalog of proof either because he failed to look deeply or he is too liberal to recognize the “new” SSPX’s own liberalism.  For example:

  Isn’t it liberal for the “new” SSPX to reverse its position on abortion-connected vaccines in order to now conclude they are acceptable?[3] 

➢  Isn’t it liberal for the N-SSPX to call the new mass “Catholic worship”?[4]

➢  Isn’t it liberal for the N-SSPX to promote a conciliar speaker who is an expert favorably promoting Pope John Paul II’s heretical “Theology of the Body”?[5]

➢  Isn’t it liberal for the N-SSPX to accept the post-conciliar popes as saints?[6]

➢  Isn’t it liberal for the “new” SSPX to urge its followers to join the pope in praying with false religions?[7]

For anyone who wants additional concrete evidence of the “new” SSPX’s increasing liberalism, click on the “Society of St. Pius X” tab at this link: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/#gsc.tab=0

McFarland’s second assertion:

2.   Bishop Williamson and the Resistance cannot support “the charges against Bishop Fellay circulating in the Resistance.”

Again, McFarland fails to look deeply or he is too liberal to recognize Bishop Fellay’s own liberalism.  Here are a few examples of it:

❖  Bishop Fellay promotes the new mass as good and holy;[8]

❖  Bishop Fellay denies that there are any errors in the documents of Vatican II;[9] and

❖  Bishop Fellay claims that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty “is a very, very limited one: very limited!” although Vatican II itself says that religious liberty is entirely unlimited as long as society does not erupt in violence.[10]

For anyone who wants additional concrete evidence of Bishop Fellay’s liberalism, click on the “Society of St. Pius X” tab, subtab “Bishop Fellay”, found at this link: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/#gsc.tab=0

McFarland’s third assertion:

3.    Perhaps the worst of McFarland’s nonsense however, is his attempted smearing of the Resistance as schismatic or sedevacantist.  He says, “In regards to thinking [sic], in 2012 Bishop Williamson condemned what he styled the SSPX’s wishing to put itself under the authority of the pope.  But if Bishop Williamson does not accept the authority of the pope, then His Excellency and those of his followers who agree with him look to be schismatics” (emphasis added).  

 

We emphasize those parts of that remark which show how McFarland grossly misrepresents and over-simplifies the true position of Resistance Catholics; and he does this not once, but twice.  McFarland implies that Bp. Williamson (and Resistance Catholics) have since 2012 wrongly condemned the SSPX for putting itself “under the authority of the pope”.  That is, he implies that Resistance Catholics think that Catholics should reject the pope’s authority outright, simply speaking.  If the situation were really as simple as McFarland paints it, then yes – Bp. Williamson and others who hold that view would indeed have committed the mortal sin of schism (as today’s avowed sedevacantists indeed have).  Such however, is not the case. 

 

McFarland (knowingly or unknowingly) ignores critical distinctions which separate true Traditional Catholics from men like himself, as well as those outside the Church (sedevacantists and other schismatics).[11]   The truly Traditional Catholic attitude has always been to both acknowledge the authority of the pope as the supreme head of the Catholic Church, and to protect oneself and one’s loved ones by refusing to obey sinful commands from that superior (that is, those commands that are against Faith and Morals).  This is true obedience and this principle applies whether the superior is ecclesiastical, political, or familial.   

 

But it is true that in the last 50 years, almost every command from conciliar church authorities has posed a serious danger to faith and morals, and thus, Catholics in practice refuse to obey almost everything their superiors command.  Yet those same Catholics know the men issuing these evil commands continue to be their superiors.   

 

It is precisely this attitude of true filial obedience coupled with caution and prudence that sedevacantists (on the one hand) and liberals like John McFarland (on the other) lack.  But this very balancing act is what Archbishop Lefebvre understood and “walked” every day.  It is true that in the earlier days (1970s) he was not yet certain of what Modernist Rome’s intentions were, and wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.  But after the mid-1980s, he became completely convinced that Modernist Rome had no other intention but to destroy Catholic Tradition.   

Bishop Williamson (despite his own serious liberalism on various matters)[12] clearly understands all of the above distinctions, as he has repeatedly, clearly, and publicly shown.  Yet McFarland, who implies he has engaged many times in serious polemics with the Resistance, as well as having spoken with Bp. Williamson, mentions none of this.

Conclusion:  The N-SSPX continues to print poison such as McFarland’s article so as to continue to corrupt its readers as well as faithful Traditional Catholics everywhere.  Not only is the N-SSPX no longer Traditional Catholic, but also it works directly AGAINST Catholic Tradition by misrepresenting, smearing, and silencing those who try to sound the alarm concerning its own liberalism.

Catholic Candle note regarding why we occasionally analyze the statements of the liberal N-SSPX. 

Someone could wonder:

Why does Catholic Candle mention the SSPX any longer?  That group is unimportant because it is merely one of very many compromise groups. 

It is true that a compromise priest (or group) is of small importance insofar as he (or the group) is merely one of countless compromisers harming the human element of the Catholic Church.  By contrast, an uncompromising priest is of great importance, even though he is only one.

However, we sometimes mention the “new” SSPX for at least four reasons, motivated by Charity and Faith:

Ø  New Catholic Candle readers might not be sufficiently informed of the N-SSPX’s liberalism to avoid that group.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these warnings to help these new readers appreciate the danger which the N-SSPX presents to their souls.

Ø  Some longtime Catholic Candle readers might “forget” the N-SSPX poison or they might vacillate in their resolution to stay away from the N-SSPX, if they were to never receive a fresh reminder which warns them about the danger of the N-SSPX.  This is like the fact that all it takes for most people to become conciliar is to never hear about the errors of Vatican II and the conciliar church.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these reminders for readers who would otherwise “forget” the danger which the N-SSPX poses to their souls.

 

Ø  The N-SSPX serves as an important case study for examining the effects of gradualism – which is the usual route by which people leave the truth.  Out of charity for ourselves we occasionally examine the N-SSPX’s gradualism so that we can be more familiar with this tactic of the devil and guard ourselves against it.

 

Ø  Over time, the N-SSPX has made countless, different liberal compromises.  By our studying all of those different compromises and errors – and by examining the opposing Catholic truth, we better fulfill our duty of continually studying the doctrines of our Faith and the opposing errors that we must fight.

 

 

The conciliar church (including the N-SSPX) ignores the role of sin and God’s wrath in their prayers relating to the coronavirus “pandemic”[1]

The Catholic Church has always known that plagues are a just punishment of God for sin.  More than anything else, during times of plague, the Church prays to appease God’s just wrath for our sins.

In the Traditional Votive Mass for the Deliverance from Death in Time of Pestilence, the Church makes the direct connection between the plague, God’s just wrath and our need to repent and to sin no more. 

For example, here is the Introit from this votive Mass:

Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy covenant and say to the destroying Angel: Now hold thy hand, and let not the land be made desolate, and destroy not every living soul.

Here are the words of the Collect:

O God, who willest not the death of the sinner but that he should repent: welcome with pardon Thy people’s return to Thee: and so long as they are faithful in Thy service, do Thou in Thy clemency withdraw the scourge of Thy wrath.

We see throughout history that the Catholic Church’s traditional focus during a plague is on atonement for sin because God sends a plague as a chastisement for sin.  This is evident from the Church’s response during each particular plague which has occurred.  For example, when the plague ravaged Rome, this is what Pope St. Gregory the Great did:

[T]he plague continued to rage at Rome with great violence; and, while the people waited for the emperor’s answer, St. Gregory took occasion from their calamities to exhort them to repentance.  Having made them a pathetic [very moving] sermon on that subject, he appointed a solemn litany, or procession, in seven companies, with a priest at the head of each, who were to march from different churches, and all to meet in that of St. Mary Major; singing Kyrie Eleison as they went along the streets.  During this procession there died in one hour’s time fourscore [i.e., eighty people] of those who assisted at it.  But St. Gregory did not forbear to exhort the people, and to pray till such time as the distemper ceased.[2]

But as [St.] Gregory was passing over the bridge of St. Peter’s, a heavenly vision consoled them [viz., the people] in the midst of their litanies.  The archangel Michael was seen over the tomb of Hadrian, sheathing his flaming sword in token that the pestilence was to cease.  [Saint] Gregory heard the angelic antiphon from heavenly voices – Regina Coeli, lætare, and added himself the concluding verse – Ora pro nobis Deum, alleluia.[3]

When the plague struck Milan, here is what St. Charles Borromeo did:

[T]he plague appeared in Milan.  [Saint] Charles was at Lodi, at the funeral of the bishop.  He at once returned, and inspired confidence in all.  He was convinced that the plague was sent as a chastisement for sin ….[4]

[H]e ordered public supplications to be made, and himself walked in the processions, with a rope round his neck, his feet bare and bleeding from the stones, and carrying a cross; and thus offering himself as a victim for the sins of the people, he endeavored to turn away the anger of God.[5]

There is no end to the other examples we could give of the Catholic Church’s focus on repentance for sin and appeasing God’s just anger – which is the cause of the plague.

In contrast to Catholic Tradition, the conciliar church ignores the role of sin and God’s wrath and focuses on our receiving comfort and relief from being afflicted by the plague

Pope Francis and the conciliar church deny that the coronavirus is a chastisement from God for sin[6] but instead insist that it is only the result of our failing to care for the environment.[7] 

Thus, in the text of the new, recently-published novus ordo “Mass in Time of Pandemic”, there is no mention of appeasing God’s wrath or His chastising us for our sins.  Instead, this new conciliar votive “mass” asks for comfort, strength for healthcare workers, etc.  Here is the new conciliar Collect:

Almighty and eternal God, our refuge in every danger, to whom we turn in our distress; in faith we pray look with compassion on the afflicted, grant eternal rest to the dead, comfort to mourners, healing to the sick, peace to the dying, strength to healthcare workers, wisdom to our leaders and the courage to reach out to all in love, so that together we may give glory to your holy name. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God forever and ever.[8]

The only mention of sin in the conciliar “Mass in Time of Pandemic” is a reference to asking God to keeping people safe, free from sin.  This is the opposite of the traditional focus which acknowledges that we have sinned.  Here is this novus ordo “prayer over the people” from this votive “mass”:

O God, protector of all who hope in you, bless your people, keep them safe, defend them, prepare them, that, free from sin and safe from the enemy, they may persevere always in your love.[9]

The “new”, liberal SSPX follows the conciliar church’s lead, praying only for comfort and relief from the pandemic

The N-SSPX takes its cues from the conciliar church.  As the modernists in Rome jumped on the corona-bandwagon with the newly-published, conciliar “Mass in Time of Pandemic”, likewise the N-SSPX published a booklet proposing a “spiritual crusade in response to the COVID-19 pandemic”.[10]

The N-SSPX booklet proposes that we say the rosary and love Our Lady for sixteen weeks.  (We suppose that the SSPX does not intend the obvious implication that praying the rosary and loving Our Lady be limited to this period.)  Here is the booklet’s proposal:

Together, we want to undertake something special, to change this time of containment into a spiritual remedy.  Let us ensure that the health crisis that menaces our bodies develops into a triumph of faith, hope and charity that refines and vivifies our souls internalizing what is now still too superficial.  So we turn again to the Rosary!  For 16 weeks, we will give our love to Our Lady: from the Sunday of the Good Shepherd until August 15^th.[11]

Just like the conciliar church’s votive “mass”, the only N-SSPX COVID-19 prayer intentions during this rosary crusade are for relief from the sickness.  Here are the two N-SSPX pandemic intentions quoted in full:

1.    To implore the Blessed Virgin Mary for relief from the Coronavirus pandemic.

 

2.    To ask Our Lord to grant mercy to those souls afflicted by the virus, including protection for medical personnel and other first responders.[12]

Unlike Catholic Tradition, but exactly like the conciliar church, the liberal SSPX makes no mention of praying to appease God’s just wrath for our sins.

Conclusion

From the above, one can clearly see that if he follows the N-SSPX or any other part of the conciliar church, he will gradually lose his Faith, just as people lost the Faith when they stayed in their local conciliar parishes in the late 1960s and afterwards.

 

 

Right before the beginning of the holy time of Passiontide, we received Fr. Yves le Roux’s raffle ticket promotion for a new 2020 Jaguar XE luxury car, offered in a SSPX’s fundraiser.  He included a cover letter with his glossy Jaguar promotion. 

 

Fr. le Roux apparently can’t see the irony of trying to get SSPX followers to desire a rich man’s luxury car, while he also warns (in his cover letter) about the dangers of worldly and sensual objects undermining our souls and creating “insatiable needs” which harm our souls.  Here is a shortened version of Fr. le Roux’s words from his cover letter, followed by the words in his enclosed Jaguar promotion:

 

The constant search for his [viz., man’s] satisfactions, conscious or not, undermines man.  The inclination of his senses to enjoy their pleasing objects immediately exerts upon man a true tyranny.  …  Penance is a remedy.  It dries up the source of the insatiable needs that man himself has created and imposes a calming remedy that allows him to turn towards higher things and thus to leave the infernal decline into which he was sinking.  …  [Jaguar promotion:] Support us.  Win a 2020 Jaguar XE.[1] 

 

Despite some pious words, Fr. le Roux is blinded by the “true tyranny” of “pleasing objects” (to use his own words).  He cannot see that he is promoting this very same “tyranny” in his followers. 

 

As greatly as Fr. le Roux (and the SSPX) are harming the soul of the person who will actually win that rich man’s car, Fr. le Roux also does tremendous harm to all of his followers by promoting worldly desires in them.  (Fr. le Roux wants them all to strongly desire that luxury car so that they will buy many raffle tickets.)

 

Fr. le Roux’s example is the opposite of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who teaches us to:

 

Be not solicitous therefore, saying, what shall we eat: or what shall we drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed?  For after all these things do the heathens seek.  For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things.  Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.

 

St. Matthew’s Gospel, 6:31-33.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, approves of and quotes the teaching of the Venerable Bede, Doctor of the Church, who especially warns priests to avoid that worldly focus we see in the “new”, liberal SSPX.  Here are St. Bede’s words:

 

For such should be the preacher’s trust in God, that, though he takes no thought for supplying his own wants in this present world, yet he should feel most certain that these will not be left unsatisfied, lest whilst his mind is taken up with temporal things, he should provide less of eternal things to others.[2]

 

Likewise, St. Thomas Aquinas approves of and quotes the teaching of Pope St. Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church, who warns priests about the evil of being money-focused.  Here are his words:

 

For the preacher (of the Gospel) ought to have such trust in God, that although he has provided not for the expenses of this present life, he should still be most certainly convinced that these will not fail him; lest while his mind is engaged in his temporal things, he should be less careful for the spiritual things of others.[3]

 

By Fr. le Roux hawking Jaguar raffle tickets, he certainly focuses on temporal concerns, against the warnings given by Our Lord and the Doctors of the Church.

 

It might be that Fr. le Roux thinks he has “no choice” but to regularly ask for money because otherwise his followers would not give it.  But he should compare his money-focus to the instruction given to priests in St. Thomas Aquinas’s work on St. Luke’s Gospel:

 

However small in amount and vile is the food that you are given, ask for nothing more.”[4]

 

 

Conclusion                                                    

 

Truly, Fr. le Roux and the N-SSPX are the blind leading the blind.  As Our Lord warns us, they all fall into the pit. 

 

Above, blind Fr. le Roux incoherently warns about desiring the type of luxury goods that he wants his followers to desire.  As he tells us, these desires cause a man to sink further down the infernal path.

 

More than at any other time of year, Passiontide is a time for a higher focus than Fr. le Roux’s!

 

Let us continue to pity and pray for Fr. le Roux and his worldly SSPX!

 

On March 23, 2020, the “new”, liberal SSPX reported that Pope Francis has called for Catholics to jointly pray with non-Catholics.  Below, are the words of the N-SSPX’s report (typos in the original report), describing the pope’s ecumenical call to prayer:

 

A Call to United [sic] in Prayer

 

Pope Francis also took the occasion of his Angelus message to invite “the heads of the churches[1] and the leaders of all the Christian[2] communities, together with all Christians of the various confessions, to invoke the Almighty, the All Powerful God, by reciting contemporaneously the prayer that Our Lord Jesus has taught us.”  The Pope continued:

 

I therefore invite everyone to recite the Our Father at midday [noon Rome time] on March 25 next, on the day when many Christians recall the annunciation to the Virgin Mary of the Incarnation of the Word, so that the Lord may listen to the unanimous prayer of all his [sic] disciples that are preparing to celebrate the victory of the Risen Christ.[3]

 

In the N-SSPX’s report, the “new” SSPX encouraged its followers to join in the pope’s prayer with the heretical and schismatic groups.  Here are the N-SSPX’s words encouraging participation:

 

Pope Francis called on the world to unite in prayer to end the COVID-19 (“Coronavirus”) pandemic and stated he will offer an extraordinary blessing.

 

Those faithful who attend chapels administered by the United States District of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) are encouraged to unite themselves in prayer with the Pope.[4]

 

By encouraging its followers to join in this prayer with the false (anti-Catholic) religions, the N-SSPX is promoting the conciliar church’s false ecumenism.  As Vatican II says: “[I]t is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics join in prayer with their separated brethren.”  Unitatis Redintegratio, §8.

 

The N-SSPX’s ecumenism contradicts Catholic Tradition and is a mortal sin.  The Catholic Church “has constantly forbidden Her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion”.[5]

 

From very ancient times, the Church has forbidden joining with heretics to pray: “If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from communion”.[6]

 

Further, the Council of Laodicea decreed: “No one shall pray in common with heretics or schismatics”.  Council of Laodicea, Canon 33.

 

A reader might wrongly suppose that the only problem with joining the heretics or schismatics in prayer is that the wording of the prayers themselves might be heretical.  But the Catholic Church has always forbidden joining with heretics and schismatics in prayer even if the words of the prayer are good in themselves, such as the psalms.  Here are the words of Bishop Hay, teaching us about the Council of Carthage’s declaration which forbids Catholics to pray even the psalms with heretics:

 

[I]n one of Her [viz., the Catholic Church’s] most respected councils, held in the year 398, at which the great St. Augustine was present, She speaks thus:

None must either pray or sing psalms with heretics; and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergyman or laic [i.e., layman], let him be excommunicated ….[7]

 

The Catholic Church’s constant prohibition against praying with heretics and schismatics makes perfect sense because those outside the Church maintain the posture of being enemies of God.[8]  It would be complete stupidity (as well as a great scandal) to join with God’s enemies to attempt to be heard by Him.  For “God doth not hear sinners: but if a man be a server of God, and doth His will, him He heareth.”  St. John’s Gospel, 9:31.[9]

 

 

Conclusion

 

The “new” SSPX has joined the conciliar church.  Whereas Archbishop Lefebvre rightly condemned the ecumenical joint prayer initiatives of the conciliar church, (e.g., at Assisi), the N-SSPX encourages its followers to pray with the heretics and schismatics, along with Pope Francis.

 

In an article about a cathedral in Spain which had been a mosque until the year 1236 A.D., the “new” SSPX says that this cathedral has had “Catholic worship … exclusively and uninterruptedly” ever since the year 1236.  Here are the N-SSPX’s words:

 

This ancient church, built in 584 in honor of the martyr St. Vincent of Saragossa, had been transformed into a mosque during the Arab occupation, but was re-consecrated as a cathedral in 1236.  Since that date, Catholic worship has been exclusively and uninterruptedly celebrated in it.[1]

 

In this way, the N-SSPX indicates that the new mass is “Catholic worship”, since the new mass is said there – as shown in photographic evidence.[2]

 

Notice also that the N-SSPX refers to the Mass using the term “worship”.  Although the (Traditional) Mass is worship, the term “worship” is more general than the term “Mass” and is the term used by the conciliar church and by protestants to name what they do at church.  “Worship” is a more ecumenical term because it appears to include the “prayer services” of the protestants, which are certainly not the Mass.  The N-SSPX’s transition into the conciliar church becomes smoother by adopting the conciliar manner of speaking.

Catholic Candle note:  The article below echoes Our Lady of La Salette, referring to modernist Rome as the seat of the Antichrist.  However, a reader would be mistaken if he assumed that this somehow means that Pope Francis is not the pope.  He is the pope but is a bad pope.

Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist.  On the contrary, we published a series of articles showing that sedevacantism is false (and also showing that former Pope Benedict is not still the pope).  Read the articles here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html 

Here is what St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, teaches concerning the need to recognize and respect the authority of a superior – such as the pope – even when that superior is bad:

Even should the life of any superior be so notoriously wicked as to admit of no excuse or dissimulation, nevertheless, for God’s sake, Who is the source of all power, we are bound to honor such a one, not on account of his personal merits, which are non-existent, but because of the divine ordination and the dignity of his office.[1]

However, even while recognizing the pope’s authority and our duty to obey him when we are able, we know we must resist the evil he says and does.  Read more about this principle here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html#section-7

 

Why Is It Taking So Long for the Liberal SSPX To Make a Deal With Liberal Rome?

Out of necessity, the liberal SSPX had to adopt a policy of gradualism in order to retain its followers, keep them in the dark, and forestall their understanding what liberal compromises they will have to accept in order to get a deal.

Both Rome and the N-SSPX realize that the followers of the Society are not yet ready to approve 100% of Vatical II, the new mass, and parishes subject to the (so-called) “bishops” of the conciliar church.  If such a deal were made today, Rome and the N-SSPX fear mass defections.

Thus, the N-SSPX has adopted a policy of gradualism, moving slowly, ever so slowly, into greater liberalism.  They hide what they can get away with, as they have done since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre.

A policy of gradualism means that, little-by-little, N-SSPX followers are accepting things they have previously rejected.  Listed below are some of the points of the gradualism game plan, plus some trial balloons.

1.        The Society never preaches against VC II or Rome’s heresies.  They just mention them when necessary, but never severely criticize them or openly reject them.

2.        The N-SSPX joins in celebrations with the conciliar church, nationally or locally, to promote acceptance of, and union with, the conciliar church.  (A trial balloon)

3.        The Society is conditioning its followers to receive conciliar “bishops” or “priests” at N-SSPX parishes.  (A trial balloon)

4.        The Society will punish any priest who objects to the game plan of fully accepting the conciliar church eventually.

5.        N-SSPX leaders now show by their own example that it is okay to attend the new mass.  (A trial balloon)

6.        They are slowly liberalizing their followers, just as Rome liberalized nearly all Catholics after the Second Vatican Council.  Slowly, but inexorably, until the drastic and disastrous changes are completely accepted.

 

7.        The N-SSPX now says that the new mass is one of the ways we can obtain grace.

 

8.        From time-to-time, the N-SSPX puts out liberal trial balloons to test for acceptance or rejection of various proposals.  

 

9.        The Society openly accepts 95% of VC II.  (A trial balloon)  100% acceptance will come later.

 

10.     The N-SSPX publicly thanked Rome for a false “freeing” of the Mass (the July 2007 motu proprio) which could not, and did not, help uncompromising priests (because they could not use the motu proprio without accepting the new mass).

 

11.     The N-SSPX publicly thanked Rome for the false “lifting” of the supposed excommunications of the SSPX bishops, even though:

 

a.    the excommunications are/were unjust, void and never had true force of law;

 

b.    Rome in effect merely lifted the punishment but continues to claim the excommunications are justified; and

 

c.     The (supposed) excommunications continued against Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro Meyer.

 

12.     By accepting the following elements of ordinary jurisdiction from Rome, the N-SSPX creates a need for a deal with Rome and a supposed need to be under the control of the conciliar church.  (The SSPX has – and always has had – sacramental jurisdiction, because of the State of Emergency in the human element of the Church.)

 

a.    Accepting and thanking Rome for giving the N-SSPX ordinary jurisdiction for hearing confessions.  (A trial balloon)

b.    Accepting and thanking Rome for giving the N-SSPX ordinary jurisdiction for marriages.  BUT THEY MUST ASK THE LOCAL DIOCESE TO PERFORM THE MARRIAGES AND ACCEPT THE LOCAL CONCILIAR “PRIEST” IF HE AGREES TO COME TO PERFORM THE MARRIAGE.  (A trial balloon)
 

13.     To avoid being criticized for trying to obtain recognition from the anti-Catholic conciliar church, the N-SSPX states there is no conciliar church, only the Catholic Church.  (Contrary to what Archbishop Lefebvre and the OLD SSPX taught.)  

The reason Rome doesn’t want mass defections from the N-SSPX is to avoid a strong resistance against Rome’s heresies, similar to the old SSPX started by Archbishop Lefebvre.  Rome would have to start all over again to subvert it, as they have subverted the current liberal N-SSPX.

Conciliar church leaders in Rome insist that the N-SSPX must accept 100% of the new mass and the evils of VC II.  So, you can see it will take some time to put the followers of the Society sufficiently “to sleep” so that they will accept a Rome-sponsored deal.  It is more than likely Rome will win again, as it has with six other supposedly-traditional religious societies that made a devastating liberal deal with the seat of the Antichrist, Rome.[2]

Hang strong, pilgrims, in the real resistance!  God will triumph!

When a person wears a wedding ring, it tells people that he/she is married.  The absence of a wedding ring tells people that the person is not married. 

In the August-September 2019 Regina Coeli Report, the “new” SSPX’s theme was the family (the “domestic church”).  The cover photo is of a smiling family and neither parent has a wedding ring.[1] 

In this same photo, the family has two children – the maximum number approved by the world.

In this photo, the boy is dressed in pink – an approved color for boys and men in our corrupt, upside-down world.  Promoting pink for boys and men feminizes them, contributes to the destruction of the fathers’ leadership, and promotes to the very gender confusion so rampant today.

 

 

The saints are our models and we should follow the saints.  The “new” liberal SSPX now recognizes the conciliar popes as saints and so joins the conciliar church in giving them to us as models.

The N-SSPX tries to soften its new position by retreating into the pseudo-conservative position that those conciliar papal saints are inferior to some saints of the past and cannot do as much as those great saints in the past.  Here are the N-SSPX’s words, comparing St. Theresa of Avila to those post-conciliar, papal (false) saints:

[St. Theresa of Avila is ] a proof that one single canonized saint can do more that the myriad of saints currently being raised to the dignity of the altar after hasty and doubtful procedures.  The recent canonizations of John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II are a sorry illustration of this ….[1]

You can see the N-SSPX now officially recognizes these conciliar popes as saints.  Note too, the N-SSPX inconsistently admits the canonization procedures are hasty and doubtful.

Warning to N-SSPX followers: The N-SSPX is using gradualism against you and thereby is weakening you and conditioning you to be comfortable in the conciliar church.  Leave the N-SSPX while you still have the strength!

We are Traditional Catholics.  We follow traditional ideas and we follow leaders who think according to tradition.  New thinking can be bad – either in us and in our religious leaders.

Pope St. Pius X declared this truth in these words:

[T]he true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists.[1]

Archbishop Lefebvre declared this same truth in these words:

Our future is the past.[2]

Recently, the N-SSPX commented on Pope Francis’s false and politically-correct environmentalist manifesto, Laudato Si, praising his extreme ideas because they are original (i.e., new).  Here are the N-SSPX’s words:

[F]or Francis, integral ecology is what would be the culmination of all social sciences, allowing a global approach – holistic or integral – to human nature.  This thought, which has the merit of being original, remains in the pure natural domain.[3]

To praise an idea mainly because it is original is ridiculous.  In our modern world, original ideas are more often bad than good, (e.g., The world was created by a big bang.)  We should praise an idea only if it is true.

The N-SSPX will do or say practically anything to please Rome and to get a deal.