an open letter to confused catholics-questions

[Onegin]

Sorry, excubitor, I don’t have the time or energy to respond to all your points (got hit with the shingles, so sleep takes priority right now ) but I would just have to say that the point stands that many of the things going on in local diocesan parishes are far worse than any of the problems (debatable or not) within the SSPX.

The fact that a massive percentage of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence and only a tiny percentage today know or or are even taught the faith (through either apathy or negligence on the part of the local parish) is a very real issue that bickering about the SSPX isn’t going to change. Liberalism is so rampant in the Church that many poor, well-meaning Catholics who think they know the faith subscribe to many grievous errors (like believing that abortion is morally permissible under certain circumstances). It’s time for traditional Catholics to focus on this so that souls may be saved.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I laugh at your personal attack … signs that I hit a sensitive cord here.

I guess you didn’t read what I published at all then. The SSPX does a processions to Pétain tomb EVERY YEAR ! … It’s like people doing a pilgrimage to Hitler’s tomb (no such thing thank God).

No, I did not read your publications and I am not sure I can can say it any more plainly … I don’t care who visits Pétain, nor do I even care what in the dickins it is or what French relevance it has.

Funny how you didn’t seem to contradict the Antisemitism that seems to be well established in the SSPX.

You don’t know what antisemitism is, sorry.

As for my country… I am a French-Canadian (i.e Québécois) … your insults on France just show how limited your knowledge is.

I can understand that you feel a 3% Mass attendance is an insult. I would too. Canada is headed down the same path as France followed by the U.S. Your quote is irrelevant. I did not take issue with the number who say they are Catholic, but the number who attend weekly Mass.

 

[excubitor]

Sorry, excubitor, I don’t have the time or energy to respond to all your points (got hit with the shingles, so sleep takes priority right now ) but I would just have to say that the point stands that many of the things going on in local diocesan parishes are far worse than any of the problems (debatable or not) within the SSPX.

The fact that a massive percentage of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence and only a tiny percentage today know or or are even taught the faith (through either apathy or negligence on the part of the local parish) is a very real issue that bickering about the SSPX isn’t going to change. Liberalism is so rampant in the Church that many poor, well-meaning Catholics who think they know the faith subscribe to many grievous errors (like believing that abortion is morally permissible under certain circumstances). It’s time for traditional Catholics to focus on this so that souls may be saved.

I do not deny that there is a crisis of faith in the Church, however the SSPX road of disobedience to the Sovereign Pontiff is not the solution. The Pope and his Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has stated categorically that the SSPX have

• no canonical status in the Church
• an illegitimate ministry
• a schismatic mentality
• illicit and invalid confessions
• illicit consecrations of the Eucharist

So not only have the SSPX falsified and basically lied about what Vatican 2 teaches, they have gone further to the point of illicitly consecrating bishops and priests, And to add insult to injury they tell their people that their confessions are valid and can forgive mortal sin when the Sovereign Pontiff has said most plainly that they are NOT valid and NOT licit.
This grave and serious disobedience is not the solution to modernism, in fact it play’s right into the hands of the modernists who have as one of their sole aims, to strip the church of everything that is traditionally Catholic.
We need the traditionalists back in their local parishes working directly against modernism, not setting up a rival church down the road in defiance of the Pope and the ordinary magisterium.

 

[excubitor]

WOW Pat, you really have to study up on the issues before you start reviewing what the SSPX believes. Just to clarify your inaccuracies:

The SSPX believes that V2 was a valid council. If not, they would not be discussing it in Rome as we speak (please carefully read Post #15).

The SSPX speak with forked tongues. They say on the one hand that it is a valid council and then in the next breath say that the text of Vatican 2 is utterly corrupted
sspx.org/catholic_faqs/post-conciliar_church_a_new_religion.htm
"under the sweet appearance of kindness and dialogue, the stench of naturalism, of the corruption of the Faith.

Yeah now that’s a really great way of saying its a valid council. A really great way to go into talks at the Vatican.

Then this pearler
“there are eight philosophical principles masquerading as religion make of Vatican II the introduction of a new religion”

It then goes through the 8 big beefs against Vatican 2 and then comes up with the following conclusion.
“It consequently cannot be denied that Vatican II attempts to constitute a new religion in **radical rupture with all of Catholic Tradition **and teaching, **a new religion **whose principal purpose is to exalt the natural dignity of the human person”

Now how can a valid Council do such dreadful things?

All the Popes after Pius VI? You must be joking or have no clue on the lineage or spelling of the Popes of the Catholic Church… The SSPX believes that all Popes since V2 are valid Popes.

Its hard to know what’s worse. To deny that the Pope is the Pope, or to admit that the Pope is the Pope and then disobey him as if he was a lesser mortal. SSPX go on and on about ABL and how one day he is going to be sainted. They frame every trouble in terms of WWABLD “What would Archbishop L. Do?” They obey this kind of phantom of the departed soul of ABL whilst at the same time they disobey the Sovereign Roman Pontiff. What a shocking disgrace. Any wonder people follow after the sedevacantists. At least their argument is consistent, they have an excuse to not obey the Pope because they do not believe that he is the Pope.

The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo validly confects the Blessed Sacrament when the priest adheres to the form, matter and intent.

Nevertheless you believe that the NO mass which should be called the Ordinary Form is injurious to the faith and they shun their members who attend a NO mass.

Here are some statements the SSPX have made about the OF mass in answer to the question WHY SHOULD CATHOLICS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE ?

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6902647

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).

So again double tongued. On the one hand they say it is a valid mass, but then they say that it is not able to fulfill a Catholics Sunday obligation. Furthermore they say that their members have no right to assist in it and if they do then they are guilty.

Utterly shocking. Do the SSPX really think that going into the Vatican with this teaching as their platform is going to win them brownie points with the Pope. I hardly think so. The Pope will pat them kindly on the head and say words to the effect of. “Now, now boys. Don’t you think you need to update your web site?”

 

[GrandeChartreus]

No, I did not read your publications and I am not sure I can can say it any more plainly … I don’t care who visits Pétain, nor do I even care what in the dickins it is or what French relevance it has.

You don’t know what antisemitism is, sorry.

I can understand that you feel a 3% Mass attendance is an insult. I would too. Canada is headed down the same path as France followed by the U.S. Your quote is irrelevant. I did not take issue with the number who say they are Catholic, but the number who attend weekly Mass.

Well I guess I should have expected another emotional and unfounded response coming from you.

I will let this go now since you’re unable (or unwilling) to even consider a founded contradictory argument.

I pray you will find reason in the future to consider what people read and restrain yourself from personal attacks.

I am sad to see such thing on a catholic forum. Makes me wonder why I bother spending time here.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
The difference between the FSSP and SSPX is that one is in full communion wiht the Holy See and the other is not. As such one can be more confident of the theological formation of the FSSP Priests.

Nothing at all here for us to disagree on. I was not speaking about the formation of all priests but of the FSSP priests that the poster was asking about specifically. In their formatation you and I appear to agree that it is highly orthodox.
Now - While the SSPX priests formation may be largely orthodox, it seems to me that it cannot be said to be entirely so until the SSPX is brought into full communion with Rome.

Peace
James

 

[giuseppeTO]

On the one hand they say it is a valid mass, but then they say that it is not able to fulfill a Catholics Sunday obligation. Furthermore they say that their members have no right to assist in it and if they do then they are guilty.

The only statement I corrected in the OP was that the SSPX considers the N.O. to be invalid.
That statement is false.

Your statement is also false about ‘they’ telling the faithful that they have “no right” to assist at the N.O. Most who assist at SSPX Masses (and I am one of them) believe that the N.O. has a Protestantizing spirit and therefore, we avoid it. It may be shocking for you to learn that most who assist at Masses offered by the FSSP and ICK have the same opinion although you are not likely to see it on their websites.

Utterly shocking. Do the SSPX really think that going into the Vatican with this teaching as their platform is going to win them brownie points with the Pope. I hardly think so. The Pope will pat them kindly on the head and say words to the effect of. “Now, now boys. Don’t you think you need to update your web site?”

Perhaps. I am patient enough to wait and hopeful enough to pray for a result favorable to the SSPX and the church at large. See post #15.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I pray you will find reason in the future to consider what people read and restrain yourself from personal attacks.

I honestly do appreciate your prayers and am disappointed that you considered any of what we have discussed a personal attack against you.

 

[Ockham]

This puts the wrong slant on it. The SSPX was always in full communion with the church until the Archbishop who wrote the open letter to confused catholics defied the Pope and ordained the bishops illicitly. The FSSP was formed by those priests and faithful who wanted to remain in communion with the Pope.

I’m curious as to this piece of the story. Why did the Vatican not approve the Archbishop’s request to ordain four bishops?

 

[Onegin]

I do not deny that there is a crisis of faith in the Church, however the SSPX road of disobedience to the Sovereign Pontiff is not the solution. The Pope and his Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has stated categorically that the SSPX have

• no canonical status in the Church
• an illegitimate ministry
• a schismatic mentality
• illicit and invalid confessions
• illicit consecrations of the Eucharist

So not only have the SSPX falsified and basically lied about what Vatican 2 teaches, they have gone further to the point of illicitly consecrating bishops and priests, And to add insult to injury they tell their people that their confessions are valid and can forgive mortal sin when the Sovereign Pontiff has said most plainly that they are NOT valid and NOT licit.
This grave and serious disobedience is not the solution to modernism, in fact it play’s right into the hands of the modernists who have as one of their sole aims, to strip the church of everything that is traditionally Catholic.
We need the traditionalists back in their local parishes working directly against modernism, not setting up a rival church down the road in defiance of the Pope and the ordinary magisterium.

I agree that there is a crisis in the Church but disagree that the actions of the SSPX (specifically Marcel Lefebvre) were an unwarranted response to it. I’m sure you already know my arguments on this issue from previous topics, so it seems useless to re-hash them again here.

Cheers.

 

[floresco]

As for my country… I am a French-Canadian (i.e Québécois) … your insults on France just show how limited your knowledge is. Proof below.

Sorry no translation but I am sure people can read numbers

I can read French and you haven’t proven anything. You quoted a study that said that 19% of the French Catholics surveyed report attending a religious service at least once a month. This does not disprove the claim that 3% attend Mass every week.

 

[PJM]

=giuseppeTO;6902647]WOW Pat, you really have to study up on the issues before you start reviewing what the SSPX believes. Just to clarify your inaccuracies:

The SSPX believes that V2 was a valid council. If not, they would not be discussing it in Rome as we speak (please carefully read Post #15).

All the Popes after Pius VI? You must be joking or have no clue on the lineage or spelling of the Popes of the Catholic Church… The SSPX believes that all Popes since V2 are valid Popes.

The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo validly confects the Blessed Sacrament when the priest adheres to the form, matter and intent.

OK

QUOTED from post #15

"It is this: Did the Second Vatican Council teach new doctrines not in keeping with prior Church teaching, and so lead the Church into error (as the Society of St. Pius X, and other traditional Catholics, have often argued)?

Or did the Council develop doctrines based on what the Church has always taught, and so open up new, legitimate aspects of old doctrines?

To put it another way: Did a “new Church” come into being after Vatican II, a Church which broke with the “old Church” of the pre-conciliar period?"

I didn’t miss the point… but still hold to what I shared. Great care is still needed in dealing with them. And Yes I do accept many of there beliefs; but defer to the Pope and Magistrium. It’s not my opinions that count.

THANKS for the correction!
God Bless,
Pat

And I’m a fan of the author you quoted. I also keep pretty current on the Vatican through CNA and "Inside the Vatican."

 

[excubitor]

Your statement is also false about ‘they’ telling the faithful that they have “no right” to assist at the N.O.

It is you that are making a false statement. I even quoted from the SSPX web site although I gave an incorrect link.

Here is the link, read it for yourself sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q5_novusordo.htm

Here is the offending passage.

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does **not have the right **to participate

I suggest you better acquaint yourself about what your church officially teaches. I have many times alerted SSPX-ers that your leaders in your chapels are not making it clear to you what their official position is. Many priests at the SSPX craft their messages to suit their audience. But when the Msgr Fellay goes into the Pope to broker a peace deal that is the message that he is pandering. That the NO mass is:
not truly Catholic,
not adequate to fulfil the Catholics Sunday obligation
a pervasive and serious innovation
the liturgy of a new religion
not to be attended by Catholics who know of its harmful effects

And therefore Catholics have NO RIGHT to attend it.

Oh yes but we still think its a valid mass. Big deal. That’s damning with faint praise.
So what if you think its valid after you have said all these other awful things about the mass of the Church.

And I have only scratched the surface of the litany of accusation levelled against the New Mass which is found in the article that I linked which was even entitled

WHY SHOULD CATHOLICS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE ?

Here’s the link sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q5_novusordo.htm

And stop with this “The SSPX believe tne Novus Ordo Missae is a valid mass” nonsense. Do you think I’m stupid?
That is just standard smokescreen that SSPX puff up to make themselves appear kosher to the wider Catholic world.

 

[Ockham]

ItAnd stop with this “The SSPX believe tne Novus Ordo Missae is a valid mass” nonsense. Do you think I’m stupid?
That is just standard smokescreen that SSPX puff up to make themselves appear kosher to the wider Catholic world.

Sorry to break this to you but the Pope has brought the SSPX back into the Church.

Why don’t you spend your time and energy on people like Cardinal Mahony or Father Pfleger?

All the SSPX under Archbishop Lefebrve did was make four priests bishops without Vatican approval after years of application. There are far worse heresies going on right now. How about priests and bishops who give Holy Communion to openly pro-abortionists?

 

[roadsend]

I do not deny that there is a crisis of faith …
We need the traditionalists back in their local parishes working directly against modernism, not setting up a rival church down the road in defiance of the Pope and the ordinary magisterium.

In many, if not most of the parishes in which I have lived, traditionalists are marginalized to the point that they are totally ineffective in influencing the largely non-existent fight against modernism. Some have stopped going to their local churches and drive the several hour round trip to Portland for the TLM or for a Novus Ordo Mass conducted with reverence and dignity.
These lay traditionalists have largely been eliminated from positions of influence in their parishes.
In the '70s local priests who were most outspoken in their support of Tradition were similarly marginalized and assigned out of the parishes as hospital chaplains or other places of little influence.

 

[excubitor]

In many, if not most of the parishes in which I have lived, traditionalists are marginalized to the point that they are totally ineffective in influencing the largely non-existent fight against modernism. Some have stopped going to their local churches and drive the several hour round trip to Portland for the TLM or for a Novus Ordo Mass conducted with reverence and dignity.
These lay traditionalists have largely been eliminated from positions of influence in their parishes.
In the '70s local priests who were most outspoken in their support of Tradition were similarly marginalized and assigned out of the parishes as hospital chaplains or other places of little influence.

I agree that true Catholics who love tradition have been marginalised and eliminated from positions of influence from their parishes. Why was this done? Because the modernists wanted to get rid of them. And these wimpish traditionalists let them have their way. Instead of standing up and fighting by staying at their posts and complaining to the bishops about what is going on, THEY LEFT. They did exactly what the modernists wanted them to do. Cowards. THEY LEFT and abandoned the flock and sacred halls of the church to the modernists. In fact they obeyed the unspoken commands of the modernists to leave, and DISOBEYED the command of God to endure until the end, to occupy until the Lord comes.

 

[excubitor]

Sorry to break this to you but the Pope has brought the SSPX back into the Church.

He has done no such thing and you know it. All the SSPX priests are all suspended latae sententiae. They have no canonical status in the church. Their confessions are invalid and illicit. Their marriages are invalid and illicit. Their confirmations are invalid and illicit. Their Holy Orders are illicit. Their masses are illicit. According to Ecclesia Dei, they have a schismatic mentality.

Sorry to break it to you.

Why don’t you spend your time and energy on people like Cardinal Mahony or Father Pfleger?

We are discussing Archbishop L’s letter not Cardinal mahony or Father Pfleger.

All the SSPX under Archbishop Lefebrve did was make four priests bishops without Vatican approval after years of application. There are far worse heresies going on right now. How about priests and bishops who give Holy Communion to openly pro-abortionists?

How about priests who give Holy Communion to people who have not been absolved of their immortal sins because they confessed to a suspended priest who lacked jurisdiction to forgive sins.
Don’t believe me? Perhaps Jimmy Akin is more credible jimmyakin.org/2005/02/sspx_confession.html
Or else the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei.

“Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144)

Are you genuinely ignorant. I doubt it. In fact you probably get sermons ranting on about supplied jurisdiction. The irony is that any person who hears a sermons about supplied jurisdiction is immediately made aware that his SSPX confession lacks ordinary jurisdiction in which case he is no longer genuinely ignorant, in which case supplied jurisdiction no longer applies.

What happened with the illicit consecrations was far worse than you make out.
Consecration of bishops without papal approval had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis, who described the sacramental activity of bishops who had been consecrated without such approval as “gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious”.

At that time the Pope was responding to illegal consecrations in China which used the same tired old excuse for disobedience.

1. What then is to be the opinion concerning the excuse added by members of the association promoting false patriotism, that they had to act as they alleged because of the need to tend to the souls in those dioceses which were then without a bishop?

1. It is obvious that no thought is being taken of the spiritual good of the faithful if the Church’s laws are being violated,

1. It is surely a matter for grief that while holy bishops noted for their zeal for souls are enduring so many trials, advantage is taken of their difficulties to establish false shepherds in their place so that the hierarchical order of the Church is overthrown and the authority of the Roman Pontiff is treacherously resisted.

1. And some have even become so arrogant that they blame the Apostolic See for these terrible and tragic events

1. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.[18]

1. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred

But I hear the critics say. These words were in response to a dictatorship which by force infiltrated the church and undermined the church hierarchy. But how is our current situation any different? The enemy crept in just the same infiltrating the church and undermining the hierarchy. We fight not against flesh and blood, we fight against spiritual powers of wickedness.

Unlawful episcopal consecration is THE WORST CRIME against the unity of the church that can possibly be imagined. It is the ultimate desire and goal of the spiritual powers of darkness to manipulate events to this very end in order to divide and conquer the body of Christ. How can men who claim to be traditional Catholics stoop to such an appalling sacrilegious crime which is against everything that the Popes of old believed in, and the Popes of this age as well. It strikes at the heart of traditional Catholicism to illegally consecrate bishops. The SSPX have pierced their consciences and everything they believe in to illicitly consecrate bishops. They have an appearance of traditional Catholicism which is proved to be mere trappings, because they are belied by their gross misdeeds which is illegal consecrations and continual disobedience and defiance of several Popes.

 

[roadsend]

I agree that true Catholics who love tradition have been marginalised and eliminated from positions of influence from their parishes. Why was this done? Because the modernists wanted to get rid of them. And these wimpish traditionalists let them have their way. Instead of standing up and fighting by staying at their posts and complaining to the bishops about what is going on, THEY LEFT. They did exactly what the modernists wanted them to do. Cowards. THEY LEFT and abandoned the flock and sacred halls of the church to the modernists. In fact they obeyed the unspoken commands of the modernists to leave, and DISOBEYED the command of God to endure until the end, to occupy until the Lord comes.

Complaining to a bishop, who, himself is a modernist and is pulling the strings in the parishes is like shoveling sand against the tide.
At times one must look to his own obligation to worship God in a manner consistent with our Catholic Tradition. If this can best be accomplished by shaking the dust from his boots and leaving his territorial parish, it is what it is.
I have been putting up with Modernist drivel here at Sunday Mass for darn near forty years and as soon as it is workable, I am out of here.

 

[Onegin]

Unlawful episcopal consecration is THE WORST CRIME against the unity of the church that can possibly be imagined.

Not heresy? Really? I’d say heresy is the ultimate desire of Satan to divide and conquer the body of Christ.

The SSPX have pierced their consciences and everything they believe in to illicitly consecrate bishops. They have an appearance of traditional Catholicism which is proved to be mere trappings, because they are belied by their gross misdeeds which is illegal consecrations and continual disobedience and defiance of several Popes.

Strong words and yet Rome has said that the Catholic who assists (even regularly!) at the SSPX Mass fulfils the Sunday obligation. In fact, such a Catholic CANNOT be considered schismatic for such an affiliation.

After all, if - as you claim - the SSPX is nothing more a group of renegade Priests mired in the false trappings of traditionalism founded by a sacrilege-committing excommunicate whose gross misdeeds brought the greatest scandal imaginable upon the Catholic Church then why on earth would Rome even consider the possibility that a Catholic should ever, in good conscience, attend an SSPX Mass? To do so would be no less than to put one’s soul in spiritual peril! Or worse!

But here again, Rome has come down firmly against those who have tried to label the faithful who assist at the SSPX as schismatic, excommunicated or not fulfilling their Sunday obligation. Why do this for a group that, as you appear to argue, is so completely devoid of any potential for spiritual benefit to the traditional Catholic?

 

[excubitor]

Complaining to a bishop, who, himself is a modernist and is pulling the strings in the parishes is like shoveling sand against the tide.
At times one must look to his own obligation to worship God in a manner consistent with our Catholic Tradition. If this can best be accomplished by shaking the dust from his boots and leaving his territorial parish, it is what it is.

That’s right. Shoveling sand against the tide. How true. But if you are standing on the rock you will prevail. But you have seen the power of the tide and the inundation of the sand and you have gone to water and have not prevailed. You have stepped back OFF THE ROCK and are building on another foundation other than that which was laid if you leave the church and go to some other group that is not in communion with the church and obedient to the shepherd of the Pope, the Sovereign Roman Pontiff. Don’t think any Catholic will win any accolades from God for being a turncoat and clearing off when the going gets hard.

1 Corinthians 16:13 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.

Come on traditionalists. Be men, not frightened little puttie cats. Stand up to these modernists and resist them in your parishes. “We resist you to your face”. What a joke. No. You guys run off with your tails between your legs and hurl abuse from the next hill.

I have been putting up with Modernist drivel here at Sunday Mass for darn near forty years and as soon as it is workable, I am out of here.

Put up with another forty years if you have to. The tide is turning and people are turning back to the traditional ways. Are you going to be on the vanguard of that movement in your parish or are you going to slink back one day after others have done the hard work.

Stay in your church parish and stand up to these modernists.
Ephesians 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Do you really think that modernism will prevail? Of course not. The gates of hell cannot prevail, so neither can sand or tides of modernism. The Arian heresy failed to prevail. Yet those few who stood for traditional belief in the divinity of Christ, did they take off and start another church? No they stood fast, stayed in the church and resisted their Arian bishops. If they had not done so then the church would have failed. Yet for their sake it did not fail as it was promised it would not fail.

One of the main reason why the church is almost entirely modernist in America and Australia and much of Europe is because ONE MILLION traditionalists are separated from the church and are in their own little bunkers at the TLM chapels.

What did our Lord tell us
Matthew 12:25 Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

Our church is divided against itself, yet there is only one church and all those who oppose her are against her.

And then he said
Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Don’t you get it SSPX? You are scattered abroad. You are not with the church you are working against the church in her hour of need. You are playing haplessly into the hands of the modernists. They persecuted you and hated you and strove to drive you out, and they won. You LOST. YOU LEFT. The modernists won and took over your parish and ran you out. But whereas you were faithless, fearful and cowardly, nevertheless our Lord is faithful, and a remnant are faithful to both the church and tradition. And for the sake of the remnant the church will prevail even until the last day.

Stay with your parish and fight. Sometimes your fight might be limited to receiving on the tongue or saying the rosary at mass or sometimes even that might not be possible. Sometimes all you can do is grieve at the sacrileges and indifferences. But in that mourning and in grief you do the work of God.
Matthew 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Do you think that leaving and banding together with people of like mind solves the problem? No. That is just avoiding the issue.

So what should we do. Look at the example of Nehemiah
The remnant are in great affliction and reproach: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire. 4 And it came to pass, when I heard these words, that I sat down and wept, and mourned certain days, and fasted, and prayed before the God of heaven,

Weep, Mourn, Fast, Pray.
So do likewise.

Then what did Nehemiah do. Rolled up his sleeves and started rebuilding the walls and gates of Jerusalem. Did he take off and build a gleaming city on a different foundation on another hill that looks just like the old Jerusalem from where he hurls derision and scorn at the dereliction of the city? No. He took his sword in one hand and a spade in the other, drove out the heathen and the wild beasts and rebuilt the wall. He was a MAN OF GOD. Not a frightened little wimp.

There is only one church. Rebuild it, defend it with the power of God. Don’t try to recreate a gleaming copy of what you think the church was like before Vatican 2. You will fail because it is not built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets but is laid on the foundation of Lefebvre Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson, de Galarreta and Fellay.