I support and attend the F.S.S.P.X.

Let's go get em.

Sometimes you get a temptation to join the orthodox churches--but they don't believe in the rosary. Everything in Rome is a complex, diabolical mess...Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us...

Richard, its not about conservatism, It is the lie V.S. the truth. a conservative who has sworn allegiance to a lie is still walking in darkness just like a liberal. Eventually both shall come to the same end.

Pope Benedict XVI's attempt, in his letter "Summorum Pontificum", seems to modify or subtly obliterate the "Quo Primum" decree of the dogmatic Council of Trent (1563)---that there is only ONE Latin Rite Mass, not two or more---Ordinary and Extraordinary, and whatever Modernist rite may still be hidden in the revolutionary "Novus Ordo" pipeline.
A primary mission of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) was to codify the ONE Latin Rite Mass, and thus to eliminate the hodge-podge of local rites, which was the cause of continual doctrinal confusion. The Council Trent also addressed the Byzantine Rites.
Also please note, the strategic Freemasonic anti-Christian objective is to infiltrate the Catholic Church, as a basic method of doctrinal sabotage from within---the classic case of the Trojan Horse. God gave us eyes to see, a nose to smell, and brains to know, the on-going betrayal of immemorial doctrine by modernist Rome. Francis, where are you?
Like the old U.S. Marine drill sergeant who yelled at poor me in 1940---"Do something!Don't just stand there---just do something!---which is what? Let me think about this? Oh yeah, we did win the war, and I was there; but thankfully I don't recall all the details. But I do recall the sergeant. He greatly deserved the Medal of Freedom. "Live by the sword, and die by the sword"? And as Lt.. General Puller once yelled at me, "Where were you, you're late". Look, I can explain everything---may be late, but better late than never? And that's my alibi.

Don't worry. A Motu cannot abrogate an Apostolic Constitution of a true Catholic Council delivered solemnly in the form of a Papal Bull. His little motu does not abrogate Quo Primum. Francis or the next pope could make his little Motu vanish like the swatting of a fly. The fantasy of two rites is just an invention in his fevered modernist mind.

Dear Mr. Dahl,

Thank you for your service on the battlefield and now for Christ the King.

I've learned a lot from your columns, letters and posts over the years. My only regret is that I've never met you in person.

May God grant you the graces necessary to live up to the Marines' motto - Semper Fi.

In Christ the King,

Margaret

We (meaning the USA) did win the war? I seem to remember the British with Commomwealth and European had something to do with as well.

Britain did not win the war in any sense. Britain SURVIVED the war with our help.

The Soviet Union won the War, 22 million dead, (historical fact) , they took out 80% of the German army. The US and the British barely suffered a bruise by comparison. Much as they were an ungodly,evil movement this cannot be denied. Not rebuking your inaccuracy just pointing out the self aggrandizing myths the West believes of itself. Pride is never helpful. Might suit us all better to remember this while Russia needs our prayers at this time. The ancient traditional Catholic rites and other Christians of Syria will back me up on this. God Bless

Indeed Hitler was stopped at the gates of Stalingrad in 1942 when the German Wehrmacht lost over a half million men in one battle. The rest of the war was a slow slog of a bloody retreat to the fatherland. The Americans and their Brit buddies love to prance around Normandy and tell the world that they stopped Hitler.

Of course you conveniently forget that the miniscule RAF repelled the 400% more powerful Luftwaffe by sheer force of will [and superior aerial warfare] AND that the true turning point of WW2 was the Battle of El Alamein! Shame on you for refusing to give credit where it's due.
True, the Russians delivered the coup de grace, and thank God they did, but remember that the Americans were latecomers in both WW1 and WW2 until which time Churchill led the beleaguered Brits heroically.

Isn’t that cute! Let’s just forget about 1988, shall we? So, so much for opposing the Vatican until the Vatican comes back to the true faith. Archbishop Lefebvre is gone and forgotten, baby!

Rory, The camel's nose is under the tent. You know the rest of the story. The new SSPX like Judas took the thirty pieces of silver, then tried to return it, Judas failed and went to hell. So then it will be for them,

Yep, nothing's changed...nothing at all. It's all good. Just keep telling yourself that. :-)

I’m glad it’s good for you at your chapel within riding distance. But I’ve lived all over the US, always attended SSPX chapels, and I’ve taught at their schools. I’ve experienced the "new & improved" society from the inside. I’m glad you have confidence they're not going to change, but let’s both just pray that they never betray your trust.

Remnant's pope hopeful Cardinal Burke says they are in schism .

Not gonna lie: you’ve really stumped us with this.

Francis is dissolving the Catholic Church and all its Traditions. He is an Anti-Pope and a Heretic. He must be disposed and quickly. He is not a CATHOLIC!!.. Cardinal Burke HURRY!!

As quote above;"Pope Francis definitively dissolved the Fraternity for being hated by the anti-Catholic Cardinal of Brussels, Jozef De Kesel.; Unquote.
If Francis sides with anti-Catholics then can someone kindly tell us just what that makes him!?!?!

Let me think..............Ah I've got it!..................it makes him a heretical anti-pope unworthy to lead a mob of savages, let alone Catholics.
And before anyone says anything I am calling him a heretic because that's what I hear and see from him; I am NOT declaring him a heretic because I have no right to do so! THAT would be the job of the Hierarchy of the Church - if only we had one!

Ah, anti-Catholic?

There's an interesting pattern at work in this campaign against religious orders and societies: They all seem to orbit in what we might call the conservative, Novus Ordo, spectrum of the Church. Liberalized orders, as you say, remain untouched; but also unscathed (so far) are the Ecclesia Dei orders, too. Consider:

* Fraternity of the Holy Apostles (Belgium) - ROTR Novus Ordo Masses, known for wearing cassocks
* Immaculate Word (Argentina) - missionary (N.O.) priests and religious brothers of either apostolic or contemplative life, conservative in morals, mainstream in liturgy
* Dioceses of Ciudad del Este, Albenga-Imperia, and Kansas City - diocesan bishops known for more traditional formation with many vocations, all removed on various pretenses
* Franciscans of the Immaculate - Franciscan orders, men and women's, which had begun as conservative, Wojtylian communities under Congregation for Religious, but which had shown growing signs of attachment to traditional ("crypto-Lefebvrian") liturgy, practices
* Heralds of the Gospel - Eclectic, traditional leaning (O.F.) South American Association of Pontifical Right with explosive growth

To this, we could add the repeated slapdowns of Cardinal Sarah in his various calls for more traditional practices in the Ordinary Form, and the new instruction on translations for the O.F., giving more discretion to local conferences in preparing translations.

In some cases, scrutiny seems warranted to some degree - the Immaculate Word in particular stands out - and one thinks of the ominous precedent of the Legion of Christ, which so famously adopted traditional practices and airs and enjoyed explosive growth as a result but in fact proved to be dangerously cult-like, made toxic by a depraved founder. That said, none of these newer orders seems to be in the Legion's realm, so far. The bishops of the three dioceses in question seem to have been a little sloppy in vocations screening, or in following proper procedures in handling abuse allegations (though if Robert Finn deserved removal for his offenses in the Ratigan case, one shudders to think what punishment Roger Mahoney, Godfried Daneels, and Rembert Weakland merit), and modest failures provided the excuse for pontifical obliteration. In other cases (the FFI and FHA), concerns seem meritless, and are pretty obviously motivated by theological animus.

And yet, the Ecclesia Dei orders remain untouched so far. In fact, if anything, they've done pretty well over the last five years. Bishops not known for love of tradition (why, just last week, Chaput) have been inviting them in to erect apostolates; there's even an indult now for the pre-1955 Holy Week, something unthinkable under Benedict or John Paul II. And as we all know, this papal benignity has even trickled down to the Society. Why is this? God knows there's no love for these groups in SpadaroLand.

Many peeps here assume the biggest trap is waiting to be sprung on them (and the SSPX). And at some point, that may indeed happen. But I think what is happening is a combination of two things: 1) Ecclesia Dei orders are not only canonically protected in their practice of tradition in a way other orders and communities (like the poor FFI) are not, they also tend to be much more vigilant in keeping their noses clean, not least because they know they can't give the hierarchy any excuse to squash them; 2) groups and societies and prelates that function in the Novus Ordo are perceived as more of an immediate threat, because they can more easily affect how Catholics worship, live, and believe in a rite that governs 98%+ of Latin Rite Catholics. Trads, on the other hand, can be more readily tolerated (and sealed up) in their ghettos (the Diocese of Rockford over the past two years is a perfect case in point). It also does not hurt that the Ecclesia Dei groups have generally kept their heads down publicly in current controversies, as some who follow the Society like to remind us from time to time; but I think it's also true that they know well that traditionalists would fight back like wildcats in a way these conservative groups have not. That's a fight they may not be eager to take on just yet.

None of this is meant to suggest that vigilance by traditionalists is not warranted. It is! But it's quite interesting to see what the pattern of oppressive acts seems to say about what this pontificate views as most threatening to it - and most easily crushed - right now.

Interesting analysis. Thank you. But, then again, there are some longtime Vatican watchers who believe all of this is about the big prize—first gaining control of and then suppressing the single largest organization of priestly opposition to the revolution of Vatican II in the world: Archbishop Lefebvre's Society of St. Pius X. He changed history. He is now and always was the arch nemesis of the Modernist Vatican. The seduction or expulsion (the Vatican didn't care which) of his SSPX is what Summorum Pontificum was all about, they argue; this is what the Indult was all about, this is what Ecclesia Dei was all about. If these turn out to have been more than mere wild conspiracy theories, then it stands to reason that any Vatican strong-arming the FSSP would be the kiss of death to their main agenda: Controlling the opposition. After all, the main argument in favor of a Vatican/SSPX rapprochement is this: "Look at the FSSP! They're doing fine. They're growing, many vocations, parishes springing up all over the place. Why not the SSPX?" If this theory turns out to be based in reality, then traditional Catholics should prepare to say au revoir to the FSSP just as soon as the Vatican says bienvenue to the SSPX. Everybody loses...except the Vatican.

While I have no wish to argue with those who believe that the FSSP is doing more good right now by keeping a somewhat low profile than it would be by picking an open fight with Pope Francis, I daresay that FSSP management would be ill-advised if they were not considering what their options might be if or when Pope Francis either does close them down or does demand their adherence to Amoris Laetitia or something of that sort.
Actually, let's not beat around the bush. No priestly organization can survive in the long run without bishops to ordain its priests. Unless some bishops of the "establishment church" prove willing to go outside their wonted lanes to do the ordinations, it seems that, for all the Ecclesia Dei folks, it may eventually become a matter of "aut SSPX aut nihil."

It is sad that so many of you are not aware that the SSPX is doing the same thing now. They are partnering with Novus bishops, they are looking to regularize, they are not criticizing Francis, they are working with the establishment to get ‘legit’ sacraments. I wish it were otherwise, but it is not.

And I now have proof on a personal level that the SSPX is doing this. A family member recently got married and the SSPX priest needed the local Bishops permission to get married in his dioceses even though the marriage took place at the SSPX chapel in the local Bishop's dioceses. In my opinion this is no different than the FSSP's arrangement with the exception that the FSSP doesn't have to ask the local bishop each time a marriage is performed and that is because they already have a "canonical status" and by all evidence the SSPX has a "practical agreement" or "canonical status" made already but not "formally" made known to the public. Yet by all signs this Crisis is not over. The modernists in control in Rome have become more heretical by the hour and those who could depose the Heretic occupying the Chair of Peter don't have a strong enough spine to do so. The SSPX leadership is kidding themselves if they think all is well and the crisis is diminishing and the FSSP is thriving. ABL made it clear by his 1988 consecrations "operation SURVIVAL" not "operation thrive" to return to Rome only when the modernist authorities in Rome have returned to Tradition and Restored the True Faith. Any agreements or compromise with Roman authoritative modernists from ABL's position is nothing but disastrous and is about as useless as teats on a bore and will prove to be so when Pope Francis finally has them completely in his sights to pull the trigger on all his prey's (the compromisers.)
All Traditionalists need to wake up and join forces and realize that disobedience to the HUMAN ELEMENT of the Vatican II Popes is the only option and in the case of Pope Francis this involves his entire mortal being. ABL clearly saw this in the late 1960's and the Crisis has truly only escaladed since.

Do you really think a Vatican/SSPX rapprochement is still on the table? I doubt it, despite the ongoing malice of the "Resistance," who never seems to tire of warning about an impending Bishop Fellay sell-out.

Perhaps you will allow me to put this bluntly: I think the SSPX, in the USA District at least, may well destroy itself before Francis ever gets around to it. They have developed a completely xenophobic, in-bred, widespread schismatic mentality among both clergy and faithful, a mentality that exhibits almost as much contempt for Rome as does the Resistance (hence the "jump" from the SSPX to the Resistance is really just a hop and a skip). There are also numerous scandals - financial, moral and doctrinal - being swept under the rug.

I've been assured that the much smaller UK District does not suffer from these maladies. I hope not.

Wow, are you ever behind the times. When did you write this, 1989? The Society of Saint Pius X is now percuring the permission of Novus ordo bishops to conduct the sacrament of matrimony in their chapels. Some of them are even using Novus ordo priests to do the honors. I have no idea what you’re talking about, but you might want to brush up a little bit if you’re spreading this elsewhere on the Internet. It is absolute detraction…though I do wish you were at least partially right about some of this. I much preferred it when the SSPX was more or less at war with the modernist-infested Vatican.

I belonged to an SSPX chapel for almost 8 years, I know very well what I'm talking about - and what I'm talking about is why I left. Detraction? No, just the truth.

Rory - would you agree that the mentality of the Resistance has its very seeds in the SSPX ("have nothing to do with Modernist Rome!" accurately describes the mentality of numerous SSPX faithful, and quite a few of their priests as well), and that, therefore, this constant trickle of SSPX defections to the Resistance is really a logical consequence of an already existing attitude?

I do know of one partial exception, where the retreat-master cleaned his parish out of all Resistance types. However, he himself exhibited somewhat of this same mentality to me personally - he was clearly concerned, but didn't elaborate on his concern - when I told him I was leaving my SSPX chapel.

John: I'd like to ask you to give this a rest. Tens of thousands of us have been saved--yes, literally saved by the SSPX--and it's just so offensive to condemn an entire order of priests and the million who follow them just because you didn't have a good experience. For every crepe hanger like you we can produce a thousand who thank God every day for the SSPX. Please, your experience sounds bad, but it's also just yours--one guy who didn't get it. Can we move on....please?

It's not just mine, I assure you, but agreed.

I understand, but isn't this like posting a comment blasting Chesterton for having refused to convert, just because you'd read something under his by-line in the Daily News from his Anglican days? You'd be accused of ignoring his conversion to the Catholic Faith, either out of ignorance or malice, right? So if you're so disgusted by the SSPX for being entrenched in their own little world, one would think you'd be interested in knowing that they're now working with the Vatican, a number of Novus bishops, and lots of mainstream priests. No? Okay. Whatever.

Brussels is close to 40% Muslim and within a decade or so will be majority Muslim. Ironically, it is the seat of the EU. Once Muslims comprise 50% plus of the city's population things will get interesting as their stance on family issues (gay and LGBT rights) is in sharp contrast to that of the EU.
What can be done? The Western bishops have thrown in the towel so nothing will come from them. Could groups such as this change their affiliation within the Catholic Church from the Roman Rite to one of the Eastern Rites? That would protect them from Vatican/Roman/Francis interference. As the Catholic Church closes parishes throughout Europe, the Orthodox church is opening them. I assume there is a small but growing Eastern Rite presence in Europe and maybe in that lies a solution.

The Latin Church has to maintain its own Tradition.

Also, changing particular Churches (the correct way instead of changing Rites) is akin to saying that instead of living in your own house and taking care of your family, you're going to live with your sister and her family vs visiting them. It might work temporarily but not a good idea in the long run.

Plus, once you change to a different particular Church, you can NEVER change back.

There is a small Eastern Catholic presence in Western Europe, though.

Sorry, but I don't think that some groups' affiliating with eastern Catholic rites, if that is even possible, would protect them from Vatican/Roman/Francis interference. The eastern rites are also under the thumb of the Vatican. For example, whether Roman rite Catholics like it or not, eastern Christians have always ordained some married men to the priesthood. Yes, there have always been married true Catholic priests. However, when eastern Catholics migrated to North America and eastern rite bishops sent married priests to minister to them according to their own traditions, one of the popes (I forget which) imposed mandatory celibacy on eastern priests in NA, despite their ancient traditions and practices. (I think that was only recently lifted.) So it shows that the popes are willing to impose even on the eastern Catholic rites. The easterners are not really free. I don't think that re-affiliation would gain much except a little breathing time, until another pope crunched down on them.

Actually, the Eastern Rites listen to Rome but often ignore. Rome finally acquiesced and married priests are officially allowed in the Eastern Rites in the West. The ongoing fact that some Eastern Rites continued to ignore Rome on this forced Rom's hand.
The Eastern Rites are actually quite free. They control their episcopate and own their churches - apart from Rome. As it is there is friction in some Eastern Rites with a desire by some members to break with Rome and return to communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. If Rome were to try to impose gay blessings (as an example) on Eastern Rites churches these churches would break away. Rome knows it can only go so far with the 21 non-Roman Rites in the church.

Very astute observations, Sly.

Also, Pope Pius XI issued Cum data fuerit in 1929. 😉

The SSPX will never come under the 'fatherly' (malign) influence of Bergoglio. Why fight all this time to give up now?

Exactly, he acts like he wants to bring them in, that's just to shut them down though. One devious man.

Re your first sentence: That's what I've been saying ad nauseam. The SSPX has chapels, churches, convents, monasteries and schools served by dedicated bishops, priests, religious & laity who generously give their time, talents and treasure (I.e. $$$) which is NOT going into diocesan chanceries or Peter's Pence.

This is why the SSPX needs to be VERY CAREFUL in dealing with the Vatican. (Sarc on) To paraphrase BC, both sides need to agree on what the definition of IS is. (Sarc off)

As Deep Throat said: "Follow the money."

It's to the point that disobedience of the pope should begin. Francis no doubt wants to shut down all such great orders.

Bergoglianism is Contrary to The Church, Catholic & Apostolic. He is a Modernist.