SSPX discussed in the blogosphere!

[Nestor Carvalho]

https://syllabus-errorum.blogspot.in/2017/02/el-doblepensar-de-la-n...

Machine translated:

http://www.google.com/translate?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsyllabus-errorum.bl...

"Double thinking means power, the ability to hold two conflicting opinions held at once in the mind . The Party intellectual knows in what direction his memories must be altered; Therefore, he knows that he is tricking reality; But at the same time it satisfies itself by means of the exercise of double thinking in the sense that reality is not violated. This process must be conscious, because otherwise it would not be verified with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious so that it does not leave a feeling of falsehood and, therefore, of guilt.
The double thinking is rooted in the very heart of the Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is conscious deception, while retaining the firmness of purpose that characterizes true honesty. To speak lies at the same time as sincerely believes in them, to forget everything that is not convenient to remember, and then, when it is necessary again, to remove it from oblivion only for as long as it is convenient, to deny the existence of objective reality without A moment to know that there is that reality that is denied ..., all this is indispensable. (...)
These contradictions are not accidental, they do not result from ordinary hypocrisy. They are double thinking exercises . Because it is only through the reconciliation of contradictions that it is possible to retain control indefinitely . "

(George Orwell, 1984 )

"One of your greats (representatives) once said that there is an hour of diversity reconciled . Today we ask this grace, the grace of this diversity reconciled in the Lord. "

(Francis, address in his visit to the Lutheran temple of Rome, November 15, 2015)

Among the many causes that could be found to give an answer to why the priests of the Fraternity do not react to the debacle of their congregation, about to surrender without resistance to the modernist Rome, one of these causes could be the self- The congregation are still voices criticizing Rome, who publicly denounce the scandals of Francis and still repudiate the council. The idea, we shall say, false that the identity received from Monsignor Lefebvre is preserved, maintains in a passive attitude the majority of clergymen, who prefer not to dwell on these matters very much, letting from time to time a voice be heard To say what, of course, "everyone thinks". But this is nothing more than a partial glance and oblivious to the complete truth. The Fraternity has for years been sick, we might say, of a double thought , which has been slowly inoculated by the liberals who command it. Once the contradiction is accepted within it, it is no longer possible to react because it is not possible to see the truth entirely. Contradictions must be resolved, not reconciled. The Fraternity is on the way to reconcile the Catholic Tradition with the new conciliar religion; The religion of the God who becomes man with the religion of the man who becomes God; Monsignor Lefebvre with Francisco. Several stages were building this path: lifting of the "excommunications"; Motu proprio of the Mass; Doctrinal statement of April 2012; General chapter of 2012; Project of a prelature; Acceptance of the new code of canon law, etc. The double message and the ambiguity were installed since then.

We see, for example, that the Superior of the District of South America, Fr. Trejo, deplores and denounces the ecumenism of Francis and Vatican II in an article in the magazine " Iesus Christus, " saying that " The commemoration of Luther ( Is) a further step of the same process, "or even" Although the "path" walked by Benedict was for many more conservative, it is the same as that of Francis. It is the Council. The real problem is not in people but in principles. " I accuse the Council, " Monsignor Lefebvre said. If there is Francisco, it is because there was a Council. Like father Like Son. Different speeds, different moments but the same process "to finish saying" My God, if this is how the Council works, let's get out of this way! "

Meanwhile, the Superior General of the Congregation, affirms that " there is no longer any insurmountable obstacle to a canonical recognition of the Fraternity" And "I think it is not necessary to expect everything to be arranged in the Church, that all problems be fixed" (to accept the canonical arrangement ). In this way it clearly states that doctrine is a minor problem and that doctrinal differences are no obstacle to submission to the Roman modernist authorities . This allows Monsignor Fellay and the Neo-Fraternity commanders to continue on their way to the suicide agreement, allowing some voices to criticize (moderately) the ecumenism of Francis and the Council ... of course without saying a word against the agreement of the Higher. Thus Fellay applies the same policy of "limited freedom of criticism" within his congregation, as Francis does in the official Church. Knowing well that, rather than stopping the settlement process, it serves well to stop any public action tending to question or resist it. It is the democratic principle that allows controlled dissent. It is "reconciled diversity". That is why those who have decided to "resist" from within the Fraternity, have done nothing effective to prevent the advance of ralliement with Rome. On the contrary, they have sown in many the idea that the congregation is not as bad as it seems or that it will not be able to fall under the oder of the modernists.

The quotation given by Father Trejo in his editorial is absolutely conclusive in regard to Francis' intentions and is sufficient to understand where the Conciliar Church is going and where it will lead the Fraternity under the new name and structure of the Prelature St. Pius X:

"Holy Father , some think that in ecumenical meetings you want to liquidate Catholic doctrine, that you want to protest against the Church, " Stefania Falasca tells the newspaper Avvenire. Francisco responds: "It does not take away the dream. I follow the path of those who have gone before me, I follow the Council. "
The journalist, a spokeswoman for the frightened conservatives, once again assaults: "You, in less than four years, met with all the priests and leaders of Christian Churches. Why this acceleration? "Francisco responds:" It is the path of the Council that goes on, intensifies. It's the way, it's not me. That way is the way of the Church. I have been with the primates and responsible, it is true. But my predecessors also had those meetings. "

Francis is consistent and we can even say faithful because he "follows the path of those who have preceded him". Can the same be said of Monsieur Fellay? To the conrarium, he does not follow the path of the one who preceded him, Mons. Lefebvre , but follows the opposite path. Bishop Fellay opposes the "suicide operation" and where Bishop Lefebvre stated at the end of his life that "every priest who wishes to remain a Catholic must remain outside the Conciliar Church", Bishop Fellay asserts that there is That seek a "normalization" not to become "schismatics" (same thing that said the traitor Rifán).

While Fr. Trejo quotes an immovable Francis from the course set by the council, Bishop Fellay says in another interview that Rome, thanks to the discussions with the Fraternity, is yielding in the right direction. And all these contradictions are accepted in the ranks of the Fraternity without the slightest challenge, without objections, without protest.

Father Trejo says, "let us get out of this way" (of the council), which is the one that leads Francisco, but does he leave the road agreeing with Rome? Or rather agree with Rome is to enter fully into that suicidal way?

How did this come about?

We believe that by adopting a liberal policy that was the same applied in the council: subordinate truth to freedom, reversing the terms of the true proposition. For Our Lord said: " If you abide in my word, you will truly be my disciples; And ye shall know the truth, and THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE "(John 8: 31-32).

The Fraternity was free-from the modernist conciliarist influence-as long as it remained true. In order to do so, it must, as divine wisdom teaches (cf. Ps. 1, Ps 25) to withdraw, to separate, to segregate itself from the heretics and the impious who sought to lead it astray. Whoever abides in the word of God has true freedom. Saint Thomas teaches that the truth of teaching frees us from the false way: " My mouth will meditate on the truth and my lips will detest iniquity " (Proverbs 8: 7). But not content or not knowing and appreciating the grace that God had given him, the Fraternity wanted to seek "freedom" within the structure of the church. And he called for "freedom" to those who are precisely not in the truth. Therefore, how can those who are not in the truth grant freedom to those who already have the truth? But the abandonment of the preoccupation with doctrine as the central point of this struggle against modernist Rome is precisely the sign that the path of truth has been abandoned. And as the truth is the most precious good that God can give us (" For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to bear witness of the truth: every one that is of the truth heareth my voice ", John 18 , 37), if he is despised, if he is altered, if he is neglected, he loses it.

Bishops and Priests very lucid who have seen and know perfectly what the conciliar church means - including writing magnificent books on it - and what is the new religion that arose there, however do not see or can not encourage to talk about what happens Within their own congregation. Why? Because it is easier to see the evil in the house of the neighbor than in the house itself, and commenting on what we see is less risky than saying aloud the evil that occurs in the room next door, in the house itself, between the Known, in the family. In criticizing the Councils harshly, he does not risk too much, but publicly denouncing the betrayal or mistakes of his own, and above all of his superiors, can be very costly. Not everyone is willing to pay that price that the defense of the truth demands. But is it possible that these superiors have prepared the priests to fight for the truth in every field and circumstance, before whom it was, or have taught them a "partisan" attitude to the crisis of the Church, seeing this as among Two trends that could never influence each other?

Ernest Hello wrote: " The centuries follow one another and never resemble each other. Each century is characterized by a special threat, by a threat that is theirs. The threat of this moment, and I believe that it contains all the others, is the indifference in relation to principles . Do not you hear every day repeating: "What are abstractions for? Principles have made their cycle. The events, the events, are spoken. We are business people. We are far from being dreamers. "That language, which directly inspires hell, penetrates the hearts of men " (" The Century, Men and Ideas, " Editorial Diffusion, 1943).

Business people have taken control of the SSPX. The Machiavellianism of the Councils has infected them with the use of Hegelian dialectics and double thinking as tools of power and manipulation. By this time the priests of the Fraternity should have realized, but a mechanism of control raised for years, by which they have admitted the contradiction in their lives, and the sentimentality inoculated in their ranks, which has dispensed them from the combat doors Inside, does not allow them to remove the blindfold. The truth demands to be loved entirely. By herself. And be put into practice so that its possession is complete: "The birds will be reunited with their fellow men; So the truth will find what they put into practice " ( Ecclesiasticus, XXVII, 10). If the bishops and priests of the SSPX had taken up these words of Archbishop Ezequiel Moreno Diaz, true champion of anti-liberalism, the Fraternity would not have reached this point, in which it is ready to place itself under the power of its enemies:

"Truth can not deal with heresy, as a sovereign with another sovereign, and truth is the sole sovereign and heresy is but a rebel. Truth can not agree with error; Truth contradicts, fights, excludes error, and would cease to believe in itself, if it recognized in error the right to occupy a place next to it. " (Bishop Ezequiel Moreno, pastoral letter, April 30, 1904).

Ignacio Kilmot