Should we stop putting money in the collection at SSPX Masses until it's known whether an agreement has been reached? I don't know what arrangements the individual Districts have about property, but people could always put aside the money they would have given, and either give it later if there's no agreement, or give it to whoever they are supporting if there is.

I didn't put in any today, in case it went off to Della Sarto or somewhere.

Would this help?

This would most certainly not help.

What is with this separationist attitude? Even if the Society signs the agreement, we still have to stay with them.

Where would you go? To the sedevacantists? Please.

Should we stop putting money in the collection at SSPX Masses until it's known whether an agreement has been reached? [QUOTE]

We've not been doing that for some time. We give to needy families directly. Until +F tell us what this Sarto business is all about; who his nice Catholic boy assistant is and what he does,and a number of other questions about how money is used by the Society, our giving patterns will be thus informed.

You don't get much for your dollar and pound when converted into Swiss francs!!!!

I certainly won't be staying with them. At least, not with those who go along with the agreement. And I won't be going to the sedevacantists either.

Then you will not have anywhere to go.

The three bishops (I am not sure about Bishop Williamson), the district superiors and the priests will not leave the Society if an agreement is reached.
But they will try to stop it before it is reached.

Then if nobody will be leaving the SSPX what's all the fuss about ? It's a done deal !

Is this just cabinet responsibility and everyone accepts the arrangement or like cabinet ministers who disagree they leave government ? You can't exactly join the back benches if you're a bishop.

Gabriel, where will you go for the Sacraments? Aren't they the most important thing? They are what will help you get to Heaven! The Society priests are of course still priests no matter in or out of Rome, that doesn't change. Why anyone would put their immortal soul in danger by not staying with Jesus, via the Sacraments, is beyond comprehension. This whole thing seems so spun out of reality it doesn't make any sense to me. But then again my mind is pretty simple.

No! No! No! To the Modernist Novus Ordo with the Novus SSPX of course ????????????

Gabriel,

Think about it.
IF you receive Holy Communion from your priest, Father x today, and tomorrow they are "in Rome", you would refuse to receive Jesus on your tongue from Fr. x?!
I pray not!
THAT is what is going to get you to Heaven!
I firmly believe in or out of Rome, the SSPX WILL preserve the Holy Faith.

We MUST have trust.
God nor Our Lady will abandon us.

Isn't this what happened after the schisms of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I - priests who said one Mass and gave communion and the next day said a different rite ?

It may not be today or tomorrow but the Pope wants more than Tridentine and NOM he wants 1 rite of Mass in the Latin Church and by golly we'll get 1 rite if he has his way.

Do we need to remind ourselves of the old lex orandi lex credendi argument and what changing praying rules does to the Faith of the one who prays ?

The SSPX will be full of priests who believe sincerely in this agreement - but the issue isn't an agreement its the FAITH attacked and distorted by Vatican II that this is all about and how unchecked it will continue to damage souls simply because the real obstacle - a unified SSPX on doctrine stands as a bulwark against the foul stench that would overflow into our chapel havens after 40 odd years of resistance.

I doubt many of us will cease going to Holy Mass merely because a priest belongs to an organisation which is recognised canonically by the Vatican. There would need to be some essential compromise of the Faith by the priest which would render him a non-Catholic in our eyes, or a danger to our faith and to that of our children (for those of us with families).

Since we don't know what's going to happen, we can't analyse whatever dangers or compromises will have to be assessed.

I will say that if our priest started talking like Fr. Schmidberger has started to talk, from the pulpit, I'd worry about the effect on my children and I'd be looking for an alternative Mass centre. This is why I suggest that we are returning to the 1970s, when the faithful had to explain as gently as possible that the priest was a moron and they ought not to listen to him. A terrible, terrible trial! We should never be in that situation again, but it looks more likely that we will be with every passing day.

That's the attraction of an otherwise very unattractive "split" - we might have clergy who will remain completely outside the influence of the Modernists. But I don't think anybody wants a split. We just don't want the leadership doing stupid and unnecessary things which endanger the faith, the Mass, and the sacraments that we have fought so long and hard to preserve.

Those who will not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Every chapel needs every penny it gets in the plate. Churches have to be maintained. Rates have to be paid and rent if the building is rented (as they are in some places.) Lighting and heating have to be paid for. Candles, wine and hosts need to be paid for. Priests have to be kept as do the chapel houses, where again the buildings have to be maintained, lighted and heated and rates need to be paid. Cars need to be maintained for the long Mass runs. Anyone tempted not to put money in the plate should consider all this and realise how stupid it would be.

I'm not sure every chapel needs every penny that can be put in the plate. That's a question of fact which we have no way to verify.

What is certainly true is that we have an obligation to support our pastors, and if we assist at their masses and receive sacraments from them, we ought to contribute to the plate. We can stop contributing to their support when we cease availing ourselves of the goods they provide.

Gabriel, don't listen to a word of any of these replies. None of them seem to have understood the basic truth as well as you have. Your instinct is wholly sound.

Paying for candles as tourists is one thing but supporting priests (and a repackaged Society) as willing participants in the creation of a pluralist church is a negation of the traditionalist cause. The reception of sacraments in such heavily compromised circumstances is going to be of dubious value. This was ABL's argument with the conciliar church and will be applying more and more as it is extended to accommodate this new liberal surge.

Gabriel,

Listen to everyone (except the Sarto chap, of course, :P ). On this forum there some very wise, careful souls... many of them women.

Did Jesus withhold the Temple tax? And He was God, and He knew just what the rascals in the Temple would do with it.

The Church is made up of valid bishops, valid priests, valid sacraments and the fullness of the Faith. This is Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis. Wherever you find those, you find the Holy Catholic Church. Stick to a valid bishop, follow him wherever he goes, as long as he is not a heretic.

I would not hold back money from the plate at any valid, licit, orthordox and correctly conducted mass. Even if the SSPX enters into an agreement with Rome it continues to be all of the above, at least for the time being, and until it does, why would you withhold money from it?

By your argument there is reason to withhold money from any plate anywhere, because some day, somewhere, that money could be misused. But it's not your problem once you have donated it. Morally speaking you are giving money to what you see - the Church in its proper form.

I disagree.

If you're attending SSPX Masses then you should bung money into the collection bag/plate.

Leave the rest of it, and the speculation, alone and put your trust in God and what He wants for the Society.

Otherwise it's like walking into a pub to use the facilities and leaving without buying a pint - something commonly known in these parts as a "pisstake".

Whilst support of one's pastors is obliged, we must consider that much of the contributions to date far go beyond individual support. They also subsidised purchase of churches now locked up in whatever ownership arrangements SSPX have in place, and they represent advance installments on stipends, future Mass Centre expenses, etc. It's only wise given information to hand, that contributions be held in reserve til the full state of affairs is made known. Moreso since "those in the know" have obviously decided to withold information which concerns their benefactors. At the end of the day, those monies might better be spent on churches etc., all over again - should the worst come to pass.

Exactly, Tradfly!

Sarto and Gabriel are just being prudent.

Soft-liners gasp and sqwuak at the thought of losing financial support.
Why do they worry... you're headed to the major leagues.
Go get funding from the consiliar coffers you've so longed to be a part of.

The hard-liners are being pratical by planning for the next phase of a
Society, split into two camps:

1. The neoSSPX
2. The SSPX

We will each have to make the personal decision on how to direct our future
support.

Some suggestions;

1. Save your funds to support #2.
If +F is hijacking the SSPX, with all it assets, #2 will need all
the support it can get. Maybe we'll have to open our own homes
on the weekends as TLM Missions?

2. Save your weekly offering and send a monthly offering to Bp. Williamson.

Why, because he encouraged and nourished us with sound doctrine,
while +F was concoting a "canonical resolution" behind closed doors.

3. Give your offering to support an independent TLM priest.
They don't have the comforts of the Society's formation.
They are courageous all the same and our last line of priestly defense,
against consiliar madness.


Finally, for the Novena intention requested in Father Rostand's May letter,
make the intention for the grace of a firm resolution by the remaining three SSPX Bishops, to resist the sell-out.

Once again, I present my "reform of the reform" proposals:

Keep the elements of the NOM which exist in the TLM.
Remove the elements of the NOM which do not exist in the TLM.
Add the elements of the TLM that do not form part of the NOM.

Same here.

Looks like you're out-voted, Gregorio! :P

Also, surely our collections, in this district at least, go towards feeding and clothing + Williamson!

Yeah, and speaking of that his montly cigarette stipend needs to be increased from 3 to 5 L

Lady Clare,

I just received a coupe of photos from my friend in Japan
of Bishop Williamson at the Akita Pilgrimage.

Would you be kind enough to post them for me?

I don't know how to insert them on a post?
What should I do... send you an email with the attached photos?

Thanks,
Incred.

He may be outvoted but he's still right!

If Bishop Williamson starts looking thin and pale we'll send him some food parcels, but they probably have enough in the bank to last until the end of May. Also, isn't he going to the Philippines any day now?

Do priests qualify for unemployment benefit?

Yes, if they're unemployed.