Has the SSPX Become Tired and Non-Belligerent?

“The Society of Saint Pius X, after fifty years of activity, is showing signs of tiredness, and sometimes it seems that its silence about the horrors of Santa Marta is motivated by a tacit agreement of non-belligerence, perhaps in the hope of being able to become the collector of conservatism and of part of Catholic traditionalism, once Bergoglio has eliminated ‘the competition’ of the former Ecclesia Dei institutes.”

-Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano (Interview by Taylor Marshall)

Although the headline is an unmistakably “loaded question,” let me begin by declaring not to know its exact answer.

A solid case could be made either way. Hence why it may benefit both the SSPX, and its lay adherents, to hear a direct explanation from the Society regarding the topics broached by Abp. Vigano.

Furthermore, I cordially invite SSPX members to evaluate Abp. Vigano’s claims of a Bergoglian Antipapacy, including the thesis that Pope Benedict XVI never resigned his office. Ideally, this would involve point-point-point responses (I’ll mention some specifics below). By doing so, we’ll enjoy the chance to discover where folks stand, and maybe even deflect some of this business about lethargy and cowardice, alluded to by Vigano.

Of course, there’s no reason for Society members to consider this a hostile attack or intrusive inquisition, but rather a kind invitation to address difficult subjects. I’ll remind readers that the SSPX clergy are not without many sincere qualities. Their members routinely do all the following.

• Travel great distances to offer Mass for isolated faithful (often in hellhole dioceses).
• Lead several parishes across the country.
• Hear confessions before and after Mass (far longer than typical clergy).
• Anoint the sick, baptize infants, bless objects, and beyond.

All of that is to say that the SSPX (in general) deserves kind regards, and should not receive undue criticism, particularly without the opportunity for response. With those important disclaimers, let’s delve into the heart of the controversies.

Vigano’s Claims (Why They Are Relevant)

Although the SSPX has distanced itself from Abp. Vigano, it has not given clear treatment to his various objections to the unlawful, modernist regime occupying Rome.

Vigano and others have accused Jorge Bergoglio of apostasy, heresy, and most importantly, an antipapacy, made possible only through Pope Benedict’s invalid resignation. If you are unfamiliar with the details, I encourage you to explore Dr. Edmund Mazza’s explanations, both on how a heretic cannot be pope, and also the faulty Benedict resignation.

This is not some “kick” or “gimmick” that Abp. Vigano invented last weekend.

In light of that, I respectfully invite SSPX members to address the following questions regarding the dubious status of Jorge Bergoglio.

1. If the invalid resignation thesis is incorrect, then could the Society demonstrate how so? Could they offer a point-by-point refutation of Vigano, Mazza, et al.?
   • For example, was it valid for Pope Benedict to resign the Petrine Office, on the grounds of bifurcating it into a “contemplative papacy” versus an “active papacy” (munus vs. ministerium)? Was it lawful or logical for him to splinter into two, what has always been a singular office?
2. Do you believe we must accept Jorge Bergoglio as “Pope Francis” in light of the Universal Peaceful Acceptance theory? If so, was it evil for St. Catherine of Siena to violate this hallowed ecclesiastical doctrine when she contradicted the preponderant opinion of the cardinals during the Avignon Papacy?
3. Isn’t the Roman Pontiff supposed to be the visible source of unity among Catholics? What should we think of an alleged pontiff who appears to do completely the opposite?
4. Does it benefit Catholics much to attend the traditional liturgy without possessing a strong grasp of the religion itself? Can one accomplish the latter while resisting or without knowing the identity of the pope (supposedly the seat of Catholic unity)?
5. Why do many clerics insist the laity should “just go pray and not worry over these Church issues”? How do they know ordinary people aren’t already praying? Moreover, does prayer exhaust one’s entire day, leaving them no other time to investigate these urgent Church matters?
6. Does it make sense (even as just a “gut instinct”) to hold any allegiance with a man who shelters pedophiles, gives audience to trannies, or participates in pagan rituals?

Finally, in order to place these questions into their proper context, I’d like to review the severity of this Bergoglian predicament. This is far from just another run-of-the-mill Church crisis.

Bergoglio: History’s Greatest Antithesis to the Catholic Religion

Let’s never forget the scope of this tremendous problem we have with Antipope Bergoglio, who I contend is the Undisputed King of Heresy. 

Even the Pharisees, Sadducees, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others didn’t rebel against the entirety of dogma/doctrine the way this “pope” has. Jorge Bergoglio isn’t just a “borderline formal heretic.” He opposes just about every morsel and fiber of the Catholic religion by espousing the following (to name but a few offenses):

• Freemasonry (see Fratelli Tutti)
• Divorce (see Amoris Laetitia)
• Denial of Christ’s Divinity (according to his close confidants)
• Paganism (recall Pachemama, Smudging Ceremony, etc.)
• Communism (. . . where do I even begin?)
• Liturgical Hatred (of the Traditional Latin Mass)
• Holy Disobedience (to God’s commandments, especially the one to baptize all nations)
• Ambitions for Schism (“I, myself, might be the pope to schism the Church . . .”)
• Satanism? (he wears a hideous “pectoral cross,” resembling Osiris, reminiscent of Aleister Crowley)
• Sexual Pervert? (he surrounds himself with them; not to mention his obsession with normalizing sodomy)

Thus concludes a brief review of the supermassive Bergoglian problem. Next, I have other tangential questions, involving the SSPX’s approach to media consumption, web research, and understanding the horrors of our times.

SSPX: Excessive Emphasis on Media Abstinence?

I hope to posture this section carefully because I believe there exists a fine line between total media abstinence versus healthy moderation. Again, I welcome Society members to clarify their stances on this broad topic. While it is beneficial to fast from news, media, and politics, we risk shutting ourselves off completely from a world we’ve been commanded to endure.

Too much abstinence makes us much more vulnerable to innumerable sources of scandal. After all, without a decent reconnaissance of our surrounding evils, it’s remarkably easy to become absorbed into everything that tempts us relentlessly. Plus, few among us have been afforded the opportunity to live the extreme cloistered life of St. Bernard of Clarveaux or St. Aloysius Gonzaga.

At any rate, I have several questions and concerns over my experience with SSPX priests and media consumption.

1. Why does it seem (by my observation) that the Society places such a heavy emphasis on almost total abstinence from electronic media? 
2. Why do some priests ignore “the news” altogether? Wouldn’t that make hearing confessions difficult, considering SSPX clergy fulfill a missionary role with the laity, who face numerous occasions for scandal, given what occurs throughout the world?
3. Also, what would happen if traditional Catholics heed this advice and removed themselves from all (or almost all) web activity? Didn’t most of us discover the SSPX (and Traditional Catholicism) through web research? Wouldn’t we, otherwise, remain stifled in the darkness of the Novus Ordo culture?
4. Could excessive abstinence from media become a cowardly withdrawal from facing the horrifying (but pertinent) crises of our times (requiring direct confrontation rather than a quiet retreat to piety)?
5. Does it not help to avail oneself of the absurdity of this world, from time to time, as a reminder of how awful it is? Could this not help us distinguish the glorious City of God from the wretched City of Man (analogous to meditating on both heaven and hell)?
6. Does always avoiding troublesome subjects honor the legacy of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, the Society’s founder, who heroically ministered all over the voodoo’d, Islamicized African continent, announcing the Gospel?

We Lose a Great Deal by “Ignoring” the News

Many other calamities would make no sense to us without an opportunity to gather information and communicate together via web resources. Behold just a few examples . . .

• The Scamdemic – complete with the “vaccine” campaign, everyone wearing face panties for months, and unprecedented martial law (lockdowns).
• Fake Secular Politics – unfree and unfair elections, fabricated political disputes, unlawful wars, etc.
• Why Our Money is Almost Worthless – thanks to central banking, emanating from the most massive financial fraud in world history.
• Why Young People Are Killing Themselves – because the same fraudsters coax them into it.
• . . . and many other devastating, never-before-seen social/cultural/political episodes.

It would be mighty miserable to determine how to cope with these crises and psy-ops without alternative media. Even someone called to an eremitic life knows they cannot escape these topics, given their widespread ramifications (the potential for scandal, chief among them).

Then, we can also recall how the SSPX’s entire existence stems from the Antichurch/Bergoglio problem (since Bergoglio’s presence is a consequence of Vatican II). This is precisely what Abp. Lefebvre feared and countered with his formation of the Society. Without the evil Antichurch, lay Catholics could trust the rest of the hierarchy, as we once did.

Now, we live in a different world, requiring courageous clergy who would oppose it unabashedly. This starts with knowing what the laity face both in the world and within the severely wounded Church.

Schism From Bergoglio? Yes, Please!

If we can agree on anything, surely we’ve all had enough of the “SSPX is a horrible group in schism” diatribe. Ironically, those who hold such views ALSO pledge unwavering fealty to Antipope Bergoglio, who only momentarily tolerates the Society. This leads me to believe schism is exactly what the doctor has ordered (and by doctor, I mean the Holy Spirit).

Let us all desire to be in schism (split) from Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Antichurch just as we would abstain from any of the Church’s previous villains (Arius, Donatus, Jansen, etc.). In the past, the SSPX had to labor extensively against the schism accusation. Now, however, it has become so much more obvious that all men of goodwill must divorce themselves from the Vatican’s Abomination of Desolation.

For the love of Holy Mother Church, we cannot ever consider co-mingling with Her worst enemies, men far more dangerous than everyday hirelings or even the most infamous arch-heretics.

Shouldn’t the SSPX Just Ignore This Silly Layman’s Inquiry?

There are several solid reasons NOT to ignore my request (that the SSPX engage the antipope issue).

Yes, it is true that instigators (like me) who “stir the pot,” so to speak, deserve to receive the cold shoulder more often. However, I’m far from alone with this position, since many other gentler traditionalists have arrived at similar conclusions (regarding the antipapacy). Plus, this is a dandy opportunity for the SSPX to rebut Abp. Vigano if his “non-belligerent” accusations are either untrue or exaggerated.

Why not take advantage of this, settle a few scores, and perhaps bolster the SSPX’s courageous image in the eyes of the traditional faithful?

By the way, since this is a respectful inquiry, we (those of us who hold the Bergoglian Antipapacy position) must not insist on 100% agreement with our viewpoints. There’s ample room for discussion and analysis of the minutiae. In fact, we might say that the lack of SSPX treatment on this subject puts us all at a loss when we consider the Society’s terrific past contributions.

It is, after all, the Society, which has supplied us with wonderful treatises on several other controversies:

• The “Catholic” Charismatic Renewal
• Opus Dei
• Protestantized Liturgy

Each of those articles demonstrates the tremendous value traditional commentators (of the SSPX) have offered, scrutinizing many rogue elements of modernism. We should look forward to something from them, along those lines, warning against any allegiance with the wicked Bergoglio.

I believe the charge of “non-belligerence” (levied by Abp. Vigano) would only apply if Society members refused to engage the antipapacy topic; refused to weigh the evidence. Alas, this has been the posture of almost every member of the diocesan clergy, and for obvious reasons (an effeminate fear of losing faculties).

SSPX vs. SSPX Members?

Yes, as usual, we must not assume that the SSPX is of a singular mind on these matters (or anything) since groups do not formulate opinions, only their individual constituents. Nevertheless, part of the importance of group membership involves a common mindset or shared beliefs.

As such, it would help us gain a clearer conception of the Society’s stance on this critical issue: the antipapacy of Jorge Bergoglio, generated by Pope Benedict’s invalid resignation.

Conclusion – Pray & Press This Issue

For the rest of us laymen, we owe it to the SSPX clergy, who are otherwise-reliable champions of authentic Catholicism, to be persistent with them about this. While we don’t need perfect priests and bishops, it is mission essential that the best ones comprehend the nature of this dire Church struggle, and join the fight. More to the point, they’re the ones who should be directing the opposition against Bergoglio (not just a lonesome Vigano). 

It is imperative that we pray the Rosary every day (15 decades), dedicating some of that intercessory energy toward the well-being and courage of the SSPX clergy. Remember, there are plenty of ways to oppose the tyrant Bergoglio, irrespective of your state of life.

Finally, we cannot pusillanimously retreat from the duty of distinguishing enemies from friends. It’s simple to see why we must identify and oppose the false shepherds, like Bergoglio, especially while Holy Mother Church suffers such peril. We may, at long last, have an obligation to stand with the Blessed Virgin, watching the Church die of Crucifixion, like Her Divine Son.

If that’s the case, then we at least ought to know who has swung the vicious scourge and will finish driving in the nails.