REVOLUTIONARY PRAXIS AND FSSPX
The SSPX is trapped in the revolutionary gear of the council church.
Monsignor Lefebvre said
that "Satan's masterstroke" was "to spread the revolutionary principles
introduced into the Church by the very authority of the Church." But what the disciples and followers of the SSPX have not come to understand, is the way of the revolutionaries, to gradually participate in those same principles to those who in theory are their opponents. Jean Ousset (quoted in an article
in our blog) said: "To lead to atheism, communism does not demand to
believe in such or such abstract arguments, it requires participation in
its action, which, in practice, is much more effective. And how many fall into the trap, on the pretext that they are not asked to explicitly deny their faith! "(" Marxism and Revolution, "Cruz and Fierro Editores, Bs.
In fact, "the end of revolutionary technique," explains Luce Quenette , in " Révolution et Contre-révolution ", Lettre de la Péraudière, 2011 - is not to convince , but to make accept the rule of the game , that is the medium . The
content of the discussion, the subject to be discussed in the meeting
to which you have been invited, is superfluous (Courrier de Rome, n °
47). It
is not the substance that matters, it is the form that is going to give
you before you, what they want you to accept by your presence alone,
the same if you do not say a single word. Ideas matter no more, but the mechanism of the machine. "
Francis,
who is a consummate teacher of this revolutionary praxis, never ceases
to say that theology does not care enough to affirm in many ways and
above all with thousands of gestures that what matters is "walking
together", "dialoguing", "building bridges and Not to erect walls ", to
practice the" culture of the meeting ", etc. "Today, the last assault of ultramodernism on traditionalism," says Don Curzio Nitoglia, "is witnessed
by the trap of" dialogue "to coexist after having accepted recklessly
and almost inadvertently a hurried and reckless theological change. Primarily,
Pope Bergoglio is pursuing a psychological war more or less hidden from
the traditionalists, which aims not to destroy but to weaken, little by
little, his resistance to modernist (1900-1950), neo-modernist (
1950-2013) and ultra modernists (2013-2016). "
Francis
acts as a great Reformer (this is what the press calls him and calls
himself a book), and in this respect Maritain de Luther, in his book " Three Reformers
", makes a good point in the chapter "Luther or the advent of I
"(quoted by J. Ousset in his work already mentioned):" There is an
astonishing feature of Luther's physiognomy. Luther is a whole man and systematically dominated by his affective and appetitive faculties; Is a pure Volunteer characterized first of all by the power in the action ". (...)
This attitude of the soul should naturally be accompanied by a profound
anti-intellectualism, further favored by the occamist and nominalist
formation that Luther had received in philosophy. " Is the skillful pragmatism, the astute utilitarianism of Bergoglio surprising? Is
it not Bergoglius who has encouraged Luther into the Vatican, when he
took his statue and claimed the figure of the heresiarch?
The
FSSPX entered into full bloom from the so-called "doctrinal dialogues"
in the revolutionary trap of the modernists, who were not at all
interested in clarifying their doctrine, let alone questioning it, and
were pleased that the representatives of the SSPX Sit at the same table
to "talk". After
the sessions of doctrinal dialogues between the Roman theologians and
the theologians of the Fraternity, which were predictably a failure, the
Fraternity continued to sit down to dialogue, this time on canonical
benefits, favors, recognitions and other matters that in truth for Rome
They did not count too much because, for them, the important thing was
that the SSPX continued to dialogue. Archbishop Fellay says that the council can now be discussed, which is an open question, etc. We know very well that for the Roman modernists Vatican II is unquestionable and marks its road map. But
the revolutionary tactic is to enter into "discussion" (dialogue is
action, praxis), knowing that, as before, these discussions will not
lead to anything but to further weaken the SSPX, due to the permanent
contact with the Modernists. "In
that meeting," continues Luce Quenette, "to which the vicar invites you
with so much gentleness and insistence, you are going to demand your
opinion, you" fundamentalist ", just as you ask the progressive, the
atheist, To the communist also invited. Accept you, and it's all, you're inside the gear. "
The
anti-liberal teaching that could take place in the Fraternity, the
detailed and exhaustive examination of the documents of Vatican II, did
not have as a correlative teaching the knowledge of the
counterrevolutionary combat, indispensable to understand what revolution
is and how its agents act. The
SSPX is already part of the revolutionary conciliar gear, not only
accepting to participate in the "revolutionary technique" but also
accepted all that "generously" Rome gave to attract even more to its
subtle yoke. The
only solution left to him is to cut the machine, to break the deal with
the revolutionaries, stating what at the end of his life Monsignor
Lefebvre, when he fully understood who he was dealing with: Do they want to have contact with us? Accept the anti-liberal encyclicals, reject modernism. In other words: become . But
this is no longer possible, for the hierarchs of the congregation have
not at all understood the nature of this struggle and are imbued with
the typically liberal conduct which leads them to contradiction and
double permanent language. That
is the product of, like Eve, having spoken to the serpent, when she
must have stayed away so as not to fall into the cheating revolutionary
seduction.
Fr. Paul Kramer: the Vatican II Revolution
