An Interview With Father Joven Soliman
by Thomas A. Droleskey

It was a year ago today, the Feast of Saint James the Greater, that Father Joven Soliman, who was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X, on July 11, 1998 at Our Lady of Victories Church in Quezon City, Republic of the Philippines, started to omit the name of the conciliar "pope," Benedict XVI, from the Canon of the Mass.

Although Father Soliman had granted an interview earlier this year with Brother Pio Francis (Dario Protomanni) that was published in The Four Marks and appeared for a brief time on the Sede Vacante website that Brother Pio Francis took down when he reverted, albeit with no public explanation as why the reasons he had listed in defense of the sedevacantist position were erroneous, to his previous affiliation with the Society of Saint Pius X, Father graciously consented to an interview with me for this site. Father took his time to answer the questions below, and it turned out in God's Holy Providence that they are to be published on this day, the Feast of Saint James the Greater in 2010. I thank Father Soliman very much for consenting to the interview and for the care that he took in answering my questions, assuring him and his flock in Manila, Republic of the Philippines, of our prayers. His example is one that should be followed by all traditionally-minded priests who currently recognize the arch-Modernist Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as a true, valid and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.


1) It is now one year today, Father Soliman, since you omitted the name of "Benedict XVI" from the Canon of the Mass. Although you have explained some of the reasons why you left the Society of Saint Pius X, could you elaborate on some of the specifics of the apostasies and errors and sacrileges of the "Second" Vatican Council, including those of "Benedict XVI" that caused you to do do what you did on the Feast of Saint James the Greater, July 25, 2009?

Father Soliman: It is well known that even some anti-sedevacantist traditionalists agree that the three main errors of the Second Vatican Council are collegiality, ecuмenism, and religious liberty.

These three main errors had disastrous consequences.
Collegiality destroys authority in the Church.
Ecuмenism destroys the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation which led to the creation of the New Mass to please Protestants.
Religious liberty destroys the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, which led to the destruction of Catholic states.
Ratzinger holds these errors while telling us that there is no rupture with Tradition by his "hermeneutic of continuity".
I was taught in the [Society of Saint Pius X's Holy Cross] seminary [in Goulburn, Australia] that Vatican II was not infallible because it was only a pastoral but not a dogmatic council yet an ecuмenical council. This is how it is explained to us and to the unsuspecting faithful.
It was only last year that I realized that the"pastoral council" answer is wrong. That is why it is understandable that some traditionalists accept Vatican II with reservations or in light of Tradition instead of rejecting it in toto because it was not an ecuмenical council but a robber council and therefore not infallible and not binding in conscience.
The answer whether Vatican II is infallible or not must come from Catholic doctrine which can be verified from manuals of theology prior to Vatican II or even in a good Catholic catechism and not by that "pastoral council" escape. Catholic doctrine teaches us that ecuмenical councils are infallible and they are binding once promulgated by a Pope because an ecuмenical council is an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium, which is infallible.
Paul VI solemnly promulgated the decrees of Vatican II and if we accept him as a true Pope we must submit to Vatican II. However, we know that there are errors and heresies in Vatican II .So the inevitable conclusion must be that Paul VI was not a true Pope but an anti-pope because it it is impossible that a true Pope officially promulgate errors and heresies in an ecuмenical council since it will go against the dogma of infallibility. That is why Vatican II was not protected by the Holy Ghost since it was not an ecuмenical council but a robber council headed by an anti-pope.In history, there were cases of robber councils precisely because they were not approved by a true Pope.Since Benedict XVI's election, he has continued his commitment to Vatican II. He continued violating the First and Second Commandments by visiting false places of worship such as ѕуηαgσgυєs and mosques. He prayed like Muslims in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey on Nov.30,2006. On August 19,2005, he took an active part in a Jєωιѕн worship service in a ѕуηαgσgυє in Cologne, Germany. Last year, he went again on his ѕуηαgσgυє and mosque during his pilgrimage to the Middle East.
I do not want to elaborate more on Ratzinger's apostasies and heresies. Readers can check your website on the list of offenses that this precursor of Antichrist has committed but some of the resist and recognize group dare to call him an "upright man" and a "restorer of Tradition". Knowing these things, therefore I finally omitted the name of Benedict XVI in the Canon of the Mass on the feast of St. James, July 25 last year while saying Mass alone.

2) You were with the Society of Saint Pius X as a seminarian and as a priest for sixteen years, from 1992 to 2008. You were in the Society long enough to have been an eyewitness to some of the changes in the mentality of its bishops and your brother priests that have taken place since Bishop Bernard Fellay met with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on August 29, 2005. Could you describe some of these changes (refusal to criticize the Novus Ordo, the outrages that take place at "papal" Masses, such as the one in Australia during "World Youth Day" in 2008), the constant promotion of religious liberty and separation of Church and State, the visit to ѕуηαgσgυєs and mosques, which he terms as "sacred" places?

Father Soliman: The changes in mentality were not obvious for us to see until after the motu-proprio [Summorum Pontificuм] on July 7, 2007 and after the so-called lifting of excommunications last year. I can not accept that the motu-proprio and the lifting of excommunications must be seen as a "miracle" from Our Lady as we were told [by Bishop Bernard Fellay and others in the Society of Saint Pius X] that these actions were the answers to the two previous Rosary crusades.
One does not need to be a sedevacantist to see that it is wrong to attribute to Our Lady falsehood.
Ratzinger sid in the motu-proprio that the New Mass is the ordinary form and the 1962 edition of the Latin Mass is the  extraordinary form and they are just two forms of one rite. Everyone who knows the question of the Mass knows that what Ratzinger says is false. Yet it is that we are told that it was a miracle from Our Lady that the True Mass is now "liberated" by means of the motu-proprio.
The same thing is true concerning the lifting of excommunications. The Vatican claimed that the penalty of excommunications was remitted to the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X even though the Society's leaders have claimed ever since those "excommunications" were imposed by John Paul on July 2, 1988, the censure was invalid. Yet the very contention that the censure was invalid and had no binding force was itself contradicted by the Society's leaders when they declared that the decree that lifted the excommunications was but another "miracle" from Our Lady, an answer to the second rosary crusade. Benedict XVI is now presented to us by the Society's leaders and publications as as "persecuted", a "restorer of Tradition", an "upright man". Unfortunately, majority of the faithful still believes that the Society of Saint Pius X is not changing.

3) You have said in your interview Brother Pio Francis, who has now returned to his affiliation with the Society of Saint Pius X, that you were the first Filipino ordained as a priest for the Society of Saint Pius X and that you had served as the Society Prior in Manila, Republic of The Philippines. You have also said that you have a sister who is an Oblate of the Society of Saint Pius X in Switzerland. May I ask you have your family has reacted to your decision to leave the Society of Saint Pius X?

Father Soliman: My family did not object to my decision. I even told them that they may continue attending Mass at the [Society of Saint Pius X} priory [in Manila) every time I might be out of town during the early months after I left the priory on September, 2008. They later decided to stop going to Mass there even though I was not yet a sedevacantist at that time. My sister who is an oblate sister of the Society of Saint Pius X does not agree with me.

4) Are you currently in contact with any of your former priestly brethren in the Society of Saint Pius X?

Father Soliman: No contact now after I became sedevacantist.

5) Do you expect many, if any, priests to leave the Society of Saint of Saint Pius X when and if there is a "happy conclusion" to the "doctrinal discussions" that have been taking place with representatives of William "Cardinal" Levada, the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Father Soliman: I do not expect many priests to leave the SSPX even if there will be a "happy conclusion" to the "doctrinal discussions".The party line mentality in the SSPX is so strong that many priests in the SSPX don't even realize that there is something wrong with the notion of presenting Tradition to those they claim to be the Magisterium,the idea of "converting the Pope".  It is for the Pope to teach and not to be taught, to confirm the brethren and not to be confirmed by his brethren. So this notion of "converting the Pope" is wrong because it implies that the Magisterium of the Church may be corrected by the subjects as if a teacher of the Magisterium.

6) I have noticed there is a certain "mindless" mentality in the Society of Saint Pius X that is made manifest by a refusal of many priests and many members of the laity to face the contradictions between previous positions taken by the Society's leaders and the ones being taken now. There is a certain sense of "extra societatis nulla salus." Have you noticed this yourself?

Father Soliman: Yes, your observation is very true. They will surely deny that they acquired this sense of "extra societatis nulla salus" but it shows through their attitude concerning those who have stopped going to Masses offered by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X because of their acceptance of the sedevacantism and that this doctrine applies in our times. Priests and most lay members of the Society of Saint Pius X believe that one is is "lost" when he becomes a sedevacantist. It is almost as though these people believe, perhaps without even realizing it, that there is no salvation outside the Society of Saint Pius X. One person in the Society of Saint Pius X wrote to me with that kind of mentality as he used the parable of the vine and the branches. I was told that I was the branch who had cut himself from the "vine," the Society of Saint of Saint Pius X, imploring me to return to that "vine."

7) One young Catholic writer has dismissed sedevacantism, which is part of the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church by saying that it would produce "disastrous" consequences for the Church if it was true. Would you like to comment on this assertion?

Father Soliman: Truth per se is not a disaster since God is Truth.
Our Lord told us in the gospel that truth liberates. If that writer means to say that sedevacantism simply cannot be true because its consequences would be "disastrous" and that the true Church herself would be destroyed then it is clear that he is incorrect as this would would mean gates of hell have prevailed against Holy Mother Church. This simply cannot happen.
In a certain sense, however, sedevacantism has "disastrous" consequences for the Church. It is a disaster that the See of Peter in the past five decades has been occupied by a series of anti-popes. This has caused many true and faithful Catholics, who are, despite being very few in number, dispersed around the world, to be divided  amongst themselves as they argue with each other on a variety of issues because there has been no legitimate Pope whom you can have recourse and settle the issue with the famous dictum, "Roma locuta est, causa finita est".
Will the Society of Saint Pius X submit to decisions and teaching of Benedict XVI? As far as I know the Society of Saint Pius X continues with their apostolate even when Benedict XVI has issued two docuмents saying that the Society X has no legitimate ministry to exercise at this time. The leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X just just ignore him. They also ignore the the conciliar bishops whom they claim exercise legitimate authority in the Catholic Church.
Many Traditionalists are divided whether as to whether Benedict XVI is a true pope. Some anti-sedevacantists believe that we just have to have true popes because without one there would be no one who could authoritatively settle disputes amongst us. However, many of these same anti-sedevacantists, especially in the Society of Saint Pius X, believe at the same time that one cannot trust what "Rome" says now. The belief "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" is acceptable only when one agrees with Vatican decisions but can be ignored when one disagrees with those decisions is not Catholic. It is contrary to Catholic doctrine. It has been condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.
This false view of how one can treat a true pope and his decisions is  a real disaster. Catholics until the time of the late Pius XII submitted to the decisions of the Roman Pontiff whether they liked them or not. Now, however, some in the "resist but recognize" movement submits only to the one who they believe is and has recognized as the "Pope" when they agree with him.
Our Lady of La Salette prophesied in 1846 that Rome will lose the Faith and would become be the seat of Antichrist and that the Church would be in eclipse. These things do indeed represent disastrous consequences for the Church. Even Our Lord asked that when He comes again would he find faith on the earth. So, if sedevacantism is in fact true, that writer you mentioned must not ignore it because it has "disastrous" consequences for the Church. He should rather keep to mind the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ that he must know the truth and the truth will set him free.

8) What reading material (books, websites, articles) would you recommend to Catholics to study the true state of our beloved Church today?

Father Soliman: I would recommend the following, in the French and English languages: Mystere d'Iniquite which can be downloaded from resistance-catholique.org, catholique-sedevacantiste.com, Christorchaos.com,cmri.org, Fourmarks.com, Daily Catholic.org, and Traditional Mass.org.

One can find enough materials from the websites I mentioned so that one can study the true state of the Church today. The book Mystere d'Iniquite was the one that really helped me come to the conclusion of sedevacantism after studying articles from the websites I mentioned. The book contains a theological,historical and canonical inquiry to make us understand our present situation. Other articles I recommend are: Story Time in Econe, Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism on the Christorchaos.com; Absolutely Null and Utterly Void by Father Anthony Cekada; and Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass Q & A by Bishop Donald Sanborn.

9) Do you have any words to offer to Brother Pio Francis, who denounced his brief position as a sedevacantist shortly after your interview with him was published in The Four Marks and on his own blogspot. Do you have anything to say to Brother Pio Francis, who has yet to explain why the reasons against the legitimacy of the “papacy” of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI that he listed on his own blogspot were invalid?'

Father Soliman: I can only say that I pray for him. Although he changed immediately after my interview was published, I thanked him for granting me the interview and that he saw fit at the time to publish it.

10) Do you have any final words of encouragement for those who are in the Catholic catacombs and are suffering the sting of rejection from family and friends for recognizing in Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict an enemy of Christ the King and thus of the good of souls?

Father Soliman: To those who are in the Catholic catacombs, our only consolation is  the cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to put ourselves under the protection of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Let us not be discouraged even if the whole world is against us. We are now in the time of the great apostasy and we must fight without compromise against the new religion of Vatican II. Our Lord warned us against false prophets and it is evident for those who can still see and love the truth that Ratzinger is a false prophet and an enemy of Christ the King.


Thomas A. Droleskey final comment: You have been very kind with your time. I can assure of of our prayers to Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary on a daily basis. May it be God's Holy Will by His Most Blessed Mother's intercession that more priests in the Society of Saint Pius X will follow your lead to help their sheep to recognize in Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI an enemy of Christ the King and thus of our immortal souls.


Father Soliman is, of course, suffering a white martyrdom at this time as he is rejected and ostracized by former friends and associates within the Society of Saint Pius X. He accepts this without complaint, knowing that the Holy Cross is our path to Heaven as we place ourselves into the loving hands of the Queen of Mercy, our dear Blessed Mother just did Saint James the Greater, whose feast is celebrated today as the Mass of the Ninth Sunday after Pentecost is commemorated

Trinity  
I found this a very good article. Thank you Cecelia.  

You obviously have a heart for the truth and have eyes and ears to hear.

I would be most interested for an SSPXer to explain why they think Fr Soliman's decision to leave SSPX is wrong, based on the posted interview.

Excellent, Eye opener, and a very well written article.

I believe Lefebvre's mission was largely driven by an utter distaste of what the new order represented in all its aspects regardless of whether Rome had the authority or not to commit ѕυιcιdє. Once he acted against this new order, then he searched around for the best justification he could put into words. Thus, the 'recognise but disobey' position was born to sustain him for the time being while others were urging him to break with Rome. Forty years on, the same awkward stance persists and long-suffering Society priests continue to live under this cloud except for those like Father Soliman who get out.  

Wessex, well said indeed.

And it is no accident that he even uses the same insulting terms as neo-catholics to describe the SSPX.  They are two peas in the same pod.  

It's actually more subjectivist, non-rational apologetic of the sede.  I see quite alot of that.  It's not founded on anything of virtue or doctrine, rather it is founded on pure hatred.  But the man who hates his brother has not the love of God in him.

I wouldn't be so sure of that bolded part. From what I've seen and heard, sedes have a much narrower span of tolerance of other groups and a much broader span of no contact with other groups (unless it's to "convert" them). At best, the SSPX and sedes are neck and neck in the world's definition of cultism.  

I agree with you 100%.   This is because there is no unifying force [Pope]and we are living through the times of the Great Apostasy.