Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX  (Read 16472 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 613
  • Reputation: +607/-52
  • Gender: Male
Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2019, 08:37:28 AM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • #15: Contradiction (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais vs Himself):

    In 2012, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was quite relieved a merely practical accord with modernist Rome had been narrowly averted, even citing the intervention of the Blessed Virgin to save the SSPX from disaster:

    "Let us trust in the Blessed Virgin who got us out of a tight corner, it is true.  This year, she got us out of this tight corner, she did not want any of this talk of an agreement; in other words, that we would go to Rome to submit ourselves to the Conciliar authorities...Dear Faithful, how could you want us to submit ourselves to such a Hierarchy?  It would have been impossible to collaborate, it would have been a bogus collaboration, a lie.  We would never have collaborated and we would have been constantly persecuted, threatened by the bishops and by Rome.  How could one survive in such conditions?  With the obligation of signing a misleading text, ah no!"
    http://www.dominicansavrille.us/the-g-r-e-c/

    But by 2016, Bishop Tissier had quite a change of heart:

    "But now there is obviously [on] the part of Pope Francis, a provision to recognize us without these conditions. We say 'Go!' Because things are moving and they still need progress."
    http://laportelatine.org/publications/entret/2016/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325.php

    English translation here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/bp-tissier-changed-his-position-2016-interview

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #16 on: February 23, 2019, 09:29:13 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #16: Contradiction (Bishop Tissier vs Archbishop Lefebvre):

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in 2016:

    "Archbishop Lefebvre has never posed as a condition of recognition by our new Rome, Rome abandons errors and conciliar reforms."
    http://laportelatine.org/publications/entret/2016/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325.php


    Archbishop Lefebvre, on the contrary, said (just weeks before his death):

    "Finally the Pope is more ecumenist than ever. All the false ideas of the Council continue to develop, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They are hiding less and less. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with such a hierarchy."
    http://laportelatine.org/publications/entret/1991/mgr_lefebvre_fideliter_janvier_1991.php


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #17 on: February 23, 2019, 10:00:28 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #17: Contradiction (Still More Acceptance of Doctrinal Pluralism from Bishop Fellay):

    As we saw earlier, this was Bishop Fellay's public (but not private) position regarding a doctrinally pluralistic agreement with unconverted Rome in 2003:

    "But if this is the new concept of the Church, then why not grant a little cage to the dinosaurs? If you already have all the birds and all kinds of animals, why not have a little place for the "fossils" which they think us to be? There is a condition, though: the dinosaurs have to stay in their cage. Imagine crocodiles or dinosaurs all over the zoo! Never! So the Tridentine Mass for everybody? - No! For the dinosaurs in their little cage? - Fine.  So when Rome comes to us with a big smile, that is their ulterior motive. That is, we grant you a place, but you must stay very quiet there and not move. So we come to them and we say, "Well, we are sorry, but there is no zoo." The Catholic Church is not a zoo. This comparison may show you how deep is the difference of vision. As long as things are at that level, it is just unthinkable that we should be able to reach a basic or fundamental agreement. It is impossible. And, once again, let us look at Campos."
    http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/what_catholics_need_to_know.htm

    But after Rome refused Bishop Fellay's signature of the April 15, 2012 "Doctrinal Declaration," Bishop Fellay wrote to Pope Benedict XVI, and stated his willingness to set doctrinal considerations aside:

    "I had believed that you were disposed to postpone until later the resolution of the disputes that still remain over certain points of the Council and of the liturgical reform...so as to effect a union."
    -Letter of Bishop Fellay to Pope Benedict XVI (6/17/12)

    [Original complete Letter available here: http://www.lasapiniere.info/archives/649]

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #18 on: February 23, 2019, 11:03:24 AM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • #18: Compromise: (Branding Campaign: From GREC to You!)

    The GREC is a group of diocesan, SSPX, and indultarian clergy and laymen who have been working "discreetly but not secretly" for a practical accord between the SSPX and modernist Rome since the mid-1990's.

    One of the key strategies in the GREC quest for a practical accord between the SSPX and modernist Rome was for the Society to cease attacking the Roman modernists for their continual scandals.  

    As an excellent article by a Dominican of Avrille titled "The G.R.E.C.(Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques or: Group for Reflection Among Catholics): A once hidden story, now revealed"
    explains:

    "The leaders of the GREC seem to have been concerned with bringing about the cessation of attacks against today’s Rome. To quote Father Lelong [diocesan GREC kingpin]:

    Quote
    At that time, all too often aggressive and polemical points-of-view were being expressed both on the part of those Catholics attached to tradition14, as well as on that of those who claimed to follow the spirit of the Council.  These were not contributing to bring about that climate of peace and mutual confidence which is necessary in the search for a true reconciliation (p. 33).
    The Society of Saint Pius X must understand that, even if it has much to bring to the Church of Rome, it also has much to receive from it.  Therefore, it must stop rejecting Vatican II in its entirety (p. 85).

    In their letter to Benedict XVI of the 9th July 2008, which we have already quoted and which is so important, the leaders of the GREC (therefore, the unofficial representatives of Tradition as well?) desired to reassure the Pope on this point:

    Quote
    We ask the leaders of this Society to cease declarations and polemical articles which criticize the Holy See (p. 50).

    On the 20th June 2008, Father Lelong and several members of the GREC had written to Bishop Fellay:

    Quote
    Are you not afraid that by refusing the repeated calls of the Holy Father and by permitting yourselves to criticize him unjustly and systematically, the Society will end up taking a path which will lead it inevitably to separate itself from Holy Church, as has – alas! – happened throughout history? (p. 39).
    http://www.dominicansavrille.us/the-g-r-e-c/


    Was Bishop Fellay receptive to these pleas of the modernists for the SSPX to drop their aggressive polemics?

    It would seem so, in light of the following developments:

    1) Fr. Wegner announces he has contracted with a branding campaign which has advised him to drop the attacks against modernist Rome:
    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-girouard's-sermon-revealing-fr-wegner's-branding-campaign/msg644678/#msg644678

    2) Fr. Wegner's Angelus announcement regarding the new "positive message" and style, "bare of any aggressive or imposing element" (Scroll down and click on pic to enlarge and read Fr. Wegner's announcement): https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B999_M065_SSPX.html

    3) The 2012 Letter of Archbishop di Noia to Bishop Fellay (and subsequently forwarded by Bishop Fellay to all SSPX priests) asking them not to preach against modernist Rome:
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/01/di-noias-letter-full-text-in-french.html

    If you have wondered why your priests no longer condemn Vatican II or Roman modernism like they used to (or why priests ordained from 2009 or later never condemned it in the first place!), you have here your explanation:

    The SSPX sold out Archbishop Lefebvre's combat for the faith in pursuit of a practical accord, according to a plan hatched by the modernists themselves.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #19 on: February 23, 2019, 12:57:58 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #19: Contradiction (Tradcumenism):

    Archbishop Lefebvre considered collaboration with the rallied/approved once-traditional groups like the FSSP or IBP impossible:

    "And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor's field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says"—but they are betraying us—betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.

    Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.
    Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that's the right kind of ecumenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?
    http://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations

    But today's Society no longer sees any problem in this regard (after all, a "regularized" SSPX needs to learn how to play well with the other children in the "ecumenical zoo").
    Consequently "tradcumenical" collaboration, or gestures implying same, has become commonplace in Europe and America:
    For example:

    -In 2013 the SSPX Polish District website mentioned indult priestly ordinations in the same breath as SSPX ordinations:  The mask had momemtarily slipped, and in the wake of intense and immediate scandal, the Polish District moved quickly to scrub the website, and eliminated reference to the indult communities:
    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/all-one-happy-family-on-sspx-polish-website/

    -But by 2015, there was no more need for masks, and the SSPX was openly collaborating in joint SSPX-diocesan-Ecclesia Dei ventures, such as the so-called "Catholic Identity Conference, where pics show SSPX and indult priests standing side by side:
    https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2032-catholic-identity-conference-makes-history

    -Or, in 2018: https://catholicidentityconference.org/index.php/speakers

    Can you imagine Archbishop Lefebvre attending such an event, or posing for pics with those whom he says "are doing the devil's work?"


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #20 on: February 23, 2019, 03:21:19 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #20: Contradiction: (More on "the Right to Know"):

    We saw in example #4 of this thread that Bishop Fellay had contradicted Archbishop Lefebvre's pastoral approach to the faithful regarding what the faithful did and did not have a "strict right to know:"

    Archbishop Lefebvre:

    "They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism."
    https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-07-06.htm


    Whereas we quoted the SSPX under Bishop Fellay as saying the opposite:

    "Non-SSPX members [i.e., the faithful] do not have a strict right to be kept informed about the internal affairs of the SSPX, which is a religious congregation."
    https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/%E2%80%9Cneed%E2%80%9D-know-all-vs-peace-soul-3073


    Now, we post the declaration of Fr. de Cacqueray (former French District Superior) as showing us what was the attitude of the SSPX in 2008 (i.e., While the ralliement of the SSPX was still in a pre-pubescent stage), where he tells us:

    "We must never say these theological discussions are a matter for specialists and do not concern us. It must be emphasized to show that exactly the opposite is the case: because they touch on faith, these issues concern us all, clergy and laity."
    -Suresne (French District Headquarters), 12/31/08

    French original: http://img91.xooimage.com/files/d/c/7/catechisme_in_fsspx_final-3bdb980.pdf (See #2)

    English translation: https://gloria.tv/article/1U7bGzcEc39rCtaRMwZFc3Y9F (See #2)

    [NB: This quotation is excerpted from the important work, "Catechism of the Crisis in the SSPX," written by an anonymous priest of the French District, which is available here in entirety in several languages, and should be read by every traditional Catholic: http://www.lasapiniere.info/catechisme-de-la-crise-dans-la-fraternite]

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #21 on: February 23, 2019, 04:08:17 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • #21: Contradiction (Still MORE on Doctrinal Pluralism):

    Posts #13 and #17 showed Bishop Fellay in both 2012 and 2016 expressing a willingness to put aside doctrinal differences, and hash out a merely practical accord (a pluralism which threatens the faith by suggesting indifferentism).

    But here was the position of Bishop Fellay way back in 1995 (only one year after becoming Superior General):

    We should expect Rome to try to bring us into a universalist amalgam, where we would end up being offered a place “among others”, a little bit like they are already declaring the Orthodox to be “sister churches”. We can think that the temptation to re-enter “officialdom” could be very great, in proportion to the offers which ecumenist Rome could offer us; refusing therefore to enter into this confusion, we would be made to look like wicked villains." (Cor Unum, March/1995)
    https://gloria.tv/article/1U7bGzcEc39rCtaRMwZFc3Y9F

    However, by no later than 2012 the bishop had already abandoned his former position, and capitulated to the very "temptation" he prophesied in 1995.

    Meanwhile, the Resistance, retaining Bishop Fellay's 1995 position, has indeed been made to look like "wicked villains."

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #22 on: February 24, 2019, 06:28:04 AM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • #22: Compromise (Religious Liberty):

    In a May 11, 2012 interview given to the Catholic News Service (CNS), Bishop Fellay explains his view on Dignitatis Humanae (the Vatican II document on so-called "religious liberty"), beginning at minute 1:25:

    "Religious liberty is used in so many ways, and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the council says about it. The council is presenting a religious liberty which in fact was a very, very limited one, very limited. It would, in our talks with Rome they clearly said that, to mean that there would be a right to error or a right to choose each one its religious -  religion - is false."



    That statement -which was cause for immediate scandal among SSPX clergy and faithful- is unacceptable, because Bishop Fellay seems to suggest that if "religious liberty" is "very, very limited" then it would be implicitly acceptable.

    Bishop Fellay's statement is also suggestive of the idea that perhaps the SSPX itself has been mistaken in its understanding of Dignitatis Humanae and religious liberty.

    Yet the Angelus Press website, in the advertisement for Archbishop Lefebvre's "Religious Liberty Questioned" (quoting the Archbishop) lays out quite clearly:

    "Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais meticulously explore the question of religious liberty and give a crystal clear picture of what the Church has always taught, what the Second Vatican Council taught, and how they are contradictory...That is why, personally, I do not believe that the declarations of the Council on liberty of conscience, liberty of thought, and liberty of religion can be compatible with what the popes taught in the past. Therefore we have to choose. Either we choose what the popes have taught for centuries and we choose the Church or we choose what was said by the Council. But we cannot choose both at the same time since they are contradictory. --Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned"
    https://angeluspress.org/products/religious-liberty-questioned-dubia

    One more observation:

    Bishop Fellay also recounts how Rome told the SSPX during the doctrinal discussions that it is a false understanding of DH to say that it taught there was a "right to error."

    Yet he (and Rome) seem to forget how, after the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae, the Holy See modified all its concordats still in force with the few remaining officially Catholic (i.e., "confessional") states, so that countries like Italy, Spain, Columbia, etc. all were forced to remove or modify their constitutions to permit religious liberty.  Where these states had formerly declared the Catholic religion the official religion of the state, and precluded public proselytism of the false sects, the state after Dignitatis Humanae, through the action of the Vatican, became officially laicized and religiously indifferent.
    (See for example: Davies, Michael.  The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty: Appendix III.  pp. 275-282.  Neumann Press).

    Yet Bishop Fellay wanted to believe (and wanted you to believe) the Romans when they said DH taught no right to error, when it was these same Romans who destroyed the last of the Catholic governments to bring them into compliance with DH's religious liberty?

    "Very, very limited" indeed!


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #23 on: February 24, 2019, 02:53:17 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #23: Contradiction (The sales pitch: "A new situation in Rome?"):

    In October/2011, the major superiors of the SSPX (excluding Bishop Williamson) assembled in Albano, Italy to consider a Roman proposal for the "regularization of the SSPX."  At that meeting, Bishop de Galarreta distributed a remarkable paper which was titled "Reflections on a Roman Proposal," in which he stated, in a section titled "Entry Into Contradiction:"

    "To move towards a practical agreement would be to deny our word and our commitments to our priests, our faithful, and Rome in front of everyone. This would have hugely negative consequences ad intra and ad extra. There is no change in the doctrinal point of view from Rome that would justify ours. On the contrary, the discussions have shown they will not accept anything in our criticisms.  It would be absurd for us to go in the direction of a practical agreement after the result of discussions and findings."
    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/reflections-on-a-roman-proposal-(full-text)/

    This warning represented a clear recognition that accepting such a proposal would be tantamount to abandoning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre since the time of the 1988 episcopal consecrations.

    What was Bishop Fellay's response?

    A few months later, in the March/2012 Cor Unum, Bishop Fellay wrote to his priests explaining that there was a new situation in the Church with the hierarchy favoring Tradition and therefore:

    "If this is true, and I am convinced of it, this requires that we take up a new position with respect to the official Church...This is the context in which it is advisable to ask the question about some form of recognition of the Society by the official Church."
    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/cor-unum-march-2012-bishop-fellay-to-sspx-members/

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #24 on: February 24, 2019, 04:23:23 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • #24: Contradiction (More Bishop Fellay vs ABL on Vatican II):

    In his response to the Letter of the Three Bishops, Bishop Fellay rebuked them for exaggerating the extent and seriousness of the conciliar errors:

    "Within the Society, some are making the conciliar errors into super heresies, absolute evil, worse than anything, in the same way that the liberals have dogmatized this pastoral council. The evils are sufficiently dramatic; there is hardly any reason to exaggerate them further."
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/letter-of-general-council-of-society-of.html

    Had the three bishops made too much about the errors of Vatican II?

    We have already seen what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say regarding the severity and magnitude of the conciliar errors"

    "Without rejecting this Council wholesale, I think that it is the greatest disaster of this century and of all the past centuries, since the founding of the Church."
    https://www.angelus.online/en_US/8362/120253/a_matter_of_principle.html

    Clearly, Bishop Fellay was no longer on the same page as the Archbishop regarding Vatican II.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #25 on: February 24, 2019, 08:56:31 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #25: Contradiction (Jedi Mind Trick: "Conciliar Church" or "Official Church"):

    In recent years, the SSPX has sought to replace the use of the term "conciliar church" with a new term: the "official church."

    Why?

    Because for a hierarchy insistent on the hermeneutic of continuity, they cannot possibly "regularize" an SSPX which insists on the rupture which is suggested by distinguishing between the "conciliar church" and the "Catholic Church!"

    After all, here is how Archbishop Lefebvre responded to the future Pope Benedict XVI's assertion that he was creating a new church:

    "Cardinal Ratzinger repeated it many times, “But Monsignor, there is only one Church, you mustn’t make a parallel church.” I told him: "Your Eminence, it is not us who are forming a parallel Church, as we are continuing the Church of all times, it is you who are forming the parallel church for having invented the Church of the Council, which Cardinal Benelli called the Conciliar Church; it is you all who have invented a new church, not us, it is you who have made the new catechisms, new Sacraments, a new Mass, a new liturgy, not us. We continue to do what was done before. We are not the ones who are forming a new church."
    -Econe Press Conference, 6/15/88: https://tradidi.com/semantic-treason-fr-billecocq-responds

    How better to eradicate this distinction than to start replacing the use of the term "conciliar church" with "official church?"

    Doing so has the exact opposite implication!

    Fr. Gabriel Billecocq (SSPX) explains:

    "Recently, in traditionalist Catholic circles, efforts have been made to impose the term official church instead of conciliar church. Of course, official is a good expression of the idea that we recognize that these bishops, though unworthy, occupy power, and this power, as such, we can only respect. But replacing conciliar with official is a serious ambiguity. For the traditionalist catholic, who does not recognize himself as a conciliarist and for good reason, must he now say that he does not recognize himself as an official catholic either? So the traditionalist catholic would no longer belong to the official church? Wouldn't he be fully Catholic then? But then which church would he belong to? To find out, one has to wonder what the official word is opposed to. Answer: unofficial, or hidden, clandestine, or patriotic. But then the traditional catholic does not recognize himself in any of them. Should we say that he belongs to the official church at the risk of being confused with the modernists? No. All that remains then is that he does not belong to the Church. And that's the reason why he's getting so desperate for recognition."
    http://laportelatine.org/district/prieure/stnicol/Chardonnet/Chardonnet333_1712.pdf
    [English translation: https://tradidi.com/semantic-treason-fr-billecocq-responds]

    And again in the same article:

    "In fact, this is a serious and very pernicious ambiguity. Replacing the term conciliar church by official church to apply it to modernists erases the distinction and opposition between traditional and conciliar. By erasing this distinction, one clearly diminishes the struggle of the faith at the risk of denying it and comes to make the traditionalist regret that he does not belong to any truly serious church, giving him the impression that he is not normal and therefore needs to seek normalization. This expression thus conceals the true illness of which the Church is afflicted, puts in a state of inferiority or complexity the true Catholic who has kept the faith and sacraments intact, and so one maintains a typically liberal confusion. In reality, the use of such a confused expression is already liberalism itself and is no longer truly Catholic..."
    http://laportelatine.org/district/prieure/stnicol/Chardonnet/Chardonnet333_1712.pdf
    [English translation: https://tradidi.com/semantic-treason-fr-billecocq-responds]

    Let us not fall for this "Jedi mind trick," and keep our bearings, as Fr. Billecocq suggests:

    "To fight an enemy, and a fortiori when that enemy has infiltrated inside the citadel, clear and unambiguous language is needed to designate him. Traditional Catholics do not fight the Catholic Church, that is obvious. But can we make him believe that he's fighting the official church? If it is official, one risks creating some remorse of conscience to fight against it, because it is official and the Catholic Church is official! No, he's fighting the disease. And this disease, he gave it a name: the conciliar church."
    http://laportelatine.org/district/prieure/stnicol/Chardonnet/Chardonnet333_1712.pdf
    [English translation: https://tradidi.com/semantic-treason-fr-billecocq-responds]


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #26 on: February 24, 2019, 10:02:30 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #26: Compromise (Branded SSPX Castrated):

    In his letter of 12/31/08, the French District Superior (Fr. Regis de Cacqueray) seemed to be on guard against a conciliatory spirit....

    "Vatican II is the uncrowning of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the denial of His rights over societies. Vatican II is an immeasurably harmful and scandalous ‘kindness’ towards souls in relation to these societies, factories of error and vice and purveyors of Hell, which are quite improperly called ‘other religions.’ Vatican II is the triumph of democratism inside the Church which renders all authority illusory, and any command nigh on impossible, and which permits the proliferation of heresy and schism. Vatican II is, in reality, the greatest ever disaster in the Church... To recover, we must get rid of it. In no way whatsoever, therefore, could the SSPX cease from its immense fight to confess the faith, which must include the denouncing of error. The SSPX must remain humble and respectful, but intrepid, fearless, to continue to say what needs to be said, to confess what must be confessed, to denounce everything that needs to be denounced.
    http://tradinews.blogspot.com/2008/12/abbe-regis-de-cacqueray-valmenier-fsspx.html
    [English translation: https://gloria.tv/article/1U7bGzcEc39rCtaRMwZFc3Y9F] (See #86)

    Well, obviously Fr. de Cacqueray was fighting a losing battle (and he himself went conspicuously quiet later at certain points, eventually leaving the SSPX for the Capuchins of Morgon in the middle of the battle!).

    But how had the SSPX lost its courage, virility, and will to condemn that which needed condemning?

    Fr. Girouard tells us, in his sermon about his conversation with Fr. Wegner (then Canadian District Superior, and current US District Superior), how the Dutch branding company he hired to remake the SSPX's image advised Bishop Fellay:

    "Bishop Fellay, the result of my survey, is that for the last fifteen years, you had it all wrong! You will never get more faithful and more people to come to your churches if you continue this way, because right now, the Vatican II Church is like an old man dying, and it's like dying flat on the street. Like they lose their seminaries, they lose their monasteries, they sell their churches, and it is a dying church! And you are really looking bad when you continue to fight that Church! It makes you look like a cruel... or like you exaggerate, or like you are kicking somebody who is already dying! So your new branding has to change you completely! You have to stop arguing; you have to stop fighting; you have instead to go on the positive side, and to show the beauty of the traditional liturgy, the beauty of the traditional theology, and that way people will not see you as cruel, or bitter, or things like that.”

    And this is why, since the branding of the society, DICI has changed; the SSPX websites have changed; the Angelus has changed. And in fact, interestingly enough, if you go back to the first issue of the new Angelus, what does Father Wegner say? Go back if you have it, and read it. He says: “We will not anymore put the emphasis on the battle and the fight, but we will put the emphasis on the beauty of the Gregorian chant, the beauty of art...” And so forth and so on. Go ahead and read it."
    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-girouard's-sermon-revealing-fr-wegner's-branding-campaign/

    Bishop Fellay heeded this advice, and so it has been ever since.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #27 on: February 25, 2019, 12:02:05 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • #27: Change (Contrasting Bishops: Lazo vs Huondor):

    In 1995, the SSPX received a bit of a surprise when Bishop Salvador Lazo (a retired bishop from the Philippines) contacted Fr. Paul Morgan about joining the combat for Tradition, thereby becoming the first (and only) post-conciliar bishop to do so.
    http://www.fsspx.com/Communicantes/Aug2000/In-Memoriam-Bishop-Salvador-Lazo.htm

    But Bishop Lazo did not come in as a conciliarist!  He had been studying Tradition for some time, and after protracted prayer and reflection, made his decision, fully on board with Archbishop Lefebvre's fight against modernism.

    In 1998, he sent a famous public "Declaration" to Pope John Paul II, in which he said, among other things:

    "I retired in 1993, 23 years after my episcopal consecration. Since my retirement, I discovered the real reason for the illegal suppression of the traditional Latin Mass. The ancient Mass was an obstacle to the introduction of ecumenism. The Catholic Mass contained Catholic dogmas, which Protestants denied. To achieve unity with Protestant sects, the Tridentine Latin Mass had to be scrapped, being replaced by the Novus Ordo Missae...After having known those mutations, I decided to stop saying the New Rite of Mass, which I was saying for more than twenty-seven in obedience to ecclesiastical superiors. I returned to the Tridentine Latin Mass because it is the Mass instituted by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper which is the unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Mount Calvary. This Mass of all times has sanctified the lives of millions down the centuries...Holy Father, with all the respect I have for you and for the Holy See of St. Peter, I cannot follow your own teaching of the "universal salvation", it contradicts Sacred Scripture...I am for eternal Rome, the Rome of Ss. Peter and Paul. I do not follow Masonic Rome. Pope Leo XIII condemned Freemasonry in his encyclical Humanum Genus in 1884.  Neither do I accept modernist Rome. Pope St. Pius X also condemned modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis in 1907.  I do not serve the Rome that is controlled by Freemasons who are the agents of Lucifer, the Prince of devils."

    Now there is a voice that rings familiar!  Respect for the Chair of Peter, but an absolute refusal to collaborate in any way to the auto-demolition of the Church.

    As such, the advent of Bishop Lazo was a most welcome development.

    More recently, another bishop has come to the SSPX: Bishop Vitus Huondor (Currently an active bishop form Switzerland approaching retirement, and who will spend his retirement at an SSPX Swiss boys school).

    A German-language news source gives us the facts (later verified by Bishop Huondor's own spokesman):

    "The Bishop of Chur [Switzerland], Mgr Vitus Huonder, will retire after his term as Bishop of Chur in Wangs in the canton of St. Gallen and will live there in the Sancta Maria Institute, a school of the St. Pius X Fraternity. Giuseppe Gracia, the bishop's spokesman, confirmed this on Monday at kath.net.

    Here are some images of this latest friend of the SSPX:




    Kath.net continues:

    "This step is linked to a mission that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome entrusted to Bishop Vitus: to maintain contact with the Fraternity of Saint Pius X," said Giuseppe Gracia. The acceptance of the resignation of the Bishop of Chur should take place around Easter."

    And as Francesca de Villasmundo of the French media outlet Medias-Presse Info (MPI) observes:

    "If we understand Mr. Garcia's comments correctly, the coming of the conciliar Bishop Huonder to the priestly Fraternity founded by the traditionalist Bishop Mgr Lefebvre to preserve Catholics from the spirit of Vatican II is therefore done in consultation and with the approval of modernist Rome, the objective being to "maintain contact" between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Society of Saint Pius X. This new approach of Rome is probably part of the rapprochement, or rallying, in stages that Pope Francis wants to achieve.

    This confirmation unfortunately puts an end to the hopes that some people had to see in this arrival a sudden conversion of Bishop Huonder to Tradition, which could only go hand in hand with a public rejection of Vatican II.

    Bishop Huonder does not seem to be a new Bishop Lazo!"

    Still says the Novus Ordo.  Still a man of Vatican II.  And working as an admitted operative for Pope Francis.

    The contrast between the two bishops could hardly be greater, but it does have the benefit of showing where Menzingen's head is at.

    Does anyone believe Bishop Lazo would be any more welcome in the 2019 SSPX than Bishop Williamson?

    But a Bishop Huondor, well, "come on in!"

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #28 on: February 25, 2019, 06:18:43 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #28: Contradiction ("Current sacramental practice" vs. the "Three Essential Conditions"):

    On 7/17/12, the Secretary General of the SSPX (Fr. Christian Thouvenot) sent an internal letter to all the superiors of the SSPX, informing them of the General Chapter's decision to settle upon three "sine qua non conditions" (i.e., Something that is absolutely necessary; essential) "which the SSPX enjoins and those which are sought from the Roman authorities, before seeking for a canonical recognition..."
    http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2012/07/after-vatileaks-tradileaks-state-of.html

    The second of these three "essential" conditions required "the exclusive use of the Liturgy of 1962. The retention of the sacramental practice that we currently maintain (including: holy orders, confirmation, marriage)."

    At the time, Bishop Williamson criticized the weakness of these conditions in his Eleison Comments, noting there was nothing to stop Rome from reneging after an accord was signed.

    In response, Mr. Brian McCall (an indulterer of The Remnant persuasion) sprung to the defense of these conditions, noting in regard to this second condition that:

    "this term includes all sacramental practices currently used by the Society. Since the Society does not currently use these yet-to-be promulgated changes and options apparently under consideration in Rome the condition makes clear the Society cannot be made to accept them. Again, His Excellency ignores the precise terms of the real condition and seems to be criticizing a differently worded condition, one that employs a less precise and more ambiguous terminology."
    http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/wrong_or_right_conditions_for_the_sspxs_future10-2-2012.htm

    On the contrary: It was Mr. McCall who, in focusing only on this condition relative to the Mass, had overlooked the application of this condition as regards the other sacraments.

    It seems Bishop Williamson had a broader understanding of how this condition might be handled by the Romans in the future, and history was not long in proving him right:

    On March 27, 2017 Cardinal Mueller (with the approval of Pope Francis) promulgated new pastoral guidelines for the performance of marriages in the SSPX, radically altering "current sacramental practice," and totally scrapping this second "essential" condition, stating:

    "Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite..."
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/04/step-by-step-vatican-issues-marriage.html

    And for the SSPX, what was their reaction?

    Did they complain to Cardinal Mueller that, as Mr. McCall argued, "Since the Society does not currently use these...the condition makes clear the Society cannot be made to accept them?"

    Au Contraire!

    Instead, the Society issued a communique in which it stated, "The Society of Saint Pius X conveys its deep gratitude to the Holy Father for his pastoral solicitude as expressed in the letter from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, for the purpose of alleviating “any uncertainty regarding the validity of the sacrament of marriage."
    http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-statement-about-holy-see-letter-concerning-marriages-28843

    And more than this, it moved swiftly and ruthlessly against its own priests who raised their voices in response to this change in "current sacramental practice," by demoting all of them, and transferring some to obscure locations.
    https://novusordowatch.org/2017/05/french-sspx-in-disarray/

    The only reasonable conclusion to be reached is that neither Rome nor Menzingen took this "essential condition" seriously, and just as Bishop Williamson predicted, moved quickly to circumvent it.  

    It didn't even last five years.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #29 on: February 25, 2019, 10:39:07 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #29: Change (The Jews):

    In the immediate wake of Bishop Williamson's 2009 "holocaust interview," Bishop Fellay, in a declaration made to the Famille Chrétienne (a French Catholic weekly) on January 31, 2009, went into damage control mode, declaring:

    "The Jews are "our elder brothers" in the sense that we have something in common, that is, the old Covenant. It is true that the acknowledgment of the coming of the Messiah separates us."
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/fellay-jews-are.html

    The Jews are our elder brothers? So, do they need to convert?

    Did Archbishop Lefebvre agree with the contention that the Jews are our "elder brothers" in the faith?

    Well, on 4/13/86, Pope John Paul II, during his visit to the Rome synagogue, stated:

    "The Jewish religion is not "extrinsic" to us, but in a certain way is "intrinsic" to our own religion. With Judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers."
    http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01111997_p-42x_en.html

    Archbishop Lefebvre's response just a few months later was withering:

    "I don't understand! And when he went to the synagogue, he didn't say, "You Jews must convert to the Catholic Church," as did St. Paul and St. Peter and all the Apostles when they were in the synagogue. When they went to the synagogue, they said to the Jews—to their brother Jews—they said: "You must become Christian now. The Old Testament is the preparation for the New, the preparation for Christ's Kingdom. You must now become Christians." But they were put out of the synagogue and they were killed. Some Apostles were killed by the Jews because they spoke the truth. But now the pope says, "Oh, your religion is very good, you are our older brothers." Incredible! Incredible! The pope is not a missionary when he says that. He is not a missionary, no longer a true Apostle. That is very, very sad, very sad, for the Catholic Church."
    https://sspx.org/en/lefebvres-1986-atlanta-interview

    If the Pope is not a true Apostle when he says that, is Bishop Fellay be a true Apostle when he says it?

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16