CathInfo.com

#81: Change (School Scandals):

If "opening the windows" to the modern world at Vatican II was the cause of the infiltration of moral degeneracy into the conciliar church, then it stands to reason that an SSPX opening its own "windows" to the conciliar church (and therefore the world) would suffer the same fate.

But this is precisely what is happening, as Bishop Williamson observed in Eleison Comments #260:

"The parallels between Vatican II and the recent happenings within the Society of St Pius X are so striking that these happenings could be called Vatican IIB. It stands to reason. Exactly the same seduction and pressure of the modern world that made the mainstream churchmen collapse in the 1960’s have swayed a number of SSPX members in the 2000’s, bringing the SSPX to near collapse."
https://stmarcelinitiative.com/vaticaniib/

But what is the connection between worldliness and sodomy(*), you ask?

The Apostole gives us the answer in the second half of Romans 1:21-30:

#83: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay on Campos):

In Bishop Fellay's 1/6/2003 Superior General's Letter to Friends & Benefactors #63 regarding the fall of Campos, he makes a number of observations which bear a striking resemblance to the changes and evolution which has been taking place in the SSPX over the last 7-10 years.  We quote some of these observations, and if the reader mentally replaces the word "Campos" with "SSPX," he will see that in many respects Bishop Fellay seems to have fallen under his own knife when he observed that:

"In the eyes of Rome, the Campos-Rome agreement was merely meant to be the prelude to our own “regularization” in the Society of Saint Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us."
http://sspx.org/en/publications/letters/january-2003-superior-generals-letter-63-798

Let us provide some of these applicable observations, and comment upon them:


1) "Alas, our fears roused by the Campos agreement have proved to be well-founded, and the evolution we observe of the Campos Apostolic Administration, contrary to Roman expectations, leaves us distrustful."

Today, despite Bishop Fellay's fears having proved to be well-founded, there is no longer distrust.  It is as though Rome had converted, and there is no reason to fear.  In Bishop Fellay's Australia conference cited earlier in this thread (see post #3), he clearly states his belief that, despite Rome's ever-worsening apostasy, "it is not a trap."  Apparently putting sheep and wolves together in the same barn presents no danger to the sheep.


2) "However, it is clear that the principle governing today’s Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years.  Neither official docuмents nor general policy show any fundamental re-thinking of this principle. On the contrary, we are always being told that what the Council set in motion is irreversible, which leads us to ask why there has been a change of attitude with regard to ourselves. Various explanations are possible, but it is primarily because of the pluralist and ecuмenical vision of things now prevailing in the Catholic world. According to this vision, everybody is to mix together without anybody needing any longer to convert, as Cardinal Kasper said in connection with the Orthodox and even the Jews."

Good point, Your Excellency!

On the one hand, Rome has continuously declared this as their stated intention to Bishop Fellay ever since 2001 on numerous occasions (e.g., See Stephen Fox's Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє? pp, 39; 42: https://www.cathinfo.com/files/operation-ѕυιcιdє-20121029.pdf or https://isthisoperationѕυιcιdє.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/operation-ѕυιcιdє-published-20121029.pdf for examples from 2012. 

More recently, see here for a reaffirmation of same in 2017: https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/pope-francis-sspx-must-accept-vatican-ii-and-the-new-mass

We think this article from the liberal periodical Commonweal has a better grasp upon Rome's perspective than the SSPX's accordist apologists, regardless of what an Archbishop Pozzo or Schneider may occasionally say to the contrary: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/francis-traditionalists


3) "From such a standpoint there will even be a little room for Catholic Tradition, but for our part we cannot accept this vision of variable truth any more than a mathematics teacher can accept a variable multiplication table.
The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome’s own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos."

But Your Excellency, how did this "vision of variable truth" become acceptable by 2012?  

How did it become acceptable to strike a deal with a Rome determined to bring you back to the Council?  

Do you renounce your condemnation of Campos, or do you maintain that, despite a Prelature offering no protection from the modernist bishops, somehow immersion in the modernist millieu will have no impact upon you (a belief this entire thread proves to be untenable)?


4) "For this purpose, let us emphasize two points in the evolution of the Campos SSPX situation: firstly, how their attitude to Rome has changed since the agreement branding campaign and secondly, how Campos SSPX is moving further and further away from ourselves Archbishop Lefebvre, with all the upset that that implies.

Changes in Campos SSPX

Campos Menzingen through its leader, Bishop Rifan Fellay, is crying out for all to hear that nothing has changed, that the priests of the Apostolic Administration Society are just as Traditional as before, which is the essence of what they have been granted, and why they accepted Rome’s offer: because Rome approved of the Traditional position."


5) "For our part, let us begin by noting that we are well aware that in any disagreement one tends to discredit one’s adversary. For instance in the case of our former friends in Campos, there are certainly false rumors circulating to the effect that “Bishop Rifan has concelebrated the New Mass.”

No, Your Excellency, the fact of Bishop Rifan's concelebration of the new Mass is captured on video: http://archives.sspx.org/bishop_de_castro_mayer/campos_accordance/bishop_rifan_concelebration.htm


6) "The ambiguity implicit here has become more or less normal in the new situation in which they find themselves: they emphasize those points in the present pontificate which seem favourable to Tradition, and tip-toe past the rest. Say what we will: there took place in Campos on January 18, 2002, not only a one-sided recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but also, in exchange, an undertaking by Campos to keep quiet. And how could it be otherwise? It is clear by now that Campos has something to lose which they are afraid or losing, and so in order not to lose it they have chosen the path of compromise: “We Brazilians are men of peace, you Frenchmen are always fighting”. Which means that, in order to keep the peace with Rome, one must stop fighting. They no longer see the situation of the Church as a whole, they content themselves with Rome’s gesture in favour of a little group of two dozen priests and say that there is no longer any emergency in the Church because the granting of a Traditional bishop has created a new juridical situation…They are forgetting the wood for a single tree."

But Your Excellency, you instituted a branding campaign which follows the same path!

(See post #26 of this thread on the branding campaign; See post #68 for the state of necessity allegedly receding)


7) "Within this way of thinking even the Novus Ordo Mass can be accommodated. Campos forgets the 62 reasons for having nothing to do with it, Campos now finds that if it is properly celebrated, it is valid (which we have never denied, but that is not the point). Campos no longer says that Catholics must stay away because the New Mass is bad, and dangerous. Bishop Rifan says, by way of justifying his position on the Mass: “So we reject all use of the Traditional Mass as a battle-flag to insult and fight the lawfully constituted hierarchical authority of the Church. We stay with the Traditional Mass, not out of any spirit of contradiction, but as a clear and lawful expression of our Catholic Faith!”. We are reminded of the words of a Cardinal a little while back: “Whereas the SSPX is FOR the old Mass, the Fraternity of Saint Peter Is AGAINST the New Mass. It’s not the same thing”. That was Rome’s argument to justify taking action against Fr. Bisig of the Fraternity of Saint Peter at about the same time that Rome was cozying up to the SSPX. The Cardinal’s curious distinction is now being put into practice by Campos, as they pretend to be for the old Mass but not against the new. Likewise for Tradition, but not against today’s Rome."

But Your Excellency, in the April 15, 2012 doctrinal declaration, you agreed (by your signature) with the following proposition:

"We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II."

But previously, the SSPX taught that the Mass of Paul VI was not legitimately promulgated:

"A law is legitimate only when it is duly promulgated by the lawfully constituted authority. But to this condition must be added another of supreme importance and essential to make it a law: it must be for the common good. And precisely on this score, the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) is most defective as was attested at the time of its promulgation by no less than by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci."
http://sspx.org/en/new-mass-legit

Is not the Society also therefore seeking to make an accomodation with the new Mass?  

Your Excellency's comment to Cardinal Canizaeres that had Archbishop Lefebvre seen the reverent Novus Ordo Mass Your Excellency witnessed, he never would have taken the step that he did" certainly implies that to you, the new Mass has become less odious (See post #35 of this thread; see also post #1, where a classic SSPX prayer book has excised attendance at the new Mass from its examination of conscience for confessions, implying there is no moral objection to attending it)


8. "We maintain that Vatican II cannot contradict Catholic Tradition”, said Bishop Rifan quite recently to a French magazine, Famille Chrétienne. Yet a well-known Cardinal said that Vatican II was the French Revolution inside the Church. Bishop de Castro Mayer said the same thing…."

But Your Excellency, you also implied Vatican II was compatible with Tradition in your CNS interview (See post #9 of this thread).


9) "So little by little the will to fight grows weaker and finally one gets used to the situation. In Campos itself, everything positively traditional is being maintained, for sure, so the people see nothing different, except that the more perceptive amongst them notice the priests’ tendency to speak respectfully and more often of recent statements and events coming out of Rome, while yesterday’s warnings and today’s deviations are left out."

But Your Excellency, do we not notice the same thing with your branding campaign's central tenet being to be more "positive," and less polemic?  Or in your forwarding of Archbishop di Noia's letter to all SSPX priests requesting them to cease preaching against Roman modernism and Vatican II (See post #31)?


10) "The great danger here is that in the end one gets used to the situation as it is, and no longer tries to remedy it. For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted."

But Your Excellency, do we not see in the overturning of the 2006 general Chapter declaration a coming to terms with the situation in Rome, and in the willingness to strike a practical accord with unconverted Rome, a disregard for the conversion of Rome?  What signs have you received that they have converted?  Certainly not the equivocal concessions of 2007 and 2009, or the failed doctrinal discussions (in which Bishop de Galarreta acknowledged they would hear nothing of your arguments)!


11) "Besides this wholly foreseeable evolution of minds by which the Campos SSPX priests have, whatever they say, given up the fight, we must note another occurrence, the increasing hostility between us. Bishop Rifan still says that he wants to be our friend, but some Campos SSPX priests are already accusing us of being schismatic because we refuse their agreement with Rome."

But Your Excellency, is this not precisely your attitude toward the Resistance?  Is it not openly stated in the approved writings of Fr. Michel Simoulin and others?


12) "A little like one sees a boat pushing into mid-river, drifting down-stream and leaving the bank behind, so we see, little by little, several indications of the distance growing between ourselves and Campos Menzingen. We had warned them of the great danger, they chose not to listen. Since they have no wish to row up-stream, then even while inside the boat things carry on as before, which gives them the impression that nothing has changed, nevertheless they are leaving us behind, as they show themselves more and more attached to the magisterium of today, as opposed to the position they held until recently and which we still hold, namely a sane criticism of the present in the light of the past."

Ah, but Your Excellency, do you not also show the same attachment towards the "magisterium of today," for example, by your refusal to distinguish between the conciliar and Catholic Churches?  (See posts #11 and 25)


13) "To sum up, we are bound to say that the Campos SSPX priests, despite their claims to the contrary, are slowly being re-molded, following the lead of their new bishop, in the spirit of the Council. That is all Rome wants – for the moment."

This thread makes it undeniable that the same process has been taking place in the SSPX for several years.


14) "To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today’s Rome clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday. When the Roman authorities have restated with actions speaking louder than words that “There must be no innovations outside of Tradition”, then “we” shall no longer be a problem."

Had Your Excellency held firm and true to this position, we would not today be witnessing the dissolution of the SSPX into conciliarism.