Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX (Read 31149 times)

X · « **on:** February 21, 2019, 04:51:59 PM »

As We Are?
101 Compromises, Changes, and Contradictions of an SSPX in Pursuit of a Practical Accord with Modernist Rome
by Sean Johnson
https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/As-We-Are-101-Compromises-Changes-Contradictions-of-an-SSPX

The SSPX has changed!

The SSPX is heading for a full merger with the Modernist Rome of Vatican II, and it's already most of the way there -- formal deal or no! The facts don't lie. Countless changes, compromises, and contradictions have already occurred within the SSPX -- past tense. This isn't about what the SSPX might do; it's about what THE SSPX HAS DONE over the past 7 years. Here is a book (almost 400 pages) detailing the docuмented, hard evidence to prove this assertion. This book will convince you that the SSPX has taken a hard U-turn back to Conciliar Modernist Rome!

This SSPX Resistance resource -- a thread listing all the changes in the SSPX or neo-SSPX over the past several years is not for discussion or comment.

There is a handy shortcut for this thread: cathinfo.com/c.htm
Easy to remember, easy to write down on a napkin, business card, etc.

This is a special thread: an ongoing project of CathInfo member Sean Johnson, which I am assisting with.

If you wish to discuss or comment on any of these items, you MUST start a new thread. All discussions or comments in this thread will be deleted.

I will be grabbing screenshots and PDFs of all evidence hosted on external websites, in case it gets "memory holed". Evidence will be attached to each post. NOTE: only logged-in CathInfo members can download attachments. Fortunately, membership is free and we don't require much for membership! Just an e-mail address and a pseudonym.

Matthew

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It had been in my mind for several years already to compile a "Compendium of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX" to combat the demonstrably false contention of the Society and its apologists that "there have been no compromises" and consequently, that the Resistance had "jumped the gun."

Much like Sean Johnson's "Collection of Resistance Writings" thread, this will be an ongoing project, rather than a ready-made, completed work.

I would appreciate it if there were no other contributors, though I am certainly open to receiving material or criticism via PM, and in the case of the former, will credit the user who submitted it to me.

My intention, based on the statements and requests of several CI members, is to compile a resource to serve as a central reference point, which is simultaneously credible, accessible, and easily distributed.

I shall strive to list only those examples which are credible (e.g., contain citations, attributions, or are by some means publicly verifiable).

Sean Johnson

X · « **Reply #1 on:** February 21, 2019, 04:54:05 PM »

#1: Change (New Mass Participation Sinful or Not?)

All the SSPX faithful should be well familiar with the little blue book, Christian Warfare, published by the SSPX and promoted and used on their Ignatian retreats. In the section on the Examination of Conscience, under the third commandment (page 289 in the 2006 edition) we find the following:

Have you attended and actively participated in the "New Mass"? Have you received Holy Communion in the hand?

Yet, in the new edition, this sentence was replaced with:

Have you received Holy Communion in the hand knowing that it leads to Sacrilege and loss of faith in the Real Presence?

Have you attended and actively participated in non-Catholic religious services?

https://tradcatresist.blogspot.com/2018/06/lastweek-fr-morgan-celebrated-his.html

Clearly the SSPX no longer wishes to suggest attending the Novus Ordo is sinful.

X · « **Reply #2 on:** February 21, 2019, 04:55:04 PM »

#2: Contradiction (SSPX’ers Married by Conciliarists?)

In the US District, the old (attached) SSPX Marriage Form M-2(a) required a signature of the marriage parties before a Society priest would consent to perform the wedding. That form includes the following passage:

"Moreover, I insist on my right to receive all the sacraments in an entirely traditional way, and consequently refuse to have my wedding celebrated by a priest who celebrates the new Mass, or in a church in which the new Mass is celebrated.”

Today, however, the SSPX has accepted to be bound by the April 4, 2017 "Pastoral Guidelines" of Cardinal Mueller (authorized by Pope Francis) which state, among other things:

"Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary [that is, normally the local Diocesan Bishop] 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

This is a clear and direct contradiction to SSPX Marriage Form M-2(a) of the US District (which presumably has either subsequently been edited to bring itself into compliance with this new norm, or discarded altogether).

(SSPX Faithful married by a conciliar priest in a conciliar church in Canada)

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2018/03/21/a-picture-of-the-marriage-ceremony/

X · « **Reply #3 on:** February 21, 2019, 07:13:06 PM »

#3: Contradiction (Trap vs No Trap):

One year after the episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre warned the faithful that any overtures from modernist Rome were nothing but a trap:

"That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors."
http://sspx.org/en/one-year-after-consecrations

Bishop Fellay (under the most anti-traditional Pope in history) thinks otherwise:

In his 8/24/16 Australian conference, he said:

"But in itself, you cannot imagine anything better than what is offered there. And such a thing that you cannot think ‘That’s a trap.’ It’s not a trap. And if somebody is offering something like that, we are offered something like that, it can be only because he wants good to us. He wants the good of Tradition, he wants Tradition to spread within the Church.”

NB: As the YouTube video of this conference was removed for obvious reasons, we will divert the reader to Issue #37 of The Recusant, where he may find a transcription of the quoted passage, posted here:

http://www.stmaryskssspxmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/The-Recusant-371.pdf

X · « **Reply #4 on:** February 21, 2019, 08:28:55 PM »

#4: Contradiction (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/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-07-06.htm

VS

Neo-SSPX:

"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

X · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2019, 09:53:34 PM »

#5: Contradiction (Bishop de Galarreta vs Bishop de Galarreta):

On the matter of a practical accord with unconverted Rome, Bishop de Galarreta contradicted himself in only one years' time:

Initially ruling out a merely practical accord, the bishop in 2011 said:

"Following the Roman proposal, the real question, crucial, is: should we, can we, we take the path of a "possible" practical agreement first? Is it prudent and appropriate to maintain contacts with Rome leading to such an agreement? As far as I am concerned, the answer is clear: we must refuse this path because we cannot do something evil so that a good (a good which is, moreover, uncertain) can come from it, and also because this would necessarily bring about evils (very certain) for the common good that we possess, namely that of the Society and of the family of Tradition. [...] How then does this not go against the defence and public confession of faith, against the public need to protect the faithful and the Church? In this regard, if we make a purely practical agreement we are, in the present circuмstances, already engaging in duplicity and ambiguity. The very fact is a public testimony and a message: we cannot be in "full communion" with the authorities who remain modernists."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/reflections-on-a-roman-proposal-(full-text)/

Very good!

But only one year later, the exact opposite:

"The Society’s position is much more precise and clear now than it was six months ago; it is much better, for we do not exclude the possibility of Providence choosing to bring about a return to the Faith through conversion [on the Part of Rome, presumably – Ed.] We have simply said: if there is not firstly a return on the part of Rome or of the next Pope to Tradition [...] but if this Pope wishes simply to allow Tradition, what are the conditions that would allow us to accept a canonical normalization, in view of the good that we could do in the Church and this good is considerable? We must not deny this possibility.”
http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/bishop_de_galarreta_conference_10-13-2012.htm

The SSPX had "recovered its profound unity" at the chapter, putting the company ahead of the Faith.

X · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2019, 10:12:21 PM »

#6: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay Suicidal?)

From a February/2009 interview with The Remnant regarding autonomy from the diocesan bishops:

"Brian Mershon: Do you foresee any oversight by territorial diocesan bishops once the Society is regularized?
Bp. Fellay: That would be our death.”
https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-mershon-interview-fellay.htm

Three years later, Bishop Fellay had apparently lost his fear of death:

Bishop Fellay: "It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties?"
http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/bishop_fellay_dici_interview_about_rome_6-8-2012.htm

X · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2019, 10:22:21 PM »

#7: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay vs Archbishop Lefebvre on Vatican II):

Archbishop Lefebvre blames the Council:

"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

Bishop Fellay excuses or downplays the Council:

"I think, we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the council are in fact not from the council, but the common understanding of it."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=74&v=DdnJigNzTuY

X · « **Reply #8 on:** February 22, 2019, 06:03:01 AM »

#8: Contradiction: (A Deal with Unconverted and Modernist Rome?):

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” (Spiritual Journey, p. 13)

vs

Bishop Fellay (speaking of his discussions with modernist Rome in his 2/2/12 Winona sermon):

"We told them very clearly, if you accept us as is, without change, without obliging us to accept these things, then we are ready."
http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/bishop_fellay_sermon_february_2_2012.htm

This very thread will suffice to demonstrate that the SSPX has not been accepted as they are, but has instead undergone a radical transformation in pursuit of a canonical regularization.

X · « **Reply #9 on:** February 22, 2019, 06:13:56 AM »

#9: Change (Is Vatican II Part of Tradition?)

Archbishop Lefebvre commenting on a statement of Cardinal Suenens:

"It was Cardinal Suenens who exclaimed, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church” and among other unguarded declarations he added “One cannot understand the French or the Russian revolutions unless one knows something of the old regimes which they brought to an end… It is the same in church affairs: a reaction can only be judged in relation to the state of things that preceded it”. What preceded, and what he considered due for abolition, was that wonderful hierarchical construction culminating in the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth. He continued: “The Second Vatican Council marked the end of an epoch; and if we stand back from it a little more we see it marked the end of a series of epochs, the end of an age”.

vs

Bishop Fellay in response to a question from the CNS as to whether Vatican II formed part of Catholic Tradition:

"I would hope so,” he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition...The pope says that . . . the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,” the bishop said.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/fellay-speaks-to-usbishopss-catholic.html

NB: As we shall see later, this same response from Bishop Fellay evinces an acceptance of the "hermeneutic of continuity."

X · « **Reply #10 on:** February 22, 2019, 10:39:40 AM »

#10: Contradiction (More on Vatican II and Tradition):

In March/2013, Fr. de Cacqueray (then District Superior of France) wrote the following in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors:

"Be that as it may, the Society strongly refuses to admit that Vatican Council II belongs to the Tradition of the Church. We claim on the contrary, that in many points this Council is diametrically opposed to it."
http://sspx.org/en/sspxs-treatment-profound-injustice

Yes, that was surely the SSPX's traditional position.

However, was Fr. de Cacqueray unaware that only 9 months prior, Bishop Fellay had made the following statement:

"Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition -- a position which many in the society have vocally disputed -- Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/fellay-speaks-to-usbishopss-catholic.html

Do you find Bishop Fellay's response to be a strong "refusal to admit that Vatican II belongs to the Tradition of the Church?"

X · « **Reply #11 on:** February 22, 2019, 02:40:06 PM »

#11: Contradiction (What is the conciliar church?):

In an Open Letter to Fr. Thouvenot (Secretary General of the SSPX), Fr. Matthew Clifton (SSPX - England) spoke of Menzingen "privileging a small group of trusted supports of the new policy towards Rome."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/collection-of-sspx-resistance-writings/

One of those "privileged" accordist apologists was Fr. Francois Laisney (former District Superior, USA).

In a 12/21/12 article titled "Various Churches?" intended to rebut Bishop Williamson's notion of "Church," Fr. Laisney considers the meaning of the term "conciliar church" as used by Archbishop Lefebvre:

"Then what is the Conciliar Church? This express[ion] was coined by Cardinal Benelli: it manifested clearly the novelty of the reforms introduced by Vatican II. But did it designate a separate Church, with its own structure, its own faithful separated from the Catholic Church? Not really."
https://sspx.org/en/various-churches-fr-laisney-rebuttal

However, Archbishop Lefebvre said the opposite of Fr. Laisney:

"How could it be more clear?! From now on it is the conciliar church one must obey and be faithful to, and not to the Catholic Church. This is precisely our problem. We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church, of which we do not want to be a part. This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time. It has it’s new dogmas, it’s new priesthood, it’s new institutions, it’s new liturgy, already condemned by the Church in many official and definitive docuмents. This is why the founders of the conciliar church insist on obedience to the church of today, making abstraction of the Church of yesterday, as if it didn’t exist anymore. […] The church which affirms such errors is at one and the same time heretical and schismatic. This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic. In the measure in which the Pope, the bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The church of today is the true Church only in the measure in which it continues and is one with the Church of yesterday and of always. The norm for the Catholic faith is Tradition.“
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
(See footnote #26: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, handwritten and photocopied, of July 29th 1976, to his friends; reproduced in the Sel de la Terre 36, p. 10.)

True, the conciliar church is not 100% distinct from the Catholic Church, but that they are two different churches with different institutions was, at least to Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and the old SSPX, clear and indisputable.

X · « **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2019, 06:44:30 PM »

#12: Change (or Hypocrisy?):

In 2003, Fr. Aulagnier was expelled from the SSPX for advocating for a practical accord.

The reasons adduced in favor of reaching a practical agreement with unconverted Rome by Fr. Aulagnier in 2003 are nearly identical to Bishop Fellay's reasons for reaching a practical accord with Rome since 2012:

1) The danger of schism

2) Friendship with the betrayers of Tradition (Campos)

3) An alleged "new attitude in Rome"

4) The conflict may last for ages

The similarities are striking, and cause the reader to wonder:

-Had Fr. Aulagnier kept quiet until 2012, would he not have been in Bishop Fellay's "privileged group" of insiders and apologists?
-If Fr. Aulagnier was expelled for advocating for a practical accord along these lines, by what right does Bishop Fellay retain his membership in the SSPX?

In the article below, Fr. Violette (then District Superior of Canada) is sounding very much like Archbishop Lefebvre and the Resistance, while the rationale he is condemning in Fr. Aulagnier is sounding very much like Bishop Fellay and the neo-SSPX!

https://sspx.ca/en/publications/newsletters/december-2003-district-superiors-letter-1210

I encourage you to read the entire article, but here are some selections related to the points above:

1) Rebutting the "danger of schism" canard: "Our resistance is not rebellion. It is the necessary attitude of Catholics who want to keep the faith when faced with prelates who attack, deny or threaten it. We do not want to become Protestants!...What is in question is not their [Roman] authority but whether we can trust them or not...It is a matter of can we put ourselves under them and trust them to protect our Faith? Unfortunately the present Roman authorities have proven over and over they cannot be trusted, that they have not changed as we will point out later on."

2) Regarding friendship with the betrayers of Tradition (Campos): "Does it take heroic virtue to capitulate in the fight for Tradition in order to obtain recognition? Did it take heroic virtue to renounce their spiritual father, Bishop de Castro Mayer, to abandon and turn against their former comrades in arms? I don’t think so."

3) Regarding an alleged "new attitude" in Rome: "This is the most unbelievable reason of all. Where has Father Aulagnier [or Bishop Fellay?!]been for the past 5 years?...He seems to have forgotten what Archbishop Lefebvre knew well and denounced: there are two Romes: Catholic Rome and the neo-modernist Rome. As did Archbishop Lefebvre, we adhere with our whole heart to Catholic Rome but reject the neo-modernist Rome. Catholic Rome has been infiltrated and is occupied by Modernists. This is a fact...But we are not looking for acceptance."

4) Regarding the conflict lasting for ages: "In my opinion, I think we might see here the real reason for Father Aulagnier’s [and Bishop Fellay's?] change. The fight is dragging on. He has been at the center of this fight for over 30 years. Maybe he is tired of the fight! But this is not the first time that a conflict over the faith has lasted for ages."

This is not merely a change in the SSPX.

It is hypocrisy.

Yet we are to believe the Resistance are the rebels, and the Fellayistas are the loyal sons of Archbishop Lefebvre??

X · « **Reply #13 on:** February 23, 2019, 07:01:28 AM »

#13: Contradiction (Doctrinal Pluralism):

Formerly, the SSPX used to oppose a practical accord with unconverted Rome because, among other reasons, it wanted Rome to convert back to the faith, for the good of the whole Church, and therefore refused to become just one more "stripe" of Catholicism among the pantheon of modernist flavors.

In late 2003, Fr. Violette (District Superior - Canada) commented upon the reasons for the expulsion of Fr. Aulagnier for his pro-agreement agitation:

"The solution to this crisis will come from Rome when the Roman authorities come back to the integrity of the Faith. But until then we do well to continue our resistance. How long this will take is not our problem but God’s. But we cannot for the sake of a fake unity join those who promote errors, who reduce the Church to a human institution, or simply one religion among others thus destroying it."
https://sspx.ca/en/publications/newsletters/december-2003-district-superiors-letter-1210

And a year earlier, speaking of the modernist Romans, Bishop Fellay declared:

"Currently, there is no conviction that tradition is the right way. They see the fruits; they even say the fruits are good! They say the Holy Ghost is there! (Not too bad!) But, they don’t say, “That’s the way to go.” Instead, they say, “Tradition is a way amongst other ways.” Their perspective is pluralism. Their thinking goes something like this: Oh, look, if we have progressive people who do silly things as members of the Church, then we should also have a place for those who like tradition – a place in the middle of this circus, of this zoo, a place for dinosaurs and the prehistoric animals – that’s our place(!) – “But just stay in your zoo cage,” they will train us…"
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2185

But today, doctrinal pluralism not only seems not objectionable, but, according to this November/2016 interview of Bishop Fellay by conciliar priest, Fr. Kevin Cusick, desirable:

"He [Bishop Fellay] said that we must arrive at a point where one can “disagree and still be a Catholic” when it comes to the mentioned points of Vatican II at issue."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/sspx-exclusive-bp-fellay-speaks-to.html

X · « **Reply #14 on:** February 23, 2019, 07:15:52 AM »

#14: Contradiction (More Doctrinal Pluralism):

Bishop Fellay 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

Bishop Fellay in 2016:

"He said that we must arrive at a point where one can “disagree and still be a Catholic” when it comes to the mentioned points of Vatican II at issue [religious liberty, ecuмenism, liturgical reform]."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/sspx-exclusive-bp-fellay-speaks-to.html

Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX (Read 31149 times)

X

Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX