CathInfo.com

#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]

#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 ecuмenism. 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 Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ 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."

#29: Change (The Jews):

In the immediate wake of Bishop Williamson's 2009 "h0Ɩ0cαųst 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 ѕуηαgσgυє, stated:

"The Jєωιѕн 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/docuмents/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 ѕуηαgσgυє, 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 ѕуηαgσgυє. When they went to the ѕуηαgσgυє, 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 ѕуηαgσgυє 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?