#61: Contradiction (Bishop Tissier vs Fr. Schmidberger: Are the faith and Sacraments Sufficient?):

In his previously quoted rousing Chicago sermon of January - 2015, Bishop Tissier was quite adamant that we traditionalists possessed everything we needed to be Catholics:

"First of all, the visible church? We are the visible Church! Who practice visibly the True Faith. We have the unity of the Faith. We have the saintliness of the Sacraments and of our lives. We are Catholics because of our Faith in the Society and the true Christians are spread all out throughout the world. We are Apostolic who have still the Faith of the Apostles. We possess the full notes of the Catholic Church: Unity, Saintliness, Catholicity, Apostolicity...We possess the Faith, the Sacrament and the disposition to submit to the pope. We have the Faith, the true Sacrament and the disposition of to obey the pope! And the bishops. We are of the disposition."
https://www.therecusant.com/tissier-1jan2015

However, elsewhere in the previously quoted leaked 2015 internal letter of Fr. Schmidberger, we see that he had descended into legalism:

"If the faithful or some confreres feel comfortable in this situation of freedom relating to independence from the hierarchy, then this indicates a creeping loss of the sensus Ecclesiae. We must never argue: “We have sound teaching, the true Holy Mass, our seminaries and priories and above all bishops. So we don’t need anything.”
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/considerations-schmidberger-letter.html

#65: Change (The Advent of Maximilian Krah and the Savaging of Bishop Williamson):






FIRST POST

posted: Nov 28 2010, 07:34 PM

By

William of Norwich

Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?

The Timeline -

January 2009
A Corporate Attorney by the name of Maximilian Krah became publicly linked with the affairs of the Society of Saint Pius X.

January 20, 2009
Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior of SSPX in Germany, issued a press release in which it was stated: “We have not seen the interview given by Bishop Williamson to Swedish television. As soon as we see it we will submit it to scrutiny and obtain the advice of attorneys.”

But, in fact, the attorney to whom Menzingen would turn had already been put into place.

It was none other than Maximilian Krah of the Dresden Corporate Law company, Fetsch RechtsanwÇlte: the partners being Cornelius J. Fetsch, Maximilian Krah and Daniel Adler.

Link: Fetsch RechtsanwÇlte
http://www.dasoertliche.de/?id=10700323337...&arkey=14612000

January 19, 2009
One day before Fr. Schmidberger’s press release, Maximilian Krah was appointed as delegate to the Board, and manager, of the company Dello Sarto AG. The Chairman of the company is Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Board Members are First Assistant, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, and the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot.

The purpose of the company is stated as being (Google translation):
“Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, in particular of natural or legal persons which the Catholic moral, religious and moral teaching in its traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects for the mentioned persons, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose of description according to statutes.”

In other words, Dello Sarto AG appears to be an investment company that speculates, one has to assume, with SSPX funds in financial and other markets in the search for profits for various SSPX projects. But is it possible to get involved in today’s financial markets without being exposed to the risk and/or practice of usury?

The company was commercially registered on January 13, 2009 and issued 100 shares at 1,000 Swiss francs, giving it an initial capital of 100,000 Swiss francs.

As far as the checkbook is concerned, Maximilian Krah and Bishop Fellay alone are enabled individually to issue a payment of funds, while Frs. Pfluger and Baudot are required to obtain a cosignature to do so. Krah is not a cleric, but exercises greater financial powers than the First Assistant or Bursar. Curious.

Link: Dello Sarto AG
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...D813%26prmd%3Db

Maximilian Krah is a Board Member of other associations that control SSPX funds.

In the September 2010 edition of a publication issued by EMBA-Global we read that the “EMBAGlobal programme is designed for experienced managers, professionals and executives who seek to develop the skills, knowledge and networks to operate as successful Global leaders, anywhere in the world,” and that it “brings together an elite international network of business professionals.”

Link: EMBA-Global
http://www.emba-global.com/EMBA-Global_Cla...tember_2010.pdf

Maximilian Krah is pictured on page 6 of the September 2010 publication along with the following, accompanying text:
“Maximilian Krah. German. Lawyer. Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, Vienna, Austria. Lawyer with substantial international experience. Currently a Board Member of an Austrian foundation. Responsible for wealth and asset management of the settlement capital, and for the project development of nonprofit projects all over the world, which are sponsored by using the achieved funds.”

The full name of the company mentioned above is Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef and Marcellus.
Jaidof is the seat of the SSPX District headquarters in Austria.

The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets will worry many of their faithful who would, rightly, believe that such activity is both risky on the material plane, and questionable on the moral level. There may, of course, be those who are less concerned, feeling that it is acceptable practice in the modern world, and aimed at “a final good.” Are the latter right?

Krah first made his appearance in the international sphere, as far as rank-and-file traditionalists are concerned, in the wake of what has been dubbed by the mainstream media as “the Williamson Affair.” His comments on the bishop were less than flattering, exuded a liberal view of the world, and poured oil on the fire of controversy that raged across the world, and against both the bishop and the SSPX, for months on end. It has been plain for a long time now that the “interview” and the “ensuing controversy” were a set-up, but it was, and still is, a matter of conjecture as to which person(s) and/or agencies engineered the set-up. Perhaps subsequent information in this email will throw more light on this troubling question?

What is beyond conjecture, however, is that Bishop Fellay’s attitude towards Bishop Williamson changed dramatically. Even those who will hear nothing against Bishop Fellay have noticed this change. The change has been public and persistent, and has been both insulting and humiliating for Bishop Williamson. It has also been largely carried out in the mainstream media, and, in Germany, the notoriously anti-Catholic communist magazine, Der Spiegel, has found a favored place, much to the astonishment of traditionalists everywhere. It has been there that we heard the shocking references to Bishop Williamson as “an unexploded hand grenade,” “a dangerous lump of uranium,” etc, as well as the insulting insinuations that he is disturbed or suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. The question, let it be remembered, is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Williamson, whether one likes or dislikes either Bishop Williamson or Bishop Fellay, but whether or not a man has a right to express a personal opinion on a matter of secular history. The ambush of Williamson by the Swedish interviewer, Ali Fegan, said by some Swedes to be a Turkish Jєω, left Williamson on the spot: to get up and walk out in silence, thereby providing the media with the hook “that his refusal to speak is proof of his revisionist beliefs” or simply to lie. Williamson made his choice. Whether we agree or not is neither here nor there.

In the past, nearly two decades earlier in Canada, Williamson made “controversial comments” on the same subject at what was understood to be a private meeting of Catholics. A journalist, however, found out and made a story out of it. The relevance of this episode is that the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre contrasts remarkably with that of Bishop Fellay. The first just ignored the “controversy,” treating a secular and anti-Catholic media with total disdain, and the matter quickly became a dead issue. The latter played to the media gallery, broke corporate unity with his brother in the episcopacy (specifically warned against by Archbishop Lefebvre during the 1988 consecrations), and turned what should have been a molehill into a mountain.

ENTER KRAH

Krah is instructed to find an attorney to defend Williamson. He opts for Matthias Lossmann as defense attorney, a strange choice. It is strange, because Lossmann is a member of the extremist Die GrÑnen party (The Greens), an organization that is well-known in Germany as a water melon: green on the outside, red on the inside. A party that is pro-feminist, pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, pro-abortion and harbors Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a member of the European Parliament in its ranks. Besides his frontline involvement in the 1968 Red turbulence in the universities in France, he is a known advocate of pedophilia, as his autobiography demonstrates. What was Krah thinking of, then, in choosing such an attorney to represent a Catholic bishop? Was Lossmann really the only attorney in Germany prepared to take this case?

Krah’s choice is strange for a second reason. Krah is a member of a political party, but not the Greens. Krah is a prominent political activist and officer in Dresden, in the east of Germany, of the liberal, pro-abortion, pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Christian Democratic Union, led by Angela Merkel. Chancellor Merkel also comes from the east of Germany and is commonly referred to in that country as “StasiMerkel” after revelations and photographic evidence came to light hinting that she was recruited and formed by the Stasi, the former East German State Secret Police; a common approach made to young people, particularly those seeking professional careers, in the former Communist State of the German Democratic Republic. The same Merkel that publicly reproached Benedict XVI for having lifted the so-called “excommunication” of “h0Ɩ0cαųst denier” Williamson, and demanded that the Pope reverse the decision.

Krah is pictured on the editorial page, page 3, of a CDU publication, of May 2006, in the link below:
Link: Die Dresdner Union, May 2006.
http://www.cdu-dresden.de/index.php?mo=mc_...40107b868a48%7D

He portrays himself in the journal as some kind of Christian (though we are informed via SSPX faithful that he attends the SSPX chapel in Dresden), yet chooses an attorney for Williamson that could not have been worse.

Remember, too, that after the first Der Spiegel hatchet job on Williamson, Krah turned up at the British HQ of the SSPX in London at short notice and sought to get Williamson to do a second interview with the disreputable magazine. Williamson refused to do so, in spite of the fact that Krah had come with these journalists with the express sanction of Bishop Fellay! How in God’s name could Mgr. Fellay have thought that a second bite at the apple by Der Spiegel journalists would help the cause of Williamson or the SSPX? Go figure.

Moreover, consider the approach of both Krah and Lossmann in Williamson’s first trial. There was no attempt to defend him, though it is plain that Williamson had not broken German law, contrary to public perceptions generated by the media. What occurred, according to non-Catholics who attended the trial, was a shocking parody of a defense: Krah, unctuous, smug and mocking in respect of the bishop; Lossmann, weak, hesitating, insipid. Both effectively “conceded” Williamson’s “guilt,” but nevertheless argued for “leniency.” At no time did they address the legal questions at hand, questions that did not relate directly to the “h0Ɩ0cαųst” and its veracity or otherwise, but as to whether or not the provisions of the law actually applied to the Williamson case. In other words, a Caiphas defense.

It can, therefore, come as no surprise that Williamson decided to appeal the Court’s decision, and to engage an independent attorney who would address the actual legal questions of the case. That Bishop Fellay, on the basis of media reports, ordered him publicly to sack this attorney or face expulsion is a great surprise, one might even say a scandal, for such situations require knowledge of all the facts, serious reflection, and sagacity. The Press CommuniquÖ demonstrated none of these requirements, and merely represented one more example of Bishop Fellay’s unexplained public hostility to Mgr. Williamson. It is significant that the DICI statement referred to Williamson’s new attorney as someone who was associated with “neo-nαzιs,” this being a reference to the German National Democrats, an organization that has been in existence for about 50 years and has elected members in some regional German parliaments. If it had been “nαzι” it would have been banned under the German Constitution a long time ago – as many such groups have found out over the years in Germany. Moreover, while DICI chose the term “neo-nαzι,” the British Daily Telegraph chose “far right,” as did those well-known anti-semitic journals, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz.

Did Krah have an input into this communique? We cannot know for sure, but we do know something about Krah that is not common knowledge. Maximilian Krah is Jєωιѕн. He presents himself as some sort of ‘Christian’ in the link provided above, yet we find a more revealing picture of Maximilian Krah, at this link below, in attendance at a fundraising event in New York during September 2010.

Link: American Friends of Tel Aviv University
http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagen...0_AlumniAuction

The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jєωs to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jєωιѕн. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included.

However, Krah is at the financial center of the SSPX; he has done no favors to Williamson and his case by his statements and actions; and may be responsible for things yet unknown or unseen.

Since his arrival on the scene, traditionalists have witnessed

1) The abrupt disappearance of important theological articles from District websites regarding Judaism and the pivotal role played by our “elder brothers,” as Bishop Fellay referred to them this year, in Finance, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Communism, none of which could have been construed as “antisemitic” by the time honored standards of the Catholic Church.

2) Bishop Williamson being continuously and publicly denigrated, humiliated and grossly insulted.

3) The communist journal, Der Spiegel, being favored with arranged interviews and stories to keep the “Williamson Affair” on-the-boil, thereby tending toward the “marginalization” of Williamson.

4) A scandalous and erroneous article being published in The Angelus, in which the faithful were taught that a тαℓмυdic rabbi was a saint, and that the said rabbi was positively instrumental in preparing the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the conversion of St. Paul.

All these facts combined necessarily raise a whole series of questions. These questions can only be answered by those in a position to know all the facts. In this case that person is Bishop Fellay, since he is the Superior General, has unrestricted access to all aspects of the Society’s work, and obviously has taken Mr. Krah into his confidence on both the financial and legal levels.

This writer is making no accusations or insinuations against Bishop Fellay at any level. He is simply requesting that he make public reply to the following questions in order that the doubt and worry, which is widespread among the clergy and faithful since the events of last year, is allayed, and soothed by the balm of Truth.

Your Excellency,

1) Were you aware that Maximilian Krah, who currently has significant power and influence in important areas of the internal workings of the SSPX, was Jєωιѕн when he was taken into your confidence?

2) Who introduced, or recommended, Maximilian Krah in his professional capacity to the Society of Saint Pius X?

3) If you were not aware of Krah’s background and political connections, why was he not carefully investigated before being brought into the inner-circle and inner-workings of SSPX?

4) Why does Krah, who is not a cleric of the SSPX or even a longtime supporter of the Society, have such singular power to handle SSPX funds?

5) Who are the shareholders of Dello Sarto AG? Are they all clergy of the SSPX or related congregations? Are the shares transferable through purchase? In the event of the death, defection or resignation of a shareholder, how are the shares distributed? Who in any of these cases has the power to confer, designate, sell or otherwise dispose of these shares? You? The Bursar? The Manager? The Board Members? The General Council?

6) Why is the Society of Saint Pius X engaged in financial activities which may be common in modern society, but which are hardly likely to be in conformity with Church teaching pertaining to money, its nature, its use and its ends?
7) Why was Krah allowed to keep the pot boiling in the “Williamson Affair” by arranging interviews and providing stories for Der Spiegel magazine? How could an alleged Christian Democrat be the intermediary with a notorious communist journal?

8] Why was Krah permitted to impose upon your brother bishop an attorney belonging to the extreme left-wing Die Grunen?

9) Why was your brother bishop threatened with expulsion from SSPX for merely hiring an attorney who was actually interested in fighting the unjust and ridiculous charge of incitement? Is it not the case that those of the Household of the Faith must take precedence over those who are without?

10) Can you explain why your public attitude to Williamson has changed, why you have continuously belittled him in public – while he has not responded in kind at any time?

11) What do you intend to do about Mr. Krah given that his position within the Society is one of influence, but who cannot seriously be regarded as someone who has the best interests of Catholic Tradition at heart? Will you move as quickly to resolve this question as you have in respect of Williamson?

There is no malice meant or intended in this communication. There is quite simply a tremendous fear for the future of the SSPX and its direction

POST SCRIPT

For those who think that the writer is muckraking, I would like to point out that it was me that made public the impending sell-out of the Transalpine Redemptorists several months before it took place. I received brickbats for the relevant post at the time, and some calumniated me – but I was shown to be correct after a short period. This writer has not posted anywhere since that time. He does so now because he possesses information, as he did in regard to the Redemptorists, which needed to be made known widely for the good of Catholic Tradition. Nothing would please me more than to have Bishop Fellay answer these serious questions and put Catholic minds everywhere at rest.

#67: Change (GREC Lives):

In 2012, the widow of Gilbert Perol (founder of the GREC) told Radio Courtoisie that "in 2010, when the doctrinal discussions began in Rome between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X, the GREC ceased its activities, or at least the conference-debates."
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/the-g-r-e-c/#easy-footnote-bottom-18 [See text at footnote 18]

That last little sentence fragment is important (Venenum in cauda: "The sting is in the tail"), because if it is true that the conference debates have ceased, it is manifestly false to allege that the former GREC members have ceased their activities.

Some cases in point:

On January 14-15, the Courrier de Rome (i.e., The French journal from which SiSiNoNo articles are taken) celebrated its 50th year anniversary.  But the occasion was more or less a reunion of the remaining and most prominent GREC members, and pictures from FSSPXnews tell it all:












But we are well aware that "one rose does not make a spring."  A single conference reunion does not necessarily imply that the GREC has been active all along.

Is there any other GREC-like activity which these men have been engaged in outside of this conference?

Plenty!

1. Mr. Jacques-Régis du Cray: He functions as a de facto lay spokesman for the SSPX in the French Speaking world.  Particularly in the French discussion forums (such as Forum Catholique where he often writes under the pseudonym "Ennemond"), he will often be found contextualizing and nuancing public opinion in favor of the ralliement when opposition seems heavy.  But not limiting his activities to the French internet, he frequently passes information or submits his own pro-ralliement articles to the indultarian Rorate Coeli Blog (usually anonymously as the "Compte de Previgny").  Finally, it was Mr. Jacques-Régis du Cray who produced the sanitized Archbishop Lefebvre docuмentary which ran in select movie theatres (and his GREC influence accounts for cameo appearances in that docuмentary by traitors like Fr. Aulagnier, who had no business appearing in any real tribute to the Archbishop).  Obviously, Mr. du Cray has been quite active in promoting the aims of GREC post-2010!

2. Fr. Gregoire Celier: Fr. Celier directed Fideliter, and had influence upon other SSPX media productions.  He is also a prolific author, and has written books under pseudonyms which some have opined smack of gnosticism.  His most damaging book was the 2007 Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists, whose Foreword was written by the Freemason, Jean-Luc Maxence of the Grand Orient Lodge (and publisher and author of countless esoteric books).  A critique of his book Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists by Mr. Paul Chaussee can be read here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/first-time-in-english-bishop-fellay's-plan/msg646134/?topicseen#msg646134  We will have much more to say about Fr. Celier in a future post.  But for now, all that is necessary to point out is that his book seems to have gained influence over Bishop Fellay, whose public words on the subject of a practical accord with Rome are preceded in Fr. Celier's book.

3. Fr. Alain Lorans: Former Communications Director of the SSPX before Fr. Rostand got the job, Fr. Lorans was officially responsible for internet content, and according to Fr. Olivier Rioult (Resistance - France), worked in coordinated efforts with Jacques-Regis du Cray.

4. Bishop Fellay: We need not supply any further information here, except to note his introduction of the SSPX into tradcuмenical venues (such as the Catholic Identity Conference in the USA), his pursuit of a practical accord while placing doctrine on the back burner, and his persecution of those within the Society who held to Archbishop Lefebvre's old position regarding no practical accord before the doctrinal questions were resolved (in favor of Tradition) in Rome.

But the first generation of GREC revolutionaries are no longer the only ones active!

It is now not uncommon to find "discrete but not secret" tradcuмenical gatherings of SSPX/indult clergy, such as this meeting reported on by the French Medias-Press Info's Christian Lassale:

"Some priests of the FSSPX, generally quite young and without much experience, let themselves be chaperoned by the illustrious Father Matthieu Raffray of the Institute of the Good Shepherd to activate a Brotherhood bringing them all together, created during their common passage in Ecône. Called "of the Good Spirit", as opposed to the letter from deans and friendly communities [i.e., the SSPX Deans and leaders of the traditional religious communities who initially rejected the 2017 "pastoral guidelines" regulating SSPX marriages -X], which was considered "despicable", this Brotherhood was the occasion to hold a secret meeting in the Dordogne.

The meeting, spread over several days, was held in the village of Montagrier (Abbé Laignelot's village) in the second half of July 2017. Daily masses were celebrated in the village church, generously opened by the Perigord Ordinary to whom all the pledges of "good spirit" had been given.

Among others, the following were present at this meeting - non-exhaustive list:

Father Matthieu RAFFRAY, Superior of the Latin American Province of the Institute of the Good Shepherd;
Father Timothy of BONNAFOS, based in Buenos Aires, Argentina;
Father Jean-François MOUROUX, based in Onex, Switzerland;
Father Eudes-Etienne PEIGNOT, director of La Martinerie-Châteauroux;
Father Nicolas CHALLAN BELVAL, stationed in Martinique;
Father Benoît LAIGNELOT, stationed in Enugu, Nigeria.

After warmly welcoming the Roman opening on the issue of marriages, everyone expressed their joy at reading in the last Cor Unum (issue 117 of June 2017) Bishop Fellay's positive words on the Ecclesia Dei communities [Noted elsewhere in this thread in the post regarding Bishop Fellay's suppression of Fr. Pivert's book -X]:

"I wonder how some people envisage the "conversion of Rome", the return of the Church to its Tradition, when they carefully avoid any contact with the official Church, not to mention the Ecclesia Dei movement". (Page 5).

"The same is true of the Ecclesia Dei movements, including the Fraternity of St. Peter, where there are a number of Nicodemus, convinced that Bishop Lefebvre's analysis of Vatican II is the right one. " (Page 6).

In quoting this last passage, none of them noticed that in these words of Bishop Fellay himself, it is recognized that any canonical recognition implies a very real condition, even unwritten: once recognized by Rome, one can only adhere to the authentic struggle of Bishop Lefebvre like Nicodemus, that is, in the secret of the night and not as a thread of light, far from any microphone, of course.

Finally, the participants expressed their support for the writings of Father François Knittel - for whom the state of necessity is diminishing - a text published very officially in the journal of the General House. It seems that with Pope Francis, one of the greatest destroyers of the Church, things would be better!

Faced with this new spirit invading certain parts of the Fraternity, the superiors remain strangely silent, quite the opposite of their reaction following the letter of the deans. Symptomatic silence? One may wonder, when we know that some priests in the district of France have been authorized to write, under pseudo, in magazines of the ecclesiastical movement: they are only showing the new "good spirit".

Christian LASSALE
https://www.medias-presse.info/reunion-secrete-de-la-confrerie-du-bon-esprit/78052/

GREC is not only alive: It is breeding.

#69: Contradiction (Subversion: Fr. Gregoire Celier):

In 2007, French District priest, Fr. Gregoire Celier (Director of Fideliter -the French equivalent of The Angelus- for 13 years) wrote a book completely subversive of the 2006 General Chapter titled "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists," in which he "fantasizes" about how a practical accord with unconverted Rome might be achieved.

The book was heavily sponsored by the French District and Fr. de Cacqueray, and consequently did much damage by undermining the 2006 General Chapter Declaration.

Interestingly, Fr. Celier's ideas seem to have been co-opted in many respects by Bishop Fellay, and used as a blueprint of sorts for the ralliement of the SSPX.  

Some time after the publicity tour, an astute Frenchman, Mr. Paul Chaussee, wrote an incisive 42 page critique of Fr. Celier's subversive work.

That critique is attached as a PDF to this post, and is a must read.

Readers will also be interested to know that Fr. Celier's friend, Mr. Jean-Luc Maxence (a self-admitted Freemason of the Grand Orient Lodge) edited and Prefaced Fr. Celier's book (which, like Fr. Robinson's subversive book) was published outside the SSPX publishing houses.
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2009/VM-2009-11-11-A-00-Question-about-Bishop-Fellay.pdf

It is also an interesting connection that, according to the link just provided, it was Bishop Fellay who appointed Fr. Celier as head of the Fideliter publishing house in 1994 (i.e., the year he became Superior General).

In any case, we present here the second Appendix to Mr. Paul Chaussee's 42 page critique (translated by Mr. Sean Johnson elsewhere on this forum), regarding the strange and disturbing works of Fr. Gregoire Celier, and leave readers to come to their own conclusions.  Mr. Johnson's translation of Paul Chaussee's Appendix is also attached below.






An overview of his works reveals who Fr. Gregory Celier was who directed the media of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X for thirteen years; what spirit animates him? And what is probably his purpose in taking a leading role in the writing of the book Benedict XVI and the traditionalists?

Here are some books that are all signed "Grégoire Celier" or a pseudonym, as if the tactics of this priest-philosopher were always to "go forward hidden".

1987 - Grégoire Celier, The Ecuмenical Dimension of Liturgical Reform. Editions FIDELITER, Le Pointet, Escurolles. © G. CELIER.

It is the work of a scholar who has accuмulated more than 300 quotations, most of which are contrary to traditional doctrine, but none of which are corrected by a reminder of the truth. Thus, in the foreground, a quotation from Archbishop Annibale Bugnini (but of course!):

"Liturgical reform is a great conquest of the Catholic Church, with important ecuмenical repercussions; not only has it aroused the admiration of other Churches and Christian communities, but it also represents a kind of model for them. » (1974).

But Celier forgets to say that in 1975, we discovered with amazement that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason! In his Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 10, Bishop Lefebvre wrote: "When we learn in Rome that he who was the soul of the liturgical reform is a Freemason, we can think that he is not the only one. The veil that covers the greatest mystification of clerics and the faithful has probably begun to be torn. "A revealing omission, twenty years ago already.

This book could be signed by a progressive conciliarist or by a Protestant. The warning contains no criticisms of neo-Modernist ecuмenism and there is no reference to the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pius XI, (1928) condemning this modern ecuмenism. Obviously, the author has forgotten the Apostle's precept: "I implore you... insist in time and against time, correct, correct, threaten, exhort, always with patience and instruction. " (II Timothy 4:1-2).

So how could this pernicious book be allowed to be published when it was lying by omission?

1993 - Grégoire CELIER, The School of the Barruel Papers – The Future of an illusion.  GRICHA Publishing.

In this booklet 90, we recognize the main arguments that Paul Sernine [one of Fr. Celier’s pseudonyms] used in 2003 in The Straw and the Sycamore (see below). The texts are identical. Sernine has copied in full, word for word (except for rare minor editorial corrections), the three paragraphs "The silence of the Magisterium", "The intellectual impossibility" and "The argument of prescription" which, unique arguments of Celier's demonstration, become the three central chapters of Sernine's book.

Finally, it is important to note two things:

-On the 4th page of the cover, there is this warning: "This brochure is not distributed to the public and should be considered as a purely private study; please do not mention it or its author in a publication. Grégoire CELIER. Address: CFH, B.P. 337-16, 75767 Paris Cedex 16, France "
-The logo of Éditions GRICHA is a black cat with a bristly coat and all claws outside; it is surrounded by the phrase "At night all cats are grey." [Strange, isn't it?]

1994 - Gregoire CELIER, The Torn Church - A Call to "Catholics Ecclesia Dei". Editions FIDELITER, Eguelshardt, (April) 1994. Éditions Gricha, 1994. Address given for sending "criticisms, remarks and additional information": CFH, B.P. 337-16, 75767 PARIS.

This work is more a polite polemic with the "Ralliés" than a defense of Tradition in liturgy. Many of the texts cited in defense of traditional liturgy would have been better used in the book The Ecuмenical Dimension of Liturgical Reform. It should also be noted that in this book - disappointing as a whole - G. Celier shows that Rome had no intention of granting the "Ralliés" the freedom to practice and teach Tradition, but that the freedom granted was strictly limited. He seems to have forgotten this lesson by talking to Mr. Pichon.

Finally, it should be noted that even if published by Fideliter, Grégoire Celier wishes to keep the copyright © to Éditions Gricha. [Strange, isn't it?]

1994 - Grégoire CELIER, The Mortal God: An Invitation to Philosophy, Éditions Fideliter, Eguelshardt 1994 (October). On the front page: © Gricha and his kittens, 1994 [the grey cat and his kittens] and the invitation: "Thank you for sending your criticisms, remarks and additional information to Grégoire CELIER, address; CFH, B.P. 337-16, 75767 Paris Cedex 16."

On the same page, the author would like to thank his "fellow philosophy teachers Alain-Marc, Daniel, etc., twelve people designated by their sole first name. No patronymic; it is assumed that it is the "kittens" that Mr. Celier does not want to compromise by revealing their identity. [Strange precaution, isn't it, for a 36-year-old teacher?]

This book, which presents itself as a dialogue between the master and his disciple, is a kind of invitation to philosophy and opens with this mysterious (if not esoteric) exercise:


[Strange, isn't it?]

To avoid being questioned by the uninitiated, Celier warns them: "We must be careful not to identify the author with one of the protagonists in the dialogue, or even with their meeting. If he had spoken for himself, the editor would probably have said something else. But he preferred to give his characters a certain freedom of tone and thought, so that he did not necessarily take responsibility for all the statements made in their conversations."

The free Journal of Serge de Beketch (n° 55 of 30.12.1994) confirms that Gregoire Celier is a priest, a professor of philosophy, and that the title The Mortal God refers to man.

But the worst is revealed by the careful reading of the book: when it is closed, one wonders what is Catholic about the philosophy to which Celier wants to introduce his young readers. When, after many detours, he finally addresses the question of God, "To be supreme", it is to make an agnostic response (p. 275) and leave everyone to their own research (p. 290). As a Catholic priest, he should have at least referred to the Revelation by indicating the beginning of the paths that would allow us to approach it without getting lost in the maze of secondary questions and false philosophies, but he does not do so. As a Catholic professor, he could have referred to works of good popularization by the Thomists, but he only quotes practically pagan, or naturalistic, or skeptical authors, in short, bad authors whose reading only leads to dead ends where some saints are lost: Augustine, Thomas, Gregory the Great... In this respect, the appendix speaks for itself.

The two reviews in Le Sel de la terre (No. 12, Spring 1995, pp. 170-182) reveal many other points of criticism, but I limit myself here to what made me classify this book as useless and even bad.

And let us note again on the cover page:" © Gricha and his kittens, 1994" [the grey cat and his kittens] and the invitation:" Please send your criticisms, remarks and additional information to Grégoire CELIER, address; CFH, B.P. 337-16, 75767 Paris Cedex 16."

2003 - Paul Sernine [Fr. Celier’s alias], The Straw and the Sycamore -About Gnosis, Éditions Servir. In his Warning, the Publisher (by Nouvelle revue Certitude n° 13, we know that it is Fr. William Tanoüarn, but why, in this book, does he also hide his identity?) announces the thesis p. 7 : By "the love of truth" (sic!), Paul Sernine will refute with competence and method the characteristic statement of the Barruel Papers  and in particular of Mr Etienne Couvert: "In any error, "there is a key..., and it is "gnosis" (Gnosis against the faith, p. 161) "Now if we open Etienne Couvert's book to check the quotation and its context, we find neither before nor after the three words "in error" and the following "there is a key... and it is the "gnosis" on p. 161. "This is what we read on page 161, in the chapter Gnosis and Romanticism, (this is the case of Victor Hugo):

"From that moment on [after receiving Lamennais' teaching], Victor Hugo is completely Gnostic and worshipper of Satan. He says he is initiated by revelations from below: the mouth of shade in Contemplations, the spectrum or sea kiss, the nocturnal Archangel from which he draws surprising, obscure, black, absurd things... For those who do not possess the Key. But there is a Key... and it is the "Gnosis"".

Let us understand that, from "revelations from below, Hugo draws surprising things..., obscure, for the one who does not possess the key, that is to say who has not been initiated into Gnosis". To this unmistakable sentence, Sernine adds the words "In all error" and makes it the only revealing thesis, the only statement he repeats tirelessly. However, the meaning of Mr. Couvert's complete sentence is very different; it is therefore a falsification of a quotation by adding these three words; they have been regularly added each time this quotation was repeated - about ten times - and it is therefore not an error but a process. This is what the Fr. Tanoüarn, Publisher of this book, calls (p. 15) a "model methodology in Catholic science.”

"Whether one criticizes Etienne Couvert for judgments that are too categorical or unfair, for a certain systematization, for a certain error on specific points, the thing is legitimate provided that one provides proof. But is it acceptable to try to disqualify him by giving him, on ten occasions, a quote that is not his own? "(Arnaud de Lassus in Action familiale et scolaire n° 171, p. 64).

This repeated falsification is enough to disqualify its author and even the publisher who makes it his own in his Warning (p. 7). We think that this is such a serious and gross fault that it was only allowed by Providence to show us the great danger threatening priests and faithful of the Fraternity, a danger which is not the one denounced by Sernine91 but which would rather be Sernine himself.

2005 - Father Michel BEAUMONT (alias Grégoire Celier) in Fideliter n° 163, January 2005, (p. 20-25), article "Reflecting as a Christian on current politics" in which Abbé Beaumont questions himself on the adaptation of principles to the "new political realities" in a dechristianized society:

"If, under the current globalization, any country that has become a mere territory of the "global village" is inserted into a political entity where Catholics are very clearly in the minority, how would the classical doctrine of the Popes asking that a predominantly Catholic country recognize the kingdom of Christ in its political institutions still be possible? » (p. 23).

Father Celier thus notes that "undeniably new political and social realities have appeared" (p. 22) and he suggests, through a very skillful questioning, that the doctrine valid until Pius XII, would no longer be possible today, and that it is therefore "necessary that Catholics involved in politics (...) do themselves the work of reflection that the popes once proposed to them. » (p. 20).

In short, following the evolution of the world, the traditional doctrine of the Church would be outdated today and to be reviewed by the laity!

However, the encyclical Quas Primas (1925) states unambiguously that "the empire of Christ Jesus is, in strict truth, the universality of the human race. There is no need to make any distinction between individuals, families and States. (...) Governors and magistrates have an obligation, as well as individuals, to worship Christ publicly and obey his laws." This is the universal principle arising from the hypostatic union.

Celier's question, which strongly suggests his answer, corresponds to the 58th condemned proposal (the truth is not immutable) of the anti-modernist decree Lamentabili (approved by Saint Pius X). And to say that we must formulate a new doctrine adapted to our time is the 59th proposal condemned by the same decree. Father Beaumont-Celier thus illustrates a typical case of modernism as described by Saint Pius X in Pascendi: "Everything is wanted by them... Such a page of their work could be signed by a Catholic; turn the page, you think you are reading a rationalist. » (§ 20).

Alas! What has become of the rigorous censors of the past, whose Nihil obstat and Imprimatur inspired confidence?

The ANTICONSPIRACY of CELIER-SERNINE [Fr. Celier] seems to have been inspired by its publisher, the Fr. Tanoüarn, himself a disciple in the matter of his friend Alain de Benoist, author of the study Psychology of Conspiracy (see supra p. 8 and note 19).

Seen from above, anti-conspiracy is a consequence of naturalism that results in contradicting the "struggle of the two cities" (Saint Augustine, The City of God, Book XIV, chapter XXVIII) and thus denying the duty to choose the standard of Christ under which to place and fight (Saint Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, § 136 et seq.). The reality of the struggle of the TWO STANDARDS or TWO CITES is recalled by Pope Leo XIII in the introduction to his encyclical Humanum Genus. He taught that the highly organized International Society of Freemasons aims to ruin the Holy Catholic Church, to "destroy from top to bottom all the religious and social discipline that has arisen from Christian institutions and to substitute a new one for their ideas, and whose fundamental principles and laws are borrowed from naturalism".92 To protect peoples from this poison that infects society, the Pope first enjoined the bishops to "Tear off the mask she wears and show her as she is. " Then, "Teach your peoples, make them aware of the tricks used by these sects to seduce men..." Finally, "Make the masses acquire the knowledge of religion, expose the elements of the sacred principles that constitute Christian philosophy (...) in order to heal the intellectual diseases of men... "93.

Unfortunately, since the works of Crétineau-Joly published by Pope Pius IX, we know that the strategy of the Masonic sect is to ruin the Church from within, infiltration and internal recruitment have not ceased. In 1929, it was known that Cardinal Rampolla was a Freemason, fortunately excluded from the 1903 conclave by the Austrian veto. In 1938, the French episcopate had seventeen "Brothers" but in 1987, the former Grand Master Michel Baroin, declared that there were 64 French bishops in the Grand Orient of France. Finally, in 1981 a search of a Roman lodge uncovered a list of personalities affiliated with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, including a significant number of cardinals and bishops, including Cardinal Baggio, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops94.

The current crisis of the Church has its root causes, not only in the Council, but in liberalism and neo-Modernism of the mid-20th century. And these errors were rooted and developed in the hierarchy by the infiltration of liberals, freemasons and modernists, infiltrations of which we were warned in the 19th century and which Saint Pius X observed and fought. The last Council is only the manifestation of triumphant neo-Modernism in the Vatican with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

Since we know this strategy and its disastrous effects, why are we not more vigilant in choosing the leaders for this strategic position that is the Fraternity's media management in France?

In Gregoire Celier, we have several characters:

-The classical traditionalist priest, who restores and serves the Saint-Nicolas chapel in Compiègne, and who makes a good impression on his faithful;
-The Fr. Celier director of Fideliter and Clovis where we find books of all qualities, good, mediocre, and even bad by naturalism, but where there are no books dealing with the fight against the enemies of the Church.
-The professor of modern philosophy of the mortal god, who hides his priestly state and professes a pernicious philosophy;
-The polemicist Paul Sernine who, anti-antignostic of bad faith and "anti-conspiracy", is the objective ally of the enemies of the Church;
-Father Beaumont, modernist collaborator of Fideliter.

In short, this man is sometimes an irreproachable traditionalist priest, sometimes an unreliable modernist, which, according to Saint Pius X, characterizes the modernist:

"Such a page of their work could be signed by a Catholic; turn the page, you think you are reading a rationalist" (Pascendi, § 20). We have just seen that the writings of Father Gregoire Celier should only be read with great caution. Was he sincere in his choices, or was he rather skillful subversive? We will not judge that. We only noticed that, in the struggle to defend the faith and the Kingdom of Christ, this priest was not our ally but our adversary, and we then (in 2000) informed his superiors, without effect, alas!

Nevertheless, in imitation of Saint Paul, we had to "support the false brothers" (II Cor 11:26 and Gal 2:4). In this case, this "false brother" was the priest of the Brotherhood who pretended to inform but skillfully practiced misinformation, a weapon of war very well described by Vladimir Volkoff. "False brother" is obviously not an insult, but the biblical term used by the Apostle to designate those who, although authentic brothers, are "sons according to the flesh", slaves of form and letter, and who make the "sons of the promise" who live according to the spirit suffer. Thus Abel was persecuted by Cain, Isaac by Ishmael, Jacob by Esau, Joseph by his brothers, etc.95. The false brothers, very zealous, "filter the midge and swallow the camel". And if we cannot avoid their "persecution", if it is not in our power to prevent them from harming them, we must suffer them well because God allows them. But those who have this power, please remember that preventing evil is also their duty.


Endnotes:
90 It was reproduced in Nouvelle revue Certaintitudes (Abbé G. de Tanoüarn) n° 4, 2000, pp. 69-76.
91 We published an exhaustive review of this book in Cahiers de Chiré n° 19, DPF 2004, p.129-153.
92 "Our final goal is that of Voltaire and the French Revolution, the annihilation forever of Catholicism and even of the Christian idea...". Permanent instruction of the High Sale in 1819 quoted by Crétineau-Joly
93 Leo XIII, Encyclical Humanum Genus (1884), § 47-49.
94 See Introïbo No. 13 (1976) p. 2 (A.N.P. rue Delaâge, Angers). - Under Banner No. 19 (1988) p. 20-21. A Freemason in charge of choosing bishops obviously explains the orientation of episcopates in general and the mediocrity of the bishops of France, manifested particularly by their hatred of the traditional mass.
95 "Supporting false brothers" is, with patience, classified by Saint Benedict as the fourth degree of humility in his rule (chapter 7). Cf. comment by Dom Jean de Monléon, O.S.B., in The 12 Degrees of Humility  

#71: Compromise ("Unequivocal" Signs: The Mass):

In Bishop Fellay's Letter to Friends and Benefactors #73 of 10/23/08, Bishop Fellay restated the purpose of the SSPX's two preconditions for entering into doctrinal discussions with modernist Rome:

"From the beginning when Rome approached us and proposed some solutions, that is, at the beginning of 2001, we clearly stated that the manner in which Church authorities were treating the problems raised by those who desired to attempt the experience of Tradition with Rome did not inspire confidence in us. Logically we had to expect to be treated in like manner once the issue of our relationship with Rome would have been settled. Since that time, and in order to protect ourselves, we have been asking for concrete actions which would unequivocally show Rome’s intentions towards us: the traditional Mass for all priests, and the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication."
http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/sup_gen_ltr_73.pdf

And according to SSPX mythology, these two preconditions for sitting down to doctrinal discussions were fulfilled, in the 2007 promulgation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм, and the 2009 decree of the Congregation for Bishops remitting the "excommunication" of the four bishops.

But was it really true?  Had the SSPX received an "unequivocal" satisfaction of its requests?

In order to ascertain whether Rome's actions were "unequivocal," one must first be able to compare and contrast that which was requested, with that which was granted.

A. What was requested regarding the Traditional Latin Mass?

With regard to the Traditional Latin Mass, the request was made by Bishop Fellay directly to Pope Benedict XVI, during a personal audience of 8/29/05:

"Finally, we expressed our requests: that hostility towards the Tradition, which makes traditional Catholic life (is there any other?) practically impossible in the conciliar Church, be changed. We asked that this be done by granting full liberty to the Tridentine Mass..."
http://sspx.org/en/bishop-fellays-meeting-pope-benedict-xvi

B. What was granted regarding the Traditional Latin Mass?

Summorum Pontificuм places several conditions upon priests saying the traditional Mass: "by this Apostolic Letter we decree the following: The conditions for the use of this Missal laid down by the previous docuмents Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei are now replaced as follows:

-Article 2 states only priests without a congregation can celebrate the true Mass without permission (and even then, not for the Easter Triduum);

-Article 3 says members of religious communities cannot say the true Mass without permission of their major superiors;

-Article 4 allows for some spontaneous attendance of private traditional Masses, but they are apparently not to be announced;

-Article 5 says the TLM is limited to parishes where groups requesting it are "stable," and under the governance of the bishop per Can. 392, avoiding discord in the parish; in churches other than parishes, the rector bust grant permission;

-Article 6 says the readings may be proclaimed in the vernacular (at the altar, or from the pulpit?  No answer is given);
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificuм.html

C. Appraisal:

Obviously, that which was granted does not correspond to that which was requested.  

Nobody, therefore, could objectively conclude that the promulgation of Summorum Pontificuм represents an "unequivocal" action in favor of Tradition.

On the contrary, Summorum Pontificuм is a classic example of equivocation.  

The reality is that after declaring the TLM had never been abrogated, Summorum Pontificuм effectively abrogated it, not merely by these restrictive conditions, but by declaring that the Novus Ordo is the "ordinary" rite of the Roman Church, and the TLM an "extraordinary" form of the Roman Mass:

That which Rome says was free is now demoted and restricted!

How is that an unequivocal action in favor of Tradition?

#73: Compromise (The "Dialogue of the Deaf"):








The presumption underlying the two preconditions to sitting down to doctrinal discussions all along (ad extra), was that only a Rome actively working to return to Tradition could unequivocally concede perfect freedom to the true Mass, and declare the excommunications null.  But as we discussed in the previous two posts, that is not what transpired.  Instead, Rome was able to formulate declarations which constrained and demoted the true Mass, and reaffirmed the legitimacy of the 1988 "excommunications" (even as it "remitted" them).  Consequently, an SSPX which was seeking unequivocal proofs of Rome's willingness and desire to return to Tradition ought to have declared those preconditions unsatisfied, and refused to proceed to doctrinal discussions.

In such measure as Rome's equivocal declarations implied a refusal to render the signs of goodwill the SSPX was looking for, doctrinal discussions would seem, on the surface, to be a "dialogue of the deaf," with each side still committed to its prior positions, as Bishop Williamson explained:

“I think that will end up as a dialogue of the deaf. The two positions are absolutely irreconcilable. 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are irreconcilable. Either those who say 2+2=4 renounce the truth and agree that 2+2=5 — that is, the SSPX abandons the truth, which God forbids us to do — or those who say 2+2=5 convert and return to the truth. Or the two meet halfway and say that 2+2=4-1/2. That’s wrong. Either the SSPX becomes a traitor or Rome converts or it’s a dialogue of the deaf.”
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/01/19/bishop-williamson-says-vatican-sspx-talks-dialogue-of-the-deaf/

Rome surely understood this, but from their perspective, there was still a chance the SSPX would decide 2+2 could equal 4.5.  

But that didn't really matter: Rome was going through the motions toward a pre-ordained end. After pretending it had conceded the SSPX's two preconditions, and then entertained two years of doctrinal discussions (the results of which it considered mostly unimportant, except insofar as it strengthened the bonds between the Romans and SSPX), it was ready for the SSPX to consider an offer.

Only a few months after the conclusion of the discussions (of which Bishop de Galarreta told us the Romans would hear nothing of the SSPX's arguments), Bishop Fellay announced that the SSPX had received a (secret) "doctrinal preamble" which was an offer for regularization, and a few months after that, convened a gathering of all the major superiors in Albano, Italy to consider the offer.

Six months after that Albano convocation, Bishop Fellay signed the preamble (more commonly known as the "April 15 Doctrinal Declaration") the day after being implored by the three other bishops not to.

Now look what just happened here:

Somehow, Bishop Fellay and the SSPX went from discussions to negotiations!

And how did that happen?

By agreeing to sit down with the enemy to "dialogue" in the first place, despite the unfulfilled preconditions (the mere fact of which demonstrated Rome was still the enemy).

Recall Mr. Paul Chaussee's observation in the introductory comments to this entry:

"These proposals tend to push the superiors of the Society to engage in discussions that will quickly become negotiations where, by nature, one must concede one thing to obtain or preserve another thing deemed preferable."






"According to the SSPX, “The Holy See says the same when it solemnly declares that no canonical status can be established for the Society until after the signing of a doctrinal docuмent.”  Therefore, everything impels the Society to resume theological discussions with the awareness that the Good Lord does not necessarily ask the Society to convince its interlocutors, but rather to bear unconditional witness to the faith in the sight of the Church.”
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/doctrine-remains-problem-in-relations-sspx-affirms-after-vatican-meeting-32527

Fr. Pagliarani is telling Rome he wants to negotiate another doctrinal declaration, and he is content to enter into pluralism.

I have no doubt he will receive one (and it won't really matter what it says): Once the pen hits paper, the coup d'grace (decapitation) will be simultaneous, and the body will no longer tremble.

There will be te deum's sung all over the world, but they will only be celebrating the final annihilation of Tradition and the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre