#90: Change (Roman Ratification of General Chapter Election):

On January 12, 2018 the French periodical La Croix ran an interesting story based on a January 8 article which appeared on an unspecified SSPX website regarding the upcoming 4th General Chapter and the election of the Superior General and his two Assistants.  

On that subject, La Croix provides this interesting excerpt from the article, which also seems to be supplemented by subsequent commentary from Fr. Bouchacourt(*):

"The General Chapter is "above all" an opportunity to "verify that the statutes are faithfully applied, always in the spirit that presided over the foundation," the site says. For this purpose, several aspects of the life of society will be reviewed: "common and liturgical life, apostolate and administration, sanctification of members, fight of the faith".

A so-called interim chapter was held in 2012, at mid-term, to review the life of the Society.

"It is a question of knowing if we are indeed faithful to the main mission of the FSSPX, namely the sanctification of the clergy", Father Christian Bouchacourt, Superior of the District of France, reminds La Croix. Relations with Rome will of course be at the heart of the discussions. "Moreover, as soon as a new superior is elected, the decision is immediately transmitted to the Vatican," he says. Canonically, the vote must even be ratified by the Roman authorities...."
https://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Catholicisme/France/Fraternite-Saint-Pie-X-elira-nouveau-superieur-mois-juillet-2018-01-12-1200905367

On the surface, it makes no sense for the SSPX to send election results to Rome for ratification, because officially the SSPX was suppressed by Rome in 1975.  Hence, the logical reaction of Rome would be to reject the elections results, regardless of what it determined, as illegitimate and illicit.

On the other hand, if with a wink of the eye, Rome has extended to the SSPX a "recognition of tolerance ad tempus" (i.e., a provisional recognition to see how the SSPX will "behave") as the Avrille Dominicans have suggested is the plan, then it makes complete sense why the SSPX would act as though Rome had authority and jurisdiction over their congregation.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/towards-a-'canonical-recognition-of-tolerance'-ad-tempus/

Regardless of whether or not this recognition of tolerance ad tempus reflects the current understanding between Rome and the Society or not, this novel development is troubling in what it suggests:

The SSPX does not send election results to Rome just so it can ignore Rome's decision if it should refuse to ratify the results!

And while it seems that, to all appearances, the results were agreed upon under the table before the General Chapter even commenced (as evinced by the election of the Superior General and both Assistants in the opening day of the Chapter, whereas it was not until the 9th day of the 2006 General Chapter that these elections were made), without much, if any, deliberation, the fact of sending election results to Rome evinces a subjection at some level to Roman authority.  
[Link showing dates of 2006 General Chapter  https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/07/sspx-general-chapter-declaration.html]
[Link showing date of 2006 General Chapter election results: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/07/sspx-general-chapter-declaration.html]

What was the SSPX going to do if Rome rejected the election results?  Hold new elections, apparently, until Rome approved of the results?  But it seems the SSPX was not worried about that possibility, and this confidence coupled with the haste with which the elections were made and submitted to Rome is interesting to say the least.

But all that aside, the troubling evolution in the internal working of the SSPX here is that the SSPX has consented to surrender control of its highest ranking officers to modernist Roman authority.

And if Rome approves of the current administration (problematic in itself!), it seemingly closes the road to the possibility of future elected officers who might attempt to break the SSPX free of modernist influence in the future (e.g., Fr. Beauvais; Bishop Tissier de Mallerais; etc.).



(*)  The style of the La Croix article is confusing, and it is difficult to tell when they are quoting the uncited SSPX article directly, recounting the subsequent comments of Fr. Bouchacourt, or adding their own commentary.  

It seems that when they are using quotation marks, they are probably citing from the unspecified SSPX website.  

But they also seem to have had da follow-up conversation with Fr. Bouchacourt about that article, as they say, "Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, Superior of the District of France, reminds La Croix."

And then there is the "Canonically, the vote must even be ratified by the Roman authorities..."  This sentence is not contained within quotation marks.  Is it La Croix putting in its own words something contained in the SSPX article?  Is La Croix paraphrasing Fr. Bouchacourt?  Is La Croix adding its own commentary without saying so?  Hard to tell.

What is clear is that the common understanding of the La Croix article is that the SSPX has sent election results to Rome for ratification, and in the 15 months that have passed since this article ran, we are not aware of any SSPX clarification or denial of this reading of events (which it should and would have done, had there been some misunderstanding on such a critical point).

#92: Contradiction (Hiding the Deal: "We are Back to Square One"):

Bishop Fellay is a man who learned well from Cromwell the need to move incrementally, and at times, to even declare a setback if necessary to calm nerves and tensions arising from a too hasty entrance into conciliar pluralism.  Toward this end, he has frequently declared that "We are back to square one" (or similar words to that effect) in order to mask the concessions and compromises made and received, as if to imply that the SSPX was back to where it was before the ralliement.  

However, the more perceptive clergy and faithful noticed that whatever Bishop Fellay may have said about being "back to square one" (or equivalent statements), the situation did not return to the previous status quo: Both Bishop Fellay and modernist Rome retained what they had agreed upon over the years.  They simply paused temporarily to recover some little stability before moving forward again.

Note carefully also that Bishop Fellay's frequent claims to being "back to square one" have transpired at critical times for the ralliement process, when opposition has been particularly intense, thereby showing the true purpose for making this demonstrably false claim, once again to calm tensions and create the illusion of returning to s state of pre-ralliement normalcy in the SSPX.

Here are some examples of this technique in action:

1) The leak of the Letter of the Three Bishops: This letter threatened to split the SSPX wide open, clearly demonstrating the internal gulf separating Bishop Fellay from the other three bishops on the subject of "reconciling" with modernist Rome, who, getting cold feet at the 11th hour and fearing the SSPX might depose Bishop Fellay at the upcoming General Chapter a few months later, rejected Bishop Fellay's April 15, 2012 General Chapter Declaration, and proposed a counter-offer it knew the bishop must reject.  This Roman ploy created the illusion of Bishop Fellay cancelling the practical accord with Rome, on the false implication that he was standing hard on Tradition.  Consequently, at the ordination sermon in Econe on 6/29/2012, Bishop Fellay stated:

"If up to now we have said almost nothing, it is because we do not have much to tell you. Up to now, things are at a stage, we can say, of full stop. In the sense that there have been to's and fro's, there have been exchanges, effectively, dealings, proposals, but we are back at the point of departure."
http://archives.sspx.org/news/2012_archive/econe_ordinations_2012/econe_ordinations_2012.htm#sermon

But there was no rejection of a merely practical accord; no rejection of the six conditions which paved the way for it; no withdrawal on the part of Rome of canonical jurisdiction to try its own priests; no return to the pre-2012 status quo.


2) The pastoral guidelines for diocesan authority over SSPX marriages: Many more compromises transpired between Rome and the SSPX between 2012 and the March/2017 guidelines: The granting of jurisdiction to hear confessions and tacit approval to ordain priests being the two biggest maneuvers by Rome.  So when the pastoral guidelines were announced, it was too blatant a subjection and entanglement in the modernist/conciliar church to disguise, and a revolt ensued.  What was left but to sign on the dotted lone?

A couple months later, once again in Econe at a luncheon after the 6/29/2017 ordinations, Bishop Fellay stated:

"It is like in the Game of the Goose. We were almost at the end and then we landed on the ‘go back to start’ square. Everything has fallen to the ground, it is necessary to begin again from square one."
https://novusordowatch.org/2017/07/sspx-fellay-game-of-the-goose/

But had everything really fallen to the ground?  Had Rome taken back its ordinary jurisdiction to hear confessions (or did Menzingen renounce it)?  Was the SSPX no longer able to ordain priests, administer Extreme Unction, or receive delegations from the diocesan bishops for marriages?

Was not Bishop Fellay telling the world only a few months earlier that he only awaited for Rome's stamp of approval?
https://novusordowatch.org/2017/01/sspx-bishop-fellay-vatican-stamp-approval/

So we see the technique in action once again, to calm tensions and create the illusion of returning to the pre-ralliement status quo, while in reality it was nothing more than a pause to allow some degree of stability to return before marching forward once more.

Or, as Tradidi.com so succinctly explains it:

"It is important to make a distinction between the objective and the tactic. The tactic of the Romans and the Neo-SSPX seems to be to oscillate for a while between square 1 and square 2 (or at least to give that impression), just like in order to break metal one only has to bend it back and forth a number of times until it finally snaps. But the objective has always been, and still is, to find a practical way for the Neo-SSPX to cohabitate with the modernists in Rome, to find a place for them in the ecuмenical zoo.
To be precise, we are no longer oscillating between square 1 and square 2, but rather between square 5 and square 6. It’s just that all the concessions and cooperation achieved in square 1 to 5 have now become accepted as the new normal by the frogs in the boiling water. As these frogs always extend “the line in the sand” forward, every new step will appear to them as step 2, until one day they will wake up, or rather “arrive without waking up”, at their destination."

[Note: I could not find this quote on Tradidi, but it is attributed to them here: http://tradcatresist.blogspot.com/2018/ -See entry for 11/28/18]

#94: Compromise (The First Rosary Crusade):

On July 16, 2006 Bishop Fellay's Letter to the Faithful announced that:

"The Society has the intention of presenting a spiritual bouquet of a million Rosaries to the Sovereign Pontiff for the end of the month of October, month of the Rosary.
These Rosaries will be recited for the following intentions:

• To obtain from Heaven for Pope Benedict XVI the strength required to completely free up the Mass of all time, called the Tridentine Mass.
• For the return of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
• For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We are calling you, therefore, to a true Crusade of the Rosary."
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/Bishop_Fellays_Letter_post_General_Chapter.htm

We have already discussed whether or not Bishop Fellay received from Rome what he had requested, and concluded in the negative in post #71 of this thread.

Our concern here is to consider the sincerity of the request made in this first Rosary Crusade.

Why?

Because this announcement was made in July/2006, but only three months later, while the Rosary Crusade was still in progress, Bishop Fellay spoke of the "imminent arrival of a motu proprio which would replace that of 1988 so as to give more freedom to the Mass, an equal right to the new Mass."
(Cor Unum #85) (*)

And then, of course, in July 2007, the motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм was promulgated (i.e., almost exactly one year after Bishop Fellay's announcement of the first Crusade.

The obvious concern here is that, with Bishop Fellay's October admission that he expected an imminent motu proprio, it makes it look like Bishop Fellay had called for a Crusade to effect an end already agreed upon, and more than this, that the purpose of the Crusade was not so much to bring about the already agreed upon result, but to make it look as though the Blessed Virgin herself was in support of the reconciliation process (a suggestion that Bishop Tissier explicitly denied, as quoted in post #15 of this thread).

Is there some other explanation?  Had Bishop Fellay learned of the imminence of the forthcoming motu proprio sometime between the July announcement launching the Crusade, and his October announcement?  Or, had Bishop Fellay launched the Crusade merely in the hopes that Rome would follow through on a promise made to him?

Possibly, but in light of the tremendous scandal caused by the Crusade(s), of which the general House was surely aware, one would have expected that if such were the case, the SSPX would have clarified (particularly in the wake of Fr. Rioult's book The Impossible Reconciliation, wherein this timeline is laid out, and of which the General House was also well aware).

That they did not strengthens such a reading of events, and particularly in light of similar "incongruities" in the subsequent Rosary Crusades, of which we shall now discuss.

(*) I have not yet been able to secure the French version of Cor Unum from Which Fr. Rioult surely quoted from, but I do have the Spanish version, and as you can see, it is substantially (nearly identically) the same, stating:

"At the same time that it is announced to us the supposed imminent appearance of a motu proprio that would replace the one of 1988 to give greater freedom to the Mass, giving it a right equal to the new Mass."

#96: Contradiction (Further and Further from Archbishop Lefebvre):

In the Bizarro World which is the neo-SSPX, everything is today the opposite of the way it was under Archbishop Lefebvre, as the Society finally comes to terms with Vatican II 55 years after the fact.

The latest account comes to us from England, where it appears that the General House took offense at the decision of the SSPX sisters to abstain from attending the visit of Bishop Egan to the SSPX St. Michael's School.

The problem was not so much the perceived lack of "courtesy," which will surely be used as a stick to beat the sisters with, or even the (well-deserved) embarrassment the abstention may have caused Fr. Brucciani.  The real problem was the setback to the ralliement the sisters' abstention may have caused by showing Rome that the SSPX was not yet sufficiently purified of all resistance (even if it is only its women doing any fighting these days).

Here is the official SSPX announcement from Fr. Brucciani:

http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t882-Du-nouveau-dans-la-liquidation-de-l-ancienne-FSSPX.htm

Dear Parents,
Fr. Robert Brucciani has asked me to announce the news of Sr. Mary Elizabeth’s decision to leave the Society of St. Pius X. Sister will leave in the next few days and move on to a place which she has not disclosed.
Her decision dates from several months ago but we have only known about it very recently. Superiors have not been successful in guiding her to a change of mind.

The General House has also received requests from the other Sisters for new placements. In view of the difficulties they have experienced for some time now, they are in need of rest and discernment. The Sisters will, therefore, depart from St. Michael’s after Easter and take up residence abroad in different houses of the Society.
I cannot hide that the loss of the Sisters’ community comes as a tremendous blow. It reminds us that the crisis in the Church is still very much alive. Such events can even test our Faith. We must not, however, lose our trust in Divine Providence.
The Junior School staff have convened and for the remainder of this term and for next term, junior classes will be organised as follows: Mrs Joyce will take responsibility for Year 1. Miss Dunn will teach Years 2 and 3. Mr Hooley will teach Years 4, 5 and 6. Several pupils presently in Year 3 will pass to Year 4 after consultation with parents.
This redistribution of classes allows for classes to continue with minimal disruption. I am very grateful to the Junior staff for their readiness to give their all for the good of the children.

The school will seek to employ a new deputy-head of the Junior School in readiness for the new school year. It is too early to know if we will receive a new community of nuns. For this we can only pray.
In the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary,

Rev. Fr. John Brucciani
Headmaster
St. Michael's School
Burghclere, Hampshire RG20 9JW


What a bizarre state of affairs in the neo-SSPX, where nuns are punished for desiring to protect themselves from modernism, whereas in the days of Archbishop Lefefbvre, he clearly lauded them for spurning the visits of diocesan, infected bishops.

For example, Bishop Tissier describes the unanimous strength of the sisters, who were all categorically opposed to any kind of arrangement (or even contact) with infected bishops and modernist Rome:

"The Sisters were almost all categorical: “We cannot deal with bishops who have lost the Faith,” said the Dominicans of Fanjeux. The Sisters of Brignoles considered that depending on Rome would force them into having “contacts with their former congregations that are now modernist,” and “that is impossible.” The Society Sisters mentioned “the risk for the Faith and cohesion of Tradition.” Finally, the Carmelites said that it was “a Trojan horse within Tradition”
https://tradidi.com/between-jansenism-and-mondernism (The Biography, Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, pp. 558-559).

And again:

"The sisters of Saint-Michel-en-Brenne, the Dominican Sisters of Fanjeaux and Brignoles, are all against the agreement: "We should not depend on Ratzinger, they say... Imagine if he came to give us conferences! He would divide us!"

#98: Contradiction (Who Can Approve a Deal with Rome?):

The old SSPX taught us that all revolution inevitable consumes itself, with the initial generation of revolutionaries laying down new principles, and subsequent generations taking those new principles to their logical conclusion, thereby going further than even the original revolutionaries desired or foresaw.  The classic example of this was the battle between the Girondists and Jacobins of the French Revolution (the Girondists appearing "moderate" in comparison to the Jacobins, who grabbed from them the revolutionary principles and developed them to their terrible but inevitable conclusion).  In the ecclesiastical realm of the post-conciliar Church, we see the same dynamic between the liberals (Kung, Congar, von Balthasar, Paul VI, Bugnini, et al) and conservatives (Ratzinger, Burke, Schneider, Brandmuller, Mueller, et al), with the latter moving in the same direction as the former, but at a slower pace, and trying to paint the revolution with a Catholic veneer, but gutting the religion of its former self all the same.

If, then, the SSPX has embraced the conciliar revolution, we would expect to see the same phenomena transpiring within the Society, and following the model above, it would do so at an increasingly accelerated pace: From "discreet but not secret" beginnings, quietly contradicting Archbishop Lefebvre behind closed doors while preaching tough sermons to maintain appearances in the years from 1997 - 2006, to achieving practical steps toward the accomplishment of a cohabitation with modernist Rome from 2006 - 2012, to open divergence with the Founder from 2012 to the present.

And of course, the evidence of the revolution lies in the casualties along the way: the expulsion or resignation of 70 +/- priests; the rupture of relations with formerly allied religious communities; the suppression of any questioning of the reorientation of the Society reminiscent of h0Ɩ0cαųst denial laws in Germany; the 100+ docuмented changes, contradictions, and compromises which comprise this thread.

In this post, we focus on a very specific manifestation of the SSPX revolution overtaking itself: A new mindset (de facto and unofficial, but seemingly operative) prevailing in the minds of the superiors and capitulants convened at the 2018 General Chapter, explicated by certain assertions made by the Secretary General and 1st Assistant to the Superior General, by which the General Chapter seems to have lost or relinquished its authority to hold deliberative power to decide on an accord with Rome (as declared at the 2012 general Chapter), and had this authority transferred to the Superior General.

But we must first go back in time a bit to track the progression of the SSPX revolution, and make it more visible:

In 2006, the SSPX General Chapter Declaration announced:

"Likewise, the contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. When Tradition comes back into its own, "reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will spring back to life".
http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/2006_general_chapter/declaration_of_2006_general_chapter.htm

That statement reflected the post-consecration position of Archbishop Lefebvre that a practical agreement with unconverted Rome:

"That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circuмstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it."
https://fsspx.org/en/letter-future-bishops

But shortly thereafter, Rome and the SSPX began implementing the agreement to "proceed by stages" toward a practical accord agreed upon in 2000.  With the reign of Bishop Fellay freshly secured for another 12 years, it was time pretend Rome was moving toward Tradition by complying with the SSPX's preconditions.  But it appears nobody ever considered either that Rome could grant the two conditions as a maneuver, while still remaining hostile to Tradition, or, as was in fact the case, that Rome could pretend to grant the two conditions, with the SSPX pretending along with them, as though checking tasks to be accomplished off a "to do" list, and after having gone through the motions, propose these maneuvers demonstrated a change in Rome which demanded a new response from the SSPX in kind.

So, by the time the 2012 General Chapter had rolled around, the SSPX had convinced most of its clergy and faithful that Rome had granted the two preconditions, engaged in doctrinal discussions, and was now ready to grant the SSPX everything it wanted...but without Rome moving one inch in the direction of Tradition.

It was based upon this pretext that the 2012 General Chapter overturned the operative principle of 2006 with regard to a "reconciliation" with conciliar Rome, and declared:

"We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization. We have decided that, in that case, an extraordinary Chapter with deliberative vote will be convened beforehand."
http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/2012_general_chapter/2012_general_chapter_statement_7-19-2012.htm

The pertinent point of the Declaration quoted, for the purposes of this post, is not so much that in laying down conditions for a practical accord with unconverted Rome, the 2012 Chapter had directly contradicted that of 2006 (revolutionary in its own right), but that it had determined that in the event of such a sellout, it would be the affirmative vote of the General Chapter which would authorize it.

This was also explained by the Society shortly before the 2012 General Chapter:

"The General Chapter is the supreme and extraordinary authority of the Society of St. Pius X. The ordinary authority is the Superior General assisted by his council. The General Chapter is the only entity able to amend the Statutes. The “ordinary” General Chapter meets every 12 years. Additionally, the Superior General is allowed to convene an “extraordinary” Chapter for exceptional reasons. After his re-election at the head of the Society in 2006, the Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay announced that he will convene an “half-mandate” Chapter to review the current affairs in 2012...The present relationships with Rome will occupy also the deliberations of the Chapter. In the today’ situation, the resolutions or recommendations of the Chapter will be especially important."
http://sspx.org/en/how-it-works-sspxs-general-chapter

But with the former principle of no practical agreement before the conversion of Rome overturned, the revolution accelerated (as so many examples of contradiction, change, and compromise in this thread amply demonstrate), and by the time the 2018 General Chapter had arrived, even the requirement and authority of the General Chapter to authorize the betrayal had fallen to the revolution, with the Superior General now arrogating to himself sole decision making authority to hand the keys to the castle over to unconverted Rome, with the groundwork for this transition of authority being laid just one month before the 2018 General Chapter by Fr. Christian Thouvenot (Secretary General) in an interview with Mitteilungsblatt:

"To answer your question, it is certainly possible that the issue of the status of a personal prelature should come up during the Chapter. But it is the Superior General alone who leads the Society and who is responsible for relations between the Holy See and Tradition. Archbishop Lefebvre, in 1988, was careful to insist on this."
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/what-will-happen-general-chapter-sspx-38474

And at roughly the same time, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger (then 1st Assistant to Bishop Fellay) was explaining to Catholic Family News that:

"It is not exceptional or unusual for the Superior of any Institute in the Catholic Church to be responsible for the legal process of formal recognition by the authorities of the Church. Neither the people, nor the Chapter, nor the majority should deal with the Roman authorities. That’s only the duty of the proper Superior, because the Catholic Church is not a democracy."
https://www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2018/6/16/interview-with-father-niklaus-pfluger-sspx

Bishop Williamson was quick to react to the suggestion that the Superior General along possessed deliberative power regarding a deal with Rome:

"Firstly, it is not the Superior General who is alone at the head of the Society. By the Statutes of the Society established by Archbishop Lefebvre, it is true that once the Superior General is elected, he has remarkable powers at his disposal and for no less than a 12-year term, because the Archbishop wanted the Superior General to have time and power to achieve something, without being hindered as he himself had been in the Holy Ghost Fathers. But the General Chapter meeting every six or twelve years is above the Superior General, and he must follow the policies decided by it. Now in theory the General Chapter of 2012 decided that any “canonical normalisation” of the Society would require a majority vote of the full General Chapter, but in practice Bishop Fellay has already proceeded to “normalise” with Rome the Society’s confessions, ordinations and marriages. And now his General Secretary is talking as though the General Chapter has nothing further to say, as though Bishop Fellay alone can “normalise” the rest. Are all the forty future Capitulants of July aware of how Menzingen is talking? Do they agree?"
https://stmarcelinitiative.com/liberals-prepare/

But nobody seemed to challenge this new suggestion, and it appears never to have occurred to any who have since accepted this de facto transition of authority that, if Frs. Thouvenot and Pfluger were correct, then the 2012 general Chapter was itself guilty of violating a principle attributed to Archbishop Lefebvre, in illegitimately delegating this decision making authority to the deliberative vote of the General Chapter!

If one reads the various SSPX communiques during and after the 2018 General Chapter (e.g., announcements regarding election results, or what passes for a general Chapter Declaration), no official or de jure announcement of such a transition of authority is mentioned.  It seems instead to have been a passively accepted "spirit" (just like at Vatican II), insofar as the statements immediately before the Chapter by the Secretary General and 1st Assistant to the Superior General are nowhere contradicted by any of the capitulants.

Consequently, the revolution has progressed nicely, and the General Chapter -de facto- now has the appearance, at least with regard to relations with Rome, of being nothing more than an executive body convened to rubber stamp the will of the Superior general:

In 2006, no practical accord was possible.  In 2012, it become possible, but any decision to come to a canonical agreement were the business of a General Chapter(*), and authorized only by an affirmative deliberative vote.  By 2018, according to the suggestions of Frs. Pfluger and Thouvenot, it seems to have become the sole business of the Superior General to decide on a deal with Rome.  

When the time comes for the SSPX to sign the definitive accord (Something Fr. Pagliarani has announced his desire to achieve in reopening negotiations/discussions with Rome), can anyone imagine a General Chapter, which gives every appearance of having acquiesced in these suggestions, opposing the will of the Superior general?

Consequently, the door is open for the revolution to continue on its merry way, and right in to the conciliar church.


(*): Note that some have observed that, by the signing of the 2012 April 15 Doctrinal Declaration (the day after rejecting the appeal of the three other SSPX bishops not to), Bishop Fellay had already violated, circuмvented, and pre-empted the General Chapter's authority to call for a deliberative vote prior to an accord with Rome, which did not convene for another three months.

#100: Contradiction (+Lefebvre Never Required the Conversion of Rome? - Part II):

In the previous post, we provided several quotes to rebut the claim of Fr. Simoulin et al. that Archbishop Lefebvre never required the conversion of Rome before considering a practical accord.  Of course, we are speaking of Archbishop Lefebvre from the time he had determined to consecrate bishops in 1988, until his death in March - 1991.

But consider that Bishop Fellay had been maneuvering for precisely such an accord since at least 1997, with his sponsorship of SSPX participation in the GREC.  It would be naive to believe in all those years of discussions with the GREC, meetings with Rome, and the eventual plan to "proceed by stages" toward a "reconciliation" following upon the 2000 SSPX pilgrimage to Rome that it never occurred to him (or any of his accordist associate and confreres) that eventually he was going to run into the stumbling block of Archbishop Lefebvre's well known position.  

How to move beyond all those well known quotes, and the operative principle vis-a-vis relations with Rome which had governed those relations for 20 years?

The "solution" or blueprint was provided by the shadowy and subversive figure of Fr. Gregoire Celier, whom we discussed in post #69 of this thread, with regard to his 2007 book Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists, which the French District Superior (Fr. Regis de Cacqueray) heavily promoted throughout France.

In 2014, the US District excised an excerpt from Fr. Celier's book, and formed it into an article titled "How to Interpret Archbishop Lefebvre."
http://sspx.org/en/how-interpret-archbishop-lefebvre

The introduction to that article explains that Fr. Celier's thoughts have been adopted by Bishop Fellay, removing all speculation and doubt on that point:

"Fr. Celier, in this somewhat lengthy docuмent, lays out the principles and rules by which the archbishop made his decisions. It is not an attempt to play prophet; rather, if we more deeply understand this objective methodology, we can both better understand why the archbishop said specific things in certain situations and why the same prudential methodology is followed still today by Bishop Fellay and the Society of St. Pius X."

What was this "methodology," which would help circuмvent Archbishop Lefebvre's prohibition on negotiating a practical accord with modernist Rome?

Fr. Celier rightly explains one principle in understanding the thoughts of another is to determine whether they are systematic thinkers, or pragmatic thinkers:

"In the intellectual order, one can rather conveniently classify minds as being either “systematic” or “pragmatic” (without any pejorative sense in either case).  “Systematic” minds are more often found among intellectuals, in whom thought predominates. They approach any situation in terms of the principles, the “system” with which they are imbued, and seek to bring the circuмstances of the situation into the unity of the system.  Hence their thinking, their expression and their actions are very consistent (or try to be), but sometimes they lack flexibility in face of reality.  Although “pragmatic” minds also live according to principles, they initially approach a situation by analyzing that situation, its concrete circuмstances and its implications. Upon that initial analysis they project the light of their principles so as to determine a course of action. Unlike the “systematic minds”, however, they are not especially concerned about checking whether what they are going to say or do at that moment is, formally and substantially, perfectly in harmony with what they have said or done previously, or with what they are going to say or do afterward. These “pragmatic minds”, therefore, are extremely flexible in adapting to reality, but they run the risk of appearing incoherent (at least) in the long term. Men of action, such as politicians, military men, and industrialists, are obviously first-degree “pragmatics”.

There is no problem with the principle as such, but it is in the application of this principle that the "magic" happens:

By being correctly labeled a pragmatic thinker, and therefore subject to change and seeming incoherence as circuмstances dictate, the permanence and immutability of the 1988 and post-1988 position of Archbishop Lefebvre vis-a-vis Rome suddenly becomes questionable again: After all, they say, "who can really say whether Archbishop Lefebvre would maintain his 1988-1991 position according to circuмstances in 2000, 2012, or 2019?  After all, he was a pragmatic thinker!"

Consequently, the SSPX, in reliance upon the subversive scheming of Fr. Celier, treated the faithful to articles like Fr. Simoulin's "We Cannot be 88ers," in which it is alleged that:

"Whatever the state of Rome may be, of all that still remains that is disturbing in Rome, plain common sense and honesty should lead us to consider the current situation with different eyes than those of 1988! Recalling the saying of one of our bishops, we cannot be "eighty-eighters"!
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/04/rome-sspx-we-cannot-be-88ers.html

Translation: Archbishop Lefebvre's positions were good for his times, but nobody can say that he would hold the same position in today's circuмstances, because as Fr. Simoulin states in a completely solipsistic swoon:

"We are neither in 1975 with Paul VI nor in 1988 with John Paul II, but in 2012 with Benedict XVI. It can be said as much as one may wish to that the state of the Church is still of great concern, that our Pope has a theology that is at times strange, etc... we have said it enough, it seems to me; but let it not be said that the state of things is the same as in 1988, or worse. This is contrary to the reality and to the truth, and it cannot but be the effect of a more or less secret refusal of any reconciliation with Rome, perhaps of a lack of faith in the holiness of the Church, composed of poor sinners but always governed by her head, Jesus Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost."

Even Bishop Fellay's conciliar allies like Bishop Athanasius Schneider took the cue, declaring that today Archbishop Lefebvre would certainly sign a deal:

"A personal prelature would be perfectly suited to the reality of the Society of St. Pius X and its mission. I am convinced that Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted gladly and gratefully this official ecclesial structure and the Church’s recognition of the apostolate they accomplish."
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bp-schneider-restoring-justice-sspx

Archbishop Lefebvre was practical, you see, and today he would see how much better things are, and what a great deal he was getting!

But here is the truth of the matter:

-There is no doubt that Fr. Celier's principle of distinguishing between systematic and pragmatic thinkers is a legitimare hermeneutic;

-There is no doubt that, of the two types of thinkers, Archbishop Lefebvre was pragmatic;

-However, it is not the Resistance, but Menzingen, Fr. Celier, and the accordists of the SSPX who have failed to properly assess how, when, and why Archbishop Lefebvre's pragmatic propensity to react to changing circuмstances actually manifested itself, which was this:

Archbishop Lefebvre negotiated with unconverted Rome for almost 15 years (i.e., from the time of the suppression of the SSPX until the time he decided to consecrate bishops), because as he stated, he waited until the last minute for Rome to show a little loyalty to Tradition.  But once he became certain that Rome was not negotiating in good faith for the return of Tradition, and was just waiting for him (and Tradition) to die, THIS was the trigger and circuмstance which changed his thoughts and actions with regard to the impossibility of a practical accord with unconverted Rome, and having secured through these episcopal consecrations the principle of continuity and perpetuation of the Society, he would never again be in a position to need to negotiate.  As he said, he was content to wait for Rome's return to the Church.

Moreover, there were no substantial changes in Rome between 1998 - 1991 which would have altered his position, and, contrary to the solipsistic statement of Fr. Simoulin quoted above (as Bishop Fellay himself acknowledged, when he observed that Rome was still the same old modernist Rome, a year after Fr. Simoulin's crazy statement to the contrary), there have been none since:

"Here we are then, at Easter 2013, and the situation in the Church remains almost unchanged. The words of Archbishop Lefebvre take on a prophetic tone. It has all come to pass, and it all continues for the greater misfortune of souls who no longer hear from their pastors the message of salvation."
https://sspx.org/en/publications/letters/april-2013-superior-generals-letter-80-1856

It is absolutely clear and certain, therefore, that Archbishop Lefebvre would not entertain the possibility of an accord with modernist Rome in 1991, 2000, 2012, 2019, or 2219, howsoever the disingenuous misapplication of Fr. Celier's legitimate principle may contrive to say otherwise.

#102: Double Compromise (Valid Episcopal Rite; Tutiorist Position Toward Sacramental Validity)

With the 2005 election of Pope Benedict XVI to the papacy, the discussion regarding the validity of the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration heated up, as Benedict XVI was the first pope to be consecrated a bishop according to the new rite.  A determination of the issue had huge implications: If the form of the new rite was invalid, or even doubtful, would Benedict XVI truly be the Bishop of Rome?

Until that time, the matter regarding the validity of the form of the new rite was a disputed matter open for debate within the Society, with some of its best theologians declaring the new rite "doubtful."

One such theologian was none other than Bishop Tissier de Malleris, who, having received the book of Dr. Coomaraswamy La Drame Anglican, which declared the new rite invalid, responded in a 1998 letter:

"Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s pamphlet “Le Drame Anglican.”
After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.
The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.
As regards Mgr Lazo, it would be difficult for us to explain these things to him; the only solution is not to ask him to confirm or ordain.
Yours very truly in Our Lord Jesus Christ,
+Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
PS: Another thought: Mgr Lazo has already confirmed “quite a few” [people] with us. Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction. And it is difficult to see how to make our doubt known to Mgr Lazo. So silence and discretion about this, please."  http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/

A few years later, in 2006, a group called the International Committee Rore Sanctifica [http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/contact.html] based out of France conducted a study which concluded in the invalidity of the new form of episcopal consecration, and did so persuasively enough for the SSPX and its assets to spring into action, and jump to the defense -without saying so- of Pope Benedict XVI, with a flurry of studies concluding in favor of the validity of the new rite:

In 2007, former US District Superior, Fr. Peter Scott wrote an article titled "Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained?," which explained to the faithful why is was essential to conditionally ordain priests (and bishops) coming to the Society from the conciliar church, who had been ordained in the new, doubtful rites:

"When it concerns the validity of the sacraments, we are obliged to follow a “tutiorist” position, or safest possible course of action.
We cannot choose a less certain option, called by the moral theologians a simply probable manner of acting, that could place in doubt the validity of the sacraments, as we are sometimes obliged to do in other moral questions. If we were able to follow a less certain way of acting, we would run the risk of grave sacrilege and uncertainty concerning the sacraments, which would place the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy. Even the lax “probabilist” theologians admitted this principle with respect to baptism and holy orders, since the contrary opinion was condemned by Pope Innocent XI in 1679. Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders." (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)

Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments. One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation. The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters. It is for this reason that they turn to the superiors to guarantee validity."  https://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained

Very good!

But in the same article, Fr. Scott states his belief that Fr. Pierre Marie, O.P. (Avrille) had demonstrated the validity of the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration (a disputed contention within Tradition and the SSPX), but nevertheless proceeds to cite another 2007 Le Chardonnet article by Fr. Nicolas Portail (SSPX), in which the latter declares:

"The authors correctly observe that this rite is the vehicle of a conception of the episcopacy according to Vatican II. It also shows that the functions that are special to the episcopal order (ordaining priests, consecrating churches, administering confirmation...) are not mentioned in the consecratory preface, in opposition to other prefaces in the Eastern Rites. In addition, the specific error of collegiality is explicitly mentioned in the consecrator’s allocution. It cannot be denied that this rite is, from a traditional perspective, weak, ambiguous, imperfect, defective, and manifestly illicit."

Still, Fr. Scott's emphasis had subtly shifted the conversation away from the validity of the form, to the validity of the intention of the consecrating bishop.

Additional articles of Fr. Celier (there he is again!  Any time there is a chance to strike at Tradition, he emerges!) and Fr. Calderon supplemented those of Fr. Pierre Marie and Fr. Scott.  

The validity of the form was now beyond question in SSPX circles: Only a sedevacantist (allegedly) could question it!

But as the quotation from Bishop Tissier de Mallerais demonstrates, it was not always so (and nobody ever accused Bishop Tissier of being sedevacantist).

This new position/policy was implemented to smooth the way for negotiations with Pope Benedict XVI.

In this regard, the aforementioned International Committee Rore Sanctifica seems to have made a rather prophetic response to all the pro-validity SSPX rebuttals to its study.  Speaking of these allegedly validly consecrated bishops, it stated:

"One wonders whether or not one will in the near future see these individuals on the altars (tables) used by the Society. Clearly the author(s) are happy to sleep with strange bedfellows."  http://www.the-pope.com/letterpmv.html

Well, that day has come:

The advent and acceptance of conciliar Bishop Huonder (Diocese of Chur, Switzerland) by the SSPX is the personification and fulfillment of that prophecy.

In short, it is a double compromise and change:

For the sake of negotiations with modernist Rome, we will conclude the new rite is certainly valid.

And for the sake of negotiations with modernist Rome, we will no longer maintain our tutiorist position with regard to sacramental validity.

#104: Change (A Joint SSPX-Huonder Declaration: "One Sole Purpose?")

On 5-20-19, the SSPX issued a joint communique of Fr. Pagliarani and conciliar Bishop Vitus Huonder which was remarkable not only for its tradcuмenical-conciliar collaboration (a rejection in praxis of Archbishop Lefebvre's well known command in Spiritual Journey to stay separated from conciliar Rome for so long as it does not return to Tradition, cited elsewhere in this compilation), but for the "dexterous" presentation of facts it recounted when it announced:

"According to an intention that he stated long ago, Bishop Huonder is retiring to a house of the Society of Saint Pius X. The one sole purpose of this step is to dedicate himself to prayer and silence, to celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively, and to work for Tradition, the only way of renewing the Church."
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/joint-communique-47934

Is this really the "one sole purpose" of Bishop Huonder's advent at the SSPX boys school in Wangs, Switzerland?

Not according to Bishop Huonder!

According to a January/2019 statement of his own Diocese of Chur (Switzerland):

"As the diocese confirmed at the end of January, Huonder wants to retire to Wangs in the canton of Sankt Gallen. There he will keep contact with the Society for the Vatican. The "Society of Saint Pius X" runs a school in Wangs, the "Institut Sancta Maria".
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2019/03/acceptance-of-age-related-resignation.html

And again by the French La Croix:

"In January, Bishop Huonder's spokesman confirmed to the Swiss site cath.ch that, in an agreement with Pope Francis and at the request of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he would act as a link between the SSPX and Rome."
https://international.la-croix.com/news/retired-swiss-bishop-to-live-in-sspx-home/10152#

The contradiction is self-evident.

As I stated in the comments section of The Remnant:

"Can someone explain to me how the joint declaration’s statement that “the one sole purpose” for Bishop Huonder’s retirement to the sspx school is to dedicate himself to prayer, silence, say the TLM, and work for the restoration of Tradition is compatible with the Diocese of Chur’s Kathnet announcement of a couple months ago, acknowledging that the bishop has been given this assignment by Francis to be a liaison between the SSPX and Rome?

Moreover, am I to believe the same bishop recently pictured celebrating the new Mass with altar girls, and giving communion in the hand, has suddenly changed his spots, and conveniently became a traditionalist on the day of his retirement?

And of what does Bishop Huonder’s newfound “traditionalism” consist, beyond saying the old Mass?  Does he suddenly reject his own former ecuмenism?  Does he reject the errors of Vatican II?  What are his thoughts on the new questionable sacraments (eg., vegetable oil for extreme unction)?  Etc., etc.

Just a few days after tossing cold water on the initiative of theologians who were seeking to continue the deposition process of Francis (initially begun by Cardinal Burke, and continued by the Correctio Fillialis), the SSPX now sends a disturbing message to its faithful:

We are on the same side as the modernists.

The SSPX, which once served as a bastion of truth, today tells a blatant falsehood through its superior general, regarding the purpose of Bishop Huonder’s arrival (contradicted by the bishop himself).

There is only one way this joint declaration is compatible with truth (at least subjectively):

The SSPX today believes that working for a practical accord with unconverted Rome = “working for Tradition.”

The previous generation of SSPXers were indoctrinated by Archbishop Lefebvre after the consecrations to hold such a position as the gravest danger to the faithful (see his 1991 Fideliter interview).

Conversely, the last 20 years of SSPX leadership have striven mightily (and successfully) to inculcate exactly the opposite principle: Legal recognition is the primary goal.

Very few have possessed the perspicacity of mind to detect this reorientation of the SSPX, and those who have, have been maligned more than baby murdering devil worshipers."
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/4474-novus-ordo-bishop-retires-to-sspx-district-house