If the conciliatory SSPX, after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, began to doubt the existence of the state of grave public and general spiritual necessity (which has not only permitted, but compelled the existence of its apostolate against the unreasonably opposed will of the modernist authorities),[1]then it was only a matter of time before it lost confidence in its own apologetics, and the doctrine of necessity in particular:

If there is no state of necessity, then how can SSPX sacraments, which depend upon the issuance of jurisdiction for validity (e.g., marriages, confessions) be valid, since it is precisely the request of the faithful trapped in the state of necessity from which supplied jurisdiction springs?

No necessity = no supplied jurisdiction.

So it was inevitable that the SSPX, now doubting the existence of the state of necessity, and having lost sight of the magnitude of the present crisis in the Church at large (and in Rome in particular), should begin to doubt the state of its own sacraments, and consequently move to remedy this perceived defect.

As a result, I was not surprised to learn that in France, Fr. Andre of the SSPX District office now requests of the various diocesan authorities the delegation to receive the consents of the spouses for all marriages, and more than this, considers SSPX marriages performed in the absence of this delegation to be invalid.

Here is the story, as recounted on the French Resistance forum by “CMS:”[2]

Last year, a wedding took place in a French priory of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
 
 This marriage had been prepared by a priest of the priory, and he agreed with the bride and groom to dispense with the delegation of jurisdiction of the local bishop, and to conclude the marriage according to the "extraordinary form"[3]provided for by canon law in the situation qualified as a "state of necessity".
 
 But since it is a union celebrated within the framework of the Fraternity, the preparatory file had to go through the Office of Canonical Affairs of the District of France (Father Jean-Paul André), which applied the internal directives in force since 2017, and referred the matter to the diocese territorially competent to request the delegation in favour of the priest who had prepared the engaged.
 
 But what was probably not foreseen in this case (or not quite certain)... is that the delegation was indeed granted by the diocese, and this by name for the benefit of the priest in question!
  
 On the day of the wedding, faced with the problem and assuming the logic of his position - supported by the engaged - this priest preferred to "give up his place" to one of his confreres, to express his refusal of the diocesan delegation.
  
 This is how the marriage took place: the priest holding the delegation remained in retreat, and it was his confrere who received the consents "outside the delegation", i.e. under the regime of "supplied jurisdiction" (which is satisfied with the assistance of the two witnesses for the validity of the marriage).
 
 Upon learning of the incident, the priest was reprimanded. But the matter did not end there....
 
 We now learn that a canonical procedure has been implemented by the Fraternity to regularize this marriage, a posteriori!
  
 It is a sanatio in radice, literally a "healing" (restoration) at the "root" (origin) of a cause of disability. The procedure in question effects the revalidation of marriage while exempting the spouses from the renewal of their consent, by allowing, through a legal fiction, to consider the sacrament as valid since its conclusion (cf. R. P. Héribert JONE, Précis de Théologie morale catholique, Salvator - Casterman).
 
 Sanatio is in principle granted by the Holy See, but also (within certain limits) by the local Ordinary. It should be noted that it may be carried out with the knowledge of the spouses, but also without the knowledge of one or both spouses.
 
 Scope of the procedure in the case under consideration:
 
 The use of a sanatio in radice for this marriage means that the person in charge of canonical affairs of the FSSPX, and the Superiors of the Fraternity (Suresnes? Menzingen?), in concert with the diocese or the competent Roman dicastery, considered that the marriage was null and void because of the absence (or because of refusal) of the diocesan delegation, and that it was not possible in these circuмstances for the second confrere to invoke the state of necessity.

 The "conciliar" ecclesiastical authority and the Fraternity therefore considered it necessary, by mutual agreement, to validate this "void" marriage.

 ….

 (Provisional) Conclusions:
 
 1°) The Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X no longer allows priests to refuse diocesan jurisdiction for marriages. Such a refusal (clearly manifested) thus officially invalidates their marriages, and moreover testifies, for their hierarchy and for Rome, to a "schismatic" spirit.”
As I stated above, this was all entirely predictable, such that in 2017, upon the issuance of Cardinal Muller’s “pastoral guidelines” regulating SSPX marriages, I could already state the obvious:
“Finally, and it cannot be emphasized enough, what must be retained is that by not opposing these pastoral guidelines, and submitting to them, Menzingen is implicitly acknowledging the invalidity of its own marriages (and this in turn helps facilitate the conciliar motive of inculcating doubt about the validity of the sacrament in the clergy and laity, as a means of garnering support for the canonical agreement).[4]
This latest sad episode from the French District follows only two years after the issuance of the April 2017 guidelines, and it is clear that most SSPX priests now fear to operate outside the confines of ordinary jurisdiction: Their loss of grasp upon the magnitude of the present crisis has robbed them of confidence in the applicability of supplied jurisdiction, and therefore trapped them into compliance with modernist diocesan authority, lest that jurisdiction be withheld.[5]
But, excepting this particular case, Menzingen has been exceedingly stealthy (and skillful) in hiding these doubts from the faithful.  Its new modus operandi is described in this post:
Note that a sanatio in radice (i.e., radical sanation) is not the same thing as convalidation of a marriage.  In convalidation, the couple makes new vows (i.e., a renewal of consent), presumably in front of a delegated/authorized witness, and this makes the marriage valid from that moment.  In a sanatio in radice (which is what happened in France), the couple need not even be aware that the Holy See (or bishop) has retroactively "healed" the marriage from the beginning, or, 'in the root" (ex tunc).
 
 Within the context of the ralliement of the SSPX, obviously, convalidation would be much more disruptive, since it would necessitate individual couples approaching their bishops all over the world, and acknowledging by the very act of their convalidation that they believe their SSPX marriages to be doubtful or invalid.
 
 This in turn calls out the SSPX, since it would beg the question: Why have we faithful been lied to and deceived into becoming fornicators?  It would run the risk of engendering resentment toward the SSPX from its own faithful.
 
 To avoid all that (and to save face), sanatio in radice is the way to go: It can be done without anyone ever being the wiser, or any public proclamation ever being made.
 
 It is rumored that this was done in Campos (though I have yet to succeed in uncovering any docuмentation to support this claim, it was told me by an SSPX priest).
 
 Because of that rumor, I contacted the local Archbishop of St. Paul (Archbishop Hebda), announced I was married by the SSPX in 2007, and inquired as to whether there been any radical sanation of pre-2017 SSPX marriages.
 
 In his response, the conciliar Archbishop sticks to his guns:
 
 The pre-2017 marriages of the SSPX are invalid, and there has been no sanatio in radice of these marriages.
 
 In short, it seems that Rome reserves that final lure until AFTER the final capitulation:
 
 No sanatio in radice until the betrayal is finalized (i.e., it wants to keep the psychological pressure up in the now-doubting SSPX clergy, who in turn pass their scruples along to the faithful, just as Rome planned).
In short, the precedent is now established in France, and conceded by the Society: SSPX marriages celebrated without delegation of the diocesan authority, are invalid.
But SSPX marriages prior to 2017 were celebrated without the diocesan delegation, for which logical consistency demands of the Society that they likewise recognize the invalidity of those marriages (or did the state of necessity mysteriously vanish in 2017 under Francis the Destroyer?).
That you and I know (despite the new policies of a quivering and doubting SSPX) those marriages to have been valid by supplied jurisdiction is beside the point.  The point is that those of us who retain the old SSPX position must now defend it, not merely against Rome, but against the neo-SSPX, who now gives every indication of conciliar infection:
In such measure as they are incorporated into conciliarism, they become its agent, and the enemy of Tradition.

---

[1]Flip ahead to entry #64, titled, “The State of Necessity Recedes?”
[2]http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t969-Du-nouveau-sur-les-mariages-FSSPX.htm
[3]CMS means supplied jurisdiction.
[4]https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-implies-pre-2017-marriages-invalid/
[5]Who can forget Bishop Fellay’s August 24, 2016 Australian conference, in which he repeatedly states that Francis offer of a deal “is not a trap?”  (This video has since been removed, but was available here: ).

#108: Compromise (SSPX Death Spiral: African District Uses Diocesan/Indult Priests for Faithful)

Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X
African District

The District Superior
Father Henry Wuilloud
Email: h.wuilloud@fsspx.email

To the faithful
From Reunion Island
And Mauritius

In Bredell, on December 18, 2018

Dear faithful and friends of the FSSPX,

We had a request for clarification regarding the passage of priests who are not of the Fraternity into our chapels. This would be at the root of some unrest and would generate discussions, judgments and perhaps even criticism.

We are happy to answer, we like that the church is in the middle of the village! In any analysis, we must look at the principles and then also at a state of affairs.

It does not seem necessary to me here to demonstrate that the Fraternity through its priests has always been committed to transmitting the Catholic faith, teaching traditional morality, and celebrating the ancient liturgy. You are all witnesses to it and I have never heard the opposite. So we can say that the principles are kept.

Now a short fact: modernism is well established in all the parishes of the two islands, the clergy likes experiences of all kinds, doctrine and morals are declining everywhere. This is an important aspect, to which we must add this one: the Fraternity is only present for a few days every two months. It is not much, I am the first to be aware of it; but also to the impossible no one is bound. I really believe that we are doing what we can.

From this point on, the observation is simple: many spiritual needs of the faithful are covered... but this does not mean that it is enough for everyone.

In truth, there are those for whom mass and confession every two months are more than enough. They have a well-ordered life, good prayer habits, regulated passions, a good library, etc. It's true, they can live in good friendship with the good Lord. But there are also the less strong, those who need regular and more frequent confession, those who need to be stimulated by the priest not to give up, those who do their best to transmit to their children the basics of the faith but who feel their limits, etc. They need more and we as priests know each other and see these needs!

The obvious ideal would be to send three priests and found a priory as soon as possible! But here it is, it doesn't come out of a magician's sleeve. We are working on it, we have some ideas and projects. But of course, this is not enough to meet the concrete needs of today.

So we look around and try to see if we can't get some extra help. For this reason, of course, we are also looking for Catholic priests. If there are none, if not so much soaked in modernism that there is no question of resorting to it, then it will be a call for patience in better times (which does not go without real suffering for the faithful).

But perhaps it would be good to specify by what I mean in the term Catholic priest: a priest who teaches Catholic faith and morals, who celebrates the sacraments according to the 1962 liturgy and who is not against us! This does not mean that other priests are not Catholics, but simply that they are not usable for our faithful and that they are either dangerous for the faith, or lax for morals, or that they hate the FSSPX. They are simply too far away from us. In saying that, I do not believe I have departed from the principles mentioned at the beginning.

Let us now turn to the concrete facts. On Reunion Island, we called (Father Demornex with my agreement) on a priest who also celebrates the new liturgy, but who agrees to celebrate the sacraments in the same way as we do in our chapel, who is traditional in his doctrine and who, my faith, is not opposed to us!

Would we then be taking the path of liberalism and modernism by doing this? My God, some traditionalists may also have lost a certain sense of the Church. Catechism teaches us that in danger of death, and while I cannot find other priests, I could receive the sacraments... even from a schismatic or heretical priest (an Orthodox priest for example). Precisely because the Church has an immense concern for the salvation of souls and in some cases, it opens certain doors.

So we... we don't go that far. We are simply telling you that some of the faithful have a real need for the priest and the sacraments. From then on, as soon as we find a Catholic priest (cf. above), we will act as guarantors for this priest who comes to help us in a charitable way. It is a service, use it according to your needs, be very free to do it. And for those who don't want it, fine, go on your way but above all don't come to disturb minds.

In Mauritius too, a Catholic priest, but horror, he is from the Institute of Christ the King. So it's traditional ecuмenism!? Not so fast. There is not really a great relationship of friendship or acquaintance between the ICR authorities and ours. But in Canon Moreau, however, we found a priest trained in Ecône who remained faithful to the teachings of this seminar and who also has a filial love for Bishop Lefebvre. Excuse me, I cannot call such a person an enemy. It is for this reason that I have given permission to Maurice's faithful to go to Mass at his home according to their desire. It is a permission linked to his person and not to his congregation. A change of person could lead to a change in our decision.

Now that I have explained all this to you, I must also confess my disappointment at the mistrust and criticism of some people. We are suspicious of such decisions a priori! I understand that it is not always obvious, but do you think that we do all this without taking advice and guidance, that we do not appreciate the consequences of such choices? We have no desire to put water in the wine of the good fight of faith, we will continue to proclaim loud and clear the perennial principles of the Holy Catholic Church.

I hope I have reassured most of you, but I imagine that there are always those who are irreducible... Let them bring their fear to the right people, to my Superiors for example, but let them leave the others alone. This peace is fast approaching, since the beautiful Christmas celebration is in a few days. I wish you all to draw from it both joy and peace... those that are transmitted by this splendid Gregorian of the Christmas Masses. Listen to them, let them soak you, these melodies are really alive. Have a beautiful feast and may the grace of the Son of the Most High be abundant to you. Good with all of you and at the pleasure of returning to your beautiful islands.

Father Henry Wuilloud, District Superior
https://www.medias-presse.info/le-superieur-du-district-dafrique-revendique-sa-demande-de-faire-appel-a-des-pretres-conciliaires-ou-ecclesiadeistes-pour-desservir-les-fideles-de-la-fsspx/112679/

Some readers might recall that it was Fr. Henry Wuilloud who prosecuted and led the expulsion trial of Fr. Matthieu Salenave (now-SAJM) from the SSPX.

Fr. Salenave leaked the internal Menzingen letter to the internet condemning the book of Fr. Francois Pivert ("Our Relations with Rome" which was 95% comprised of quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre), which included strident defenses of the Ecclesia Dei communities, and chastised Fr. Pivert for focusing excessively on Christ the King.

That internal letter brought to light the complete reversal of Archbishop Lefebvre's policy toward the rallied PCED communities, and the SSPX's refusal to collaborate with them.

The letter of the District Superior demonstrates unequivocally the logical consequences of such a policy, and the dilution of Tradition/SSPX which follows from disregarding Archbishop Lefebvre's wise policy.

Fr. Wuilloud's letter also reveals the remarkable consistency in this respect between the policies of the Fellay-Pagliarani regimes, and dispels the deception of a recent Fr. Pagliarani interview in which he seemed to be talking traditional, causing some naive faithful to wonder if perhaps he would reverse course on the ralliement.  

Yet the Africa letter of Fr. Wuilloud shows exactly the opposite, and the same duplicity which characterized Bishop Fellay's regime (i.e., saying one thing, and doing another) manifests itself quite clearly here again.

Additionally, Medias-Presse puts this African treachery within a greater tradcuмenical context, adding other examples of conciliar infiltration (by invitation!) into the SSPX, highlighting the ongoing Bishop Huonder episode (dispensing doubtful sacraments in SSPX chapels without a whimper from the faithful), and the advent of English Bishop Egan to the English SSPX school which resulted in the expulsion of the Oblates who refused to pray with the conciliar bishop, etc.

Note also the justification for this tradcuмenism is necessity: Some faithful will be placed in extreme spiritual necessity if they cannot receive the sacraments more frequently than the SSPX can serve them (i.e., two month intervals).

That principle is solid (Archbishop Lefebvre himself acknowledged it), and I have explained it myself in relation to Bishop Williamson (Mahopac).

Nobody disputes that a man dying on the side of the road could make a confession to a doubtfully ordained, excommunicated laicized priest, because "necessity dispenses with the law" (St. Thomas Aquinas).

But where was this pastoralism for the last 45+ years of the SSPX apostolate?  Have not the faithful surrounding SSPX mission chapels always been afflicted with grave public spiritual necessity?  The SSPX certainly said so, but nobody ever though to invite the conciliar clergy (i.e., the cause of that necessity) into our safe havens.

The problem is the misapplication of the principle: The biritual priest is invited into the SSPX chapel where, quite naturally, there will be gathered those in necessity, and those not in necessity.

And consequently, those without real need will be receiving the doubtful sacraments which it is not licit for them to request (Fr. Scott: We must take a tutiorist position with regard to the validity of the sacraments), as it is for those others among them who will fall into grave sin if they do not receive them:

These latter are permitted to roll the dice regarding the validity because of their subjective necessity; the former are not permitted.

Regarding these faithful who are NOT in necessity, they are being conditioned by the invitation of this priest into their chapel, to disregard this precept of moral law (just as all those who frequent Bishop Huonder's SSPX school chapel in Switzerland have disregarded it), all the while their immune systems to the spiritual AIDS ravaging the devastated vineyard lose vigor until alas they too are infected.

But that's the plan: Using the argument of necessity disingenuously (has not the SSPX said elsewhere that the state of necessity is receding?) to further integrate the faithful and clergy into the conciliar church in preparation for the canonical regularization of the SSPX.

Prediction: More actions like that taking place in Africa will spread worldwide, and the situation, held out as an exception, will become the new normal.

Why?

Because the same (misapplied) rationale used in Africa would apply everywhere the SSPX has an irregular mission:

Some will always need a higher frequency of sacraments lest they fall.

Perhaps some will fall without daily Mass, and the same pretext will be used to invite conciliar clergy dring the week?  The logic of the justification adduced for the new practice in Africa would certainly facilitate this everywhere the faithful are determined to be in necessity.