Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX  (Read 11474 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
  • Reputation: +561/-46
  • Gender: Male
Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
« Reply #90 on: March 24, 2019, 07:47:32 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • #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...."

    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.'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]
    [Link showing date of 2006 General Chapter election results:]

    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).

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 514
    • Reputation: +561/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #91 on: March 24, 2019, 02:13:38 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • #91: Change (Anti-Feminist Articles Hit the Memory Hole):

    On March 28, 2014 the SSPX published an article titled "Defeminization of women continues,"  published here:

    Unfortunately, if you click on that link, you will receive an "Access Denied" message, as the article has been withdrawn from the website.

    What was in the article that the SSPX thought twice about publishing?

    A caption underneath a picture of a feminist march reveals the PR problem in Rome the SSPX wished to avoid:

    "Has Vatican II changed the role of women in society and the Church? And do both the feminist movement and gender theory actually uphold or betray a woman's true dignity?"

    In other words, per the branding campaign which rejects criticism of Roman modernism or attacks on Vatican II, this article might have been poorly received in Rome, insofar as it lays the blame for invasive feminism, the collapse of traditional gender roles, and calls it a betrayal of woman's true dignity.

    Not the kind of thing you want to say to those you are trying to convince that you have changed!

    Curiously, as is the case with many SSPX articles, at bottom there is a list directing the reader to similar content.  One of those articles is titled "Is Feminism a Harmful Movement?"  That article was once available here:

    However, if you click on that link, you once again get an "Access Denied" message.

    What was the problem with this article?

    Well, with the previous article, the SSPX appeared to be fearful of offending modernist Rome by assigning the blame for feminism to Vatican II.  In this latter article, however, there is not a word about Rome or Vatican II.  Neither is there any doctrinal error (in fact, the article is classic 1980's SSPX Catholicism from start to finish).

    The only plausible reason I can think of to remove the article from circulation is that it contradicts the new open, branded social norms invading the worldly, modern SSPX enclaves, and presents much too stark a contrast between the old and new SSPX:

    This old article by Fr. Leo Boyle would be extremely condemnatory toward, say, 100% of the women in the US District office wearing manly attire, or career women bringing you the news on the SSPX YouTube channel (and wearing a business suit to do it), etc.

    Consequently, a beautiful article had to hit the memory hole to prevent such comparisons, because remember:

    "Rome is taking us as we are!" and "We won't quit preaching the truth in season and out of season!"

    But there is an undeniable patters here of suppressing traditional content in favor of projecting a more modern image.

    Matthew will be attaching both articles, which his wizardry has been able to salvage from the archives.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 514
    • Reputation: +561/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #92 on: March 25, 2019, 05:44:18 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • #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."

    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."

    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?

    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 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 ecumenical 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: -See entry for 11/28/18]

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 514
    • Reputation: +561/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #93 on: March 26, 2019, 07:36:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • #93: Change (Extorting Holy Orders for Loyalty?):

    In late June, 2012 three Dominican subdeacons from Avrille, France and three Deacons from the Capuchins of Morgon were among those on retreat, preparing for their forthcoming ordinations to the diaconate and priesthood six days hence (on June 29).  Abruptly, they were extracted from among their colleagues, and sent back to their respective monasteries, and told they would no longer be ordained.

    What had happened?  Had someone come forward regarding impediments to the reception of further major orders?  Had their seminary professors second-guessed their former favorable appraisals of the candidates' academic or moral fitness?  

    On the contrary:

    According to what has become known as the Steffeshausen Memorandum, Avrille provides some context to the June 25 letter of the General House in which the postponement of ordinations is announced:

    "In the afternoon of 21 June 2012, the Secretary General of the SSPX called the Father Prior of Avrille.  After having reproached him for playing in the refectory a sermon of a prior of the SSPX who was hostile to the agreement with Rome, he added, 'Father, if we sign an agreement with Rome, will you follow us?'  Father Prior, a little surprised, explained to him that if there were an agreement with Rome, it would be on the basis of the Doctrinal Declaration that Bishop Fellay had sent to Rome in April and that we had not yet even seen.  'Indeed, you are not familiar with this text, but I cannot tell you about it.  You must trust us.'

    Father Prior asked him for two days to reflect on the matter, which he obtained with difficulty.

    The next day on June 22, at 9:26 AM, without waiting for the two days to pass, we received a fax from Bishop Fellay, followed by an email from the Secretary General, informing us of the refusal to ordain to the diaconate the three brothers who were to be ordained at Econe on 29 June.  Bishop Fellay wrote in his fax:

    'Confidence in the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X has been shaken in your friary; therefore, I think it is necessary to postpone the ordination of the candidates you have presented for the ceremony to be held 29 June next, at Econe...We will wait until confidence has been restored; this will be better for everyone!'

    Fr. Thouvenot wrote in his email:

    'I did my best to relate to Bishop Fellay the conversation we had yesterday, but obviously the simple fact that you had your community listen to Fr. Koller's crazy sermon, as well as the fact that you needed more than 24 hours to respond to a simple question of trust in his authority, are enough to convince him that he needs to postpone the ordinations.  This morning he forwarded a fax to you informing you of it.  In the hope that you will fall into line and reestablish normal relations of harmonious collaboration, I assure you of my religious devotion.'" (See pp. 7-8.)

    A circular letter from the general House to SSPX priests et al by Fr. Christian Thouvenot explained the reason for cancelling the ordinations:

    "Finally, Bp. Fellay has decided to postpone the ordinations of the Dominicans of Avrillé and Capuchins of Morgon that were to take place in Écône on June 29. This postponement of Holy Orders was motivated simply by the wish to ensure the loyalty of these communities before the imposition of hands on their candidates (cf. I Tim. 5, 22)."

    Note that the scriptural citation adduced as a justification for the postponement of ordination is neither here nor there: The moral and intellectual fitness for the reception of Holy Orders which this passage pertains to had long since been ascertained by the superiors of the various candidates.  In fact, the stated justification of ensuring loyalty of the respective communities to Menzingen follows nearly as a non-sequitur.

    But were not these communities independent and exempt from the jurisdiction of the SSPX bishops?  How then could the loyalty of their independent and exempt communities be adduced as grounds for withholding ordinations, when Archbishop Lefebvre had stated on 4/27/81 that he did not want to be Master General of the Dominicans, whereas in October/2012 at the Benedictine monastery at Bellaigue, Bishop de Galarreta informed Father Prior that he must consider Bishop Fellay as taking the place of the Master General of the Order?
    (Ibid., p.9)

    This illegitimate arrogation of "authority" represented a raw and unjust departure from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre with regard to the religious communities.

    Moreover, to withhold ordination on the basis of these communities' fidelity to the Church and Tradition, and refusing to go along with Bishop Fellay's revolution and sellout is objectively an indefensible abuse of the episcopacy, in the case where the ordinands are all adjudged to be perfectly fit candidates for major orders.  

    Consequently, the postponement tactic of Bishop Fellay was nothing more than coercion or spiritual blackmail, having nothing to do with the fitness of the candidates, whatever pretext Bishop Fellay may have tried to create with the reference to I Tim. 5, 22.

    PS: It would not be the last time Bishop Fellay would abuse his authority in this manner.  In 2016, the Capuchins had recently published a book explaining why a deal with unconverted Rome was not acceptable.  Soon thereafter, they sided with the 7 French Deans, who wrote a letter of opposition to the SSPX's acceptance of the 2017 "Pastoral guidelines" subjecting SSPx marriages to conciliar authority.  Consequently, Bishop Fellay reverted to his extortion tactics, threatening for a 2nd time to withhold ordinations from Morgon.  You can read about that incident here:

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 514
    • Reputation: +561/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #94 on: March 27, 2019, 06:18:21 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • #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."

    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.


    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 Pontificum 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."

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 514
    • Reputation: +561/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #95 on: March 27, 2019, 10:08:09 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • #95: Compromise (The Second Rosary Crusade):

    On October 23, 2008 in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors #73, Bishop Fellay announced a second Rosary Crusade, this time, to offer Our Lady 1 million chaplets to obtain the "withdrawal"(*) of the "excommunications" through her intercession, and this time, he wanted it quickly:

    "3 – Hope of a Rapid Fulfillment of Second Pre-condition


    Confronted with these new difficulties, we take the liberty of appealing once more to your generosity. Given the success of our first Rosary Crusade to obtain the return of the Tridentine Mass, we would now like to offer to Our Lady a new bouquet of a million rosaries (5 decades) to obtain the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication through her intercession."

    Not even three months later, on January 21, 2009 the Blessed Virgin had (allegedly) answered, and Bishop Fellay held in his hands a decree from the Congregation for Bishops "lifting" the "excommunications."

    By January 29, Bishop Fellay explained in an interview with Libero that:

    "We were embraced.  Then, first of all, I gave thanks to the Blessed Virgin; it is her gift.  It was to obtain her intercession that we gathered together more than one million, seven hundred thousand (1,700,000) Rosaries that had been recited by the faithful who desired the revocation of the excommunications."
    -Rioult, Fr. Olivier. The Impossible Reconciliation, p. 22 (2013 English-language edition)

    But it remains unclear how, once again, Bishop Fellay can attribute the "withdrawal" of the excommunications to Our Lady as a result of the Rosary Crusade, when he himself attributed the measure to his negotiations with Cardinal Hoyos as far back as 2005:

    "[Monde et Vie:] Did you expect, Your Excellency, this removal of the excommunication concerning you?

    [+Fellay:] I expected it since 2005, after the first letter requesting the lifting of the excommunication which I had sent at the request of Rome itself. Because it is clear that Rome did not ask for this letter in order to refuse to lift the excommunication. As for the moment when it took place, I did not expect it. These past few months, after the ultimatum affair [link], even after it had been minimized, we were mostly cool [in the mutual relations]. Then, I wrote the letter of November 15, which is mentioned in the decree and in my letter to the faithful... [sic]

    [Monde et Vie:] Is this decree a sign of the Pope's will?

    [+Fellay:] I ascribe it first of all to the Holy Virgin. It is a manifest sign, with an almost immediate response. I had just decided to go to Rome to deliver the result of the Rosary bouquet we had launched at Lourdes with this explicit intention when I received a call from Rome inviting me to go there."

    What is this double-mindedness which can simultaneously acknowledge the result was inevitable (even if the exact day was in question), based on negotiations and assurances from Rome, cook up a quick Rosary Crusade to make it appear that the Blessed Virgin wants a deal, and then attribute to her what had already been prearranged?

    But that was Bishop Fellay's story, and he was sticking to it, as he recounted in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors #74 a couple months later:

    "When we launched a new Rosary crusade during our pilgrimage to Lourdes last October, we were certainly not expecting such a quick answer from Heaven to our petition! Indeed, as it has happened with our first petition, which our good Mother in heaven answered so effectively through the intermediary of the Vicar of Christ and his motu proprio on the traditional Mass, the Blessed Virgin was pleased to grant us a second grace even more quickly during the same visit to Rome in the month of January when I presented the bouquet of 1,703,000 rosaries for the Sovereign Pontiff’s intentions, I received from the hands of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos the decree remitting the “excommunications.”"

    Not expecting that which you acknowledge you had been expecting for the last two years?

    In the words of Fr. Alphonsus Rodriguez, it would seem that some men are as far from telling a lie, as they are from telling the truth.

    -The decree had been assured for at least 2 years;

    -The decree left Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer "excommunicated" (In fact, they were not even mentioned in the request!);

    -The decree as promulgated implies that the "excommunications" were valid all along, but were remitted as an act of mercy.

    If the Blessed Virgin is the cause of the decree, then has she not therefore implicitly condemned the apostolate of Archbishop Lefebvre?

    Of course, this is impossible, unless we were deceived to have supported Archbishop Lefebvre all along.  

    (*): Only six months prior, in his April 14, 2008 Letter to Friends and Benefactors #72, Bishop Fellay was "still asking the Holy Father to annul the 1988 decree of excommunication..."  Somehow, by October, the request had morphed from "annul" to "withdraw."  Had Bishop Fellay received word from Rome regarding how they were willing to word the document, and modified his request/terminology accordingly?  

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 514
    • Reputation: +561/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #96 on: March 28, 2019, 07:03:14 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • #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:

    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
    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” (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!"

    Well, Fr. Brucciani and Fr. Bouchacourt wanted the visit of Bishop Egan, and in fact, the sisters are now divided.

    The more the SSPX adulterates itself with infected modernist Rome, contracting its spiritual AIDS and diverging from the path laid out by Archbishop Lefebvre, the more they suffer the fate he predicted.

    Their infidelity has made him a prophet, but at their own expense.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 514
    • Reputation: +561/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #97 on: March 29, 2019, 09:57:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • #97: Contradiction (Conciliar Pilgrimage Venues):

    In post #86 regarding SSPX-Ecclesia Dei convergence, we supplied a 2014 article from Sean Johnson, which explained the former refusal of SSPX and Ecclesia Dei pilgrimages to have any interaction, and which included something of a "prophetic" forecast:

    "So pitched were the differences between the SSPX and various indult/Ecclesia Dei organizations, that they would not even march in the same direction at the annual Chartres (France) Pilgrimage for Tradition, nor would they travel the same route: Leaders would meet in advance of the opposed pilgrimages to ensure the two did not intersect!

    This was symbolic of the completely opposite ends which the two groups had in mind: Securing the Mass, on the one hand, vs. securing the entire Faith, on the other.

    But those were the good old days.


    When the day comes that you see the indultarian and SSPX Chartres Pilgrimages for Tradition marching in the same direction, understand that there is much more symbolism there than meets the eye."

    Well, in 2019 they are not yet marching together, but the SSPX just took a big step in that direction.

    This account from the French Resistance forum tells the story:

    "A thousand FSSPX pilgrims deceived by their pastors

    We will consult with interest the report of FSSPX-News on the pilgrimage of March 10 to Cotignac (Var) for the 500th anniversary of these apparitions:

    The process of discreet rallying, in small steps, is therefore continuing before our eyes.

    A thousand pilgrims of the Fraternity came "to seek the plenary indulgence attached this year to the sanctuary".

    To obtain it, we made the "jubilee journey" approved by the "good" bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, Mgr Dominique Rey. And seven pergolas were piously recollected "presenting the life and spirituality of saints of the 19th and 20th centuries, illustrating three by three the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: Padre Pio, Maximilien Kolbe, Elisabeth of the Trinity, Louis and Zélie Martin..." These are certainly excellent examples, but... with the exception of St Gemma Galgani and St Maria Goretti, all beatified or canonized by the Counciliar Popes according to the new procedures in force, those that have also made it possible to "canonise" John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II without difficulty, not to mention Bishop Oscar Romero!

    To make matters worse, the FSSPX-News report "forgets" to specify that the false "Saint John Paul II" also appears in the seventh pergola of the journey, as an "artisan of peace through his travels" and an illustration of the gift of Wisdom of the Spirit !

    This can be checked at:

    One can imagine the painful surprise of the pilgrims still attached to Archbishop Lefebvre, to see themselves dragged by their pastors along such a "path" of adulterated holiness, and to have to publicly venerate the memory of the one who excommunicated the Founder of the Fraternity!

    As we can see, the subtle "traditional-conciliar" mixture led by the General House is now working perfectly: after Bishop Huonder, who will soon be welcomed in Switzerland for his retirement, and the visit of the Bishop of Portsmouth, Bishop Egan, to a FSSPX school in England, we will have had the consensual, indulgent and "peaceful" pilgrimage of the FSSPX to Cotignac.

    The Conciliar Church and its representatives must no longer be made "angry", such is the instruction inherited from the betrayal of the 2012 Chapter, such is the line inaugurated by Bishop Fellay, conscientiously followed by his successor Pagliarani and the leaders of the current neo-Fraternity.

    Thus, day after day, the spirit of resistance to the new religion of Vatican II is blunted; thus, little by little, in general indifference, the precious heritage of Archbishop Lefebvre is being squandered.

    In this miserable manoeuvre, Fr de Jorna lent his authority as Superior of the District of France, ... he who was considered a strict, doctrinal, and courageous priest!

    But only those who are willing are deceived...

    Source: Catholic Fidelity Forum

    on FSSPX-News:

    "the thousand well restored pilgrims begin, chapter by chapter, the jubilee journey, reciting and singing the rosary. First, a journey of the Saints: seven successive pergolas present the life and spirituality of saints of the 19th and 20th centuries, illustrating three by three the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: Padre Pio, Maximilien Kolbe, Elisabeth of the Trinity, Louis and Zélie Martin..."

    in the "..." there are therefore in particular:
    "Mother Teresa (1910 - 1997). Nobel Peace Prize winner.Found the Missionaries of Charity."
    "St. Faustina (1905 - 1938. Apostle of mercy."
    "St John Paul II (1920 - 2005). Peacemaker through his travels."
    "Bl Chiara Luce Badano (1971-1990). Committed to the Focolare, for unity."

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 514
    • Reputation: +561/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #98 on: March 30, 2019, 08:24:03 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • #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 Holocaust denial laws in Germany; the 100+ documented 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".

    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 circumstances. 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."

    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."

    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."

    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."

    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."

    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?"

    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, circumvented, 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.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 514
    • Reputation: +561/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #99 on: March 31, 2019, 07:56:12 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • #99: Contradiction (+Lefebvre Never Required the Conversion of Rome? - Part I):

    When in February of 2012, Bishop Fellay "came out" with his abrupt announcement that he would accept a practical accord with modernist Rome, so long as there were "no strings attached," it served as a rather rude awakening to SSPX clergy and faithful who were struggling to be obedient to both him and Archbishop Lefebvre.  Faced with a litany of well known sermons, interviews, books, and conferences all seeming to condemn what Bishop Fellay had just announced, it soon became apparent that, just as in the battle between the SSPX and conciliar church, we were now forced to resist Bishop Fellay's reorientation of the SSPX in order to be found faithful to Tradition and Archbishop Lefebvre (i.e., to retain the true Faith).

    In response, Menzingen would seek to stifle the conversation, first by exhorting the clergy and faithful to abstain from the internet (where the conversation still rages), and then by punishing those priests (and some lay faithful) who pointed out the contradiction between Archbishop Lefebvre's position and Bishop Fellay's, while simultaneously unleashing his own cadre of accordist apologists (among whom Fr. Simoulin, Fr. Celier, Fr. Themann, Fr. Schmidberger, Fr. Laisney, and a bit later Fr. Robinson were preeminent) who sought to explain away the contradiction as no contradiction at all.
    [For an example of discouraging being informed, see this article:]

    One of these arguments was, amazingly, that Archbishop Lefebvre never required the conversion of Rome back to Tradition before he would consider a practical accord.

    The following argument by Fr. Simoulin explains it:

    "This has been said and written so many times already that you hesitate to say it once again, but Archbishop Lefebvre never made any claim to “converting” Rome or the pope. At the very most, he used to say to those who rebuked him for going to Rome: “Who knows? I may do them a little good!” He never rejected contacts or discussions with Rome, in the hope of gaining freedom for his work and for Tradition. He fought and condemned the modern errors, those from before the Council, those of the Council and those after the Council, but he never fought or condemned Rome or the pope."

    This caricature of an Archbishop Lefebvre who merely went to Rome -even from 1988 on- to carve out an approved apostolate for Tradition is not supported by the historical record, and stands contradicted by the fact that there is such a thing in existence called "the Resistance" today, the genesis of which arose precisely because the rupture with Archbishop Lefebvre's position was detected by those most faithful sons who were not deceived, and/or would not allow themselves to be lulled to sleep by "finessed" and "nuanced" historical revisionism regarding Archbishop Lefebvre's position vis-a-vis Rome from the time he determined to consecrate bishops.

    However, Archbishop Lefebvre was quite clear on his position, once he understood the Romans had no intention of working for the reestablishment of Tradition, which was most famously expressed in the November-December 1988 issue of Fideliter:

    "We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more.

    I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.

    Thus, the positions will be clear."

    Well, apparently not clear enough.  

    The revisionists nuanced this argument by seizing upon the phrase "supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions..."  They argue that this phrase evinces an Archbishop Lefebvre still willing to negotiate for an agreement with unconverted Rome, and consequently, that openness to such an agreement with unconverted Rome demonstrates Bishop Fellay has not deviated from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.

    Of course, this clever interpretation necessarily leaves out of consideration all that follows, in which Archbishop Lefebvre not only requires the conversion of Rome before an agreement was possible, but even before any discussions were possible: "As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless."

    This point is drawn out even more explicitly in another interview Archbishop Lefebvre gave a few months later to Controverses in 1989:

    "They have to stop with their ecumenism, they have to bring back the true meaning of the Mass, restore the true definition of the Church, bring back the Catholic meaning of collegiality, and so on. I expect from them a Catholic, and not a liberal, definition of religious liberty. They must accept the encyclical Quas Primas on Christ the King, and the Syllabus (Pius IX). They must accept all this, because this is from now on the condition determining all new discussions between us and them.

    How is this not Archbishop Lefebvre demanding the return of Rome to Tradition before an agreement is possible?  In truth, Archbishop Lefebvre is going even further than that: He is requiring the conversion of Rome before he will even sit down to doctrinal discussions with them!

    But let's continue providing examples of Archbishop Lefebvre's position that there can be no agreement before Rome converts:

    So, when we raise the question of when there will be an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: When Rome again crowns our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot agree with those who dethrone the Lord. The day they again recognize our Lord as King of peoples and nations, it is not us who will join them, but they who will come back to the Catholic Church in which we remain.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 68, March 1989)

    Obviously, to re-throne Our Lord requires the rejection of religious liberty and ecumenism, which would again require the conversion of Rome to Tradition.

    And I even wrote to him [Dom Gerard]. We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council; we must not have relations with them. Dom Gérard replied that his case was different and that he would try anyway. I do not approve.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)

    But if the Romans have continued to try to bring the Society toward the Council (something they have repeatedly explained to Bishop Fellay), obviously they have not converted to Tradition, for which reasons Archbishop Lefebvre says we cannot have relations with them.

    "Do not be surprised if we do not come to an understanding with Rome. This is not possible while Rome will not return to faith in the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ ... We collided on a point of the Catholic Faith." (Sierre Conference on November 27, 1988; Fideliter No 89)

    "We must not delude ourselves. Principles which now run the Conciliar Church are increasingly, openly, contrary to Catholic doctrine. Finally the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with [such] a hierarchy. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)

    And in a letter to the four bishops-elect, Archbishop Lefebvre explained to them when the proper time to come to  an agreement with Rome would be:

    “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.”

    Was Benedict this “perfectly Catholic pope"?  Is Francis?

    And of course, in Lefebvre's Spiritual Journey (his final book, completed just weeks before his death):

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

    Yet Fr. Simoulin and company want me to believe that post-1988 Archbishop Lefebvre never required the conversion of Rome before signing an agreement?

    In the next installment, we shall see how the accordists proposed to deal with this mountain of contradictions.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 514
    • Reputation: +561/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #100 on: April 01, 2019, 07:56:01 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • #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."

    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 document, 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 circumvent 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 circumstances 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 circumstances 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 circumstances 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 circumstances 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"!

    Translation: Archbishop Lefebvre's positions were good for his times, but nobody can say that he would hold the same position in today's circumstances, 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."

    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 circumstances 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 circumstance 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."

    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.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 514
    • Reputation: +561/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #101 on: April 03, 2019, 04:50:40 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • #101: Compromise (The Argentinian Recognition: Was the SSPX Already Canonically Approved?):

    On April 13, 2015 the country of Argentina "recognized" the SSPX as Catholic.

    The official bulletin of the Argentinian government declared:


    That according to Protocol N. 084/15, of February 23, 2015, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Mario Aurelio Cardinal POLI, requests that the "FRATERNITY OF THE APOSTLES OF JESUS AND MARY" (PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X) be held, up to the moment in which it finds its definitive juridical framing within the Church Universal, as an Association of Diocesan Right, according to what is established by canon 298 of the Code of Canon Law, being in fieri [henceforth and in the meantime] a Society of Apostolic Life, with all the benefits that correspond to it, and complying with all obligations to which the same refers, also accepting all responsibilities that belong to the diocesan Prelate. [emphasis added]

    That to the aforesaid fraternity be accredited its character as a public juridical person within the ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, according to the norms of the Code of Canon Law."

    Ecclesia Dei secretary, Archbishop Guido Pozzo was quick to explain this was not THE recognition of the SSPX:

    "I am glad that in Argentina this solution could have been found, which does not involve the Holy See, let it be made clear. It is not a juridicial recognition of [the Society of] Saint Pius X as a clerical society,
    • the question of the legitimacy of the exercise of the priestly ministry of their priests remains open. But it is an ulterior sign of good will regarding this reality by the Catholic Church."

      "With his decision - Pozzo continues - the ordinary of Buenos Aires recognized that the members of the Society are Catholics, even if not yet in full communion with Rome. We continue working so that full commnion and juridical framing of the Society within the Catholic Church may be achieved."

      And Menzingen was equally quick to throw cold water on the "recognition," declaring it a merely administrative and non-canonical process:

      "Cardinal Poli’s document has no canonical authority, for he cannot substitute himself for the Roman authority that alone can settle the Society’s canonical status. It is simply a procedure that allows the State of Argentina to make an administrative decision until “a definitive juridical framework is granted (to the Society) in the universal is nothing more than a strictly administrative procedure in the restricted context of the Republic of Argentina."

      But is that really all there is to it?  Was it all much to do about nothing?

      Some think otherwise:

      "At Adelante La Fe [the largest Spanish-language indult blog, similar to Rorate Coeli in content and perspective] we have asked that this prominent lawyer make an assessment of the various information, from both sides, which tries to downplay this news indicating that it is something merely "administrative". This is his response:

      "After the news of the recognition of the SSPX by the Argentine State, communiques have been released from both parties, that obscure rather than clarify.
      "I reread the relevant parts of the Code of Canon Law and am even more convinced that there is no way to consider the SSPX part of the Church in Argentina and not in the rest of the world. It violates any legal logic.
      "Regarding a purely administrative process -in order to freely exercise the apostolic life-, it has no basis because for decades they have been in our country with a seminary, churches, schools and other property that could have well acquired a non-profit civil association. What is the administrative improvement? Evade Income Tax? To obtain wages and subsidies?
      "There would be a very serious situation if they are not in communion with Rome but receive benefits in Argentina as "Romans".
      "The procedure took about fifteen business days, unfit for any bureaucratic procedure, unless a very tedious application was made, without missing anything and was negotiated in advance with the authority. The record is slash fifteen (/ 15) which shows that it started this year and is not merely a note from Poli accompanying a process from 2011, as stated by the Agency DICI

      And a couple weeks later, Rorate Coeli posted a guest response by a priest writing under the pseudonym "Fr. Pio Pace," who observed:

      "What is most interesting, in fact, is evidently the confirmation of Cardinal Poli: as it is clear from the preamble of the decree of recognition, he asked that this Society "be held" (sea tenida) as an Association of Diocesan Right, according to Canon 298 of the Code of Canon Law, in the expectation that it will become (in fieri de ser) a Society of Apostolic Life without vows (an old category of the 1917 Code, under which the SSPX had been recognized by the Bishop of Fribourg, Switzerland, on November 1, 1970, before its dissolution), a status which the Society claims according to its statutes, approved by Ecclesiastical authority.

      That is, not only did the Cardinal-Archbishop of Buenos grant a public certification of Catholicity to the SSPX, but he confers to it a juridical status similar to that of a diocesan association. The diocesan associations, called "associations of the Christian faithful" (among others, religious communities in formation make use of this framework) "strive in a common endeavor to foster a more perfect life, to promote public worship or Christian doctrine, or to exercise other works of the apostolate such as initiatives of evangelization, works of piety or charity, and those which animate the temporal order with a Christian spirit." (Canon 298, § 1)"

      Are you catching this?  

      Is it sinking in?

      Don Pace is saying that, contrary to what Menzingen and Ecclesia Dei say, there is no need for the Pope to authorize an Association of Diocesan Right.  That power and authority is by definition completely within the jurisdiction and competence of the local ordinary (as opposed to an Association or Society of Pontifical Right, which receives its authority directly from the Pope):

      "It is absolutely possible, in legal terms, to consider that Cardinal Poli proceeded thus to what is equivalent to a kind of "erection" of a diocesan association for the SSPX:

      - First: because he recognizes to it, publicly, the character of Catholic, which flows forth usually from the erection foreseen by Canon 312;
      - Second: because he clears up that it is "Diocesan";
      - Third: and because this association proposes to teach Christian doctrine in the Church's name and to promote public worship -- which can only be the case for associations erected by Ecclesiastical authority.

      But supposing that it means nothing, it would at least remain that Cardinal Poli considers the SSPX as a Catholic association constituted by private agreement (Canon 299), to which he granted, exceptionally, specific rights."

      In the same article, "Don Pio Pace" also comments on the quick reaction from Menzingen, diminishing the significance of the Argentine recognition:

      "As soon as knowledge of this intervention of the Cardinal of Buenos Aires was made known to the wider public, the General House of the SSPX immediately limited its reach. According to a communiqué published by its DICI agency, of April 13, 2015, essentially for internal purposes, Menzingen (the General House) affirms that, "Cardinal Poli’s document has no canonical authority," and that all of that, "is nothing more than a strictly administrative procedure in the restricted context of the Republic of Argentina.” That no one thinks, above all, that there could be a punctual and partial canonical recognition!"

      And that indeed is the nagging question: What exactly is the canonical status of the SSPX today?

      Were they already "regularized" in 2015, while everyone was sedated by their downplaying of the significance of the recognition?

      Don Pace explains something like the "Chinese Approach" may be what has happened here:

      "It is a remarkable juridical step. In the language of canonists who are concerned with the institutional fate of the SSPX, the "Chinese" approach is often recalled. The word refers to the fact that, after the fall of the Soviet iron curtain, and despite the permanence of a brutal tyranny in China, the Holy See has tried a "workaround" operation, basing itself on the wish of a good portion of the members of the "Patriotic Church" to return to Rome. One might summarize the Roman attempt thus: a growing number of the bishops named by the "Patriotic Church" have secretly received (but it is an open secret) "powers" granted by Rome, that is to say, papal investiture (see, for example, this report by Sandro Magister).

      In an analogy, for the SSPX what happens today is that, in certain dioceses, confession powers, even permanent ones, and canonical delegations to receive matrimonial consent, even permanent ones, are at times granted to certain priests of this Society. In particular cases, the canonical incardination of priests of the SSPX by diocesan authorities was even contemplated -- with such priests remaining members of this community and exercising their apostolate within it.

      In the perspective of a gradual canonical recognition, we could perhaps also imagine that "powers" be granted provisionally to the bishops of the SSPX, which perhaps might already have happened occasionally. Naturally, the administrative-canonical recognition in Buenos Aires -- set up, absolutely without a doubt, by the Pope himself -- could create precedent and be repeated on this or that diocese for SSPX groups, or friendly communities of religious men or women, schools, etc."

      In fact, in 2019 we know that precisely that which Don Pace envisioned in 2015 has come to pass:

      We know Bishop Fellay received jurisdiction from Rome to try his priests of certain crimes.

      We know that the SSPX has received ordinary juridsdiction to hear confessions.

      There have been other grants of powers and rights (e.g., to say Mass in the Roman basilicas; tacit approval to ordain priests; delegations to receive the consents to marriages; etc).

      For all these reasons, we ask the question we started with in the title of this post:

      Has the SSPX already been canonically regularized, with the grants of rights and powers being incrementally unveiled so as not to startle the faithful (and clergy)?

      We cannot say for certain, but the arguments tending in that direction by canonists do not seem to be without merit.


    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16