Author Topic: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings (Read 195961 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #25 on:** January 01, 2013, 12:31:29 PM »

Bishop Fellay (2003) vs Bishop Fellay (2012): Condemnation of the Campos Sellout is a Condemnation of the SSPX Practical Accord!

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

OUR RELATIONS WITH ROME

Once again our Letter to Friends and Benefactors is reaching you a little late. Once again we hesitated to write to you sooner for fear of leaving out an important development in our relations with Rome, especially after the Campos-Rome agreement. In the eyes of Rome, obviously, what happened in Campos was merely meant to be the prelude to our own "regularization" in the Society of St. Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us.

Generally speaking, Rome means, all things being equal, to come to an agreement with the SSPX. On all sides we hear that the pope would like to settle this matter before he dies. Alas, our fears roused by the Campos agreement have proved to be well-founded, and the evolution we observe of the Campos Apostolic Administration, contrary to Roman expectations, leaves us distrustful.

Of course we are dealing with a volatile situation capable of sudden and surprising changes, like in times of political instability. And in such a situation, nobody can be certain of what turn it will take. Also we do behold in the Vatican offices a certain questioning of the way things have gone for the last few decades, and a desire on the part of some officials to put an end to the downhill slide.

However, it is clear that the principle governing today's Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years. Neither official docuмents nor general policy show any fundamental re-thinking of this principle, on the contrary, we are always being told that what the Council set in motion is irreversible, which leads us to ask why there has been a change of attitude with regard to ourselves. Various explanations are possible, but it is primarily because of the pluralist and ecuмenical vision of things now prevailing in the Catholic world. According to this vision, everybody is to mix together without anybody needing any longer to convert, as Cardinal Kasper said in connection with the Orthodox and even the Jews. From such a standpoint there will even be a little room for Catholic Tradition, but for our part we cannot accept this vision of variable truth any more than a mathematics teacher can accept a variable multiplication table.

The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome's own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos. For this purpose, let us emphasize two points in the evolution of the Campos situation: firstly, how their attitude to Rome has changed since the agreement and secondly, how Campos is moving further and further away from ourselves, with all the upset that that implies.

CHANGES IN CAMPOS

Campos, through its leader, Bishop Rifan, is crying out for all to hear that nothing has changed, that the priests of the Apostolic Administration are just as Traditional as before, which is the essence of what they have been granted, and why they accepted Rome's offer: because Rome approved of the Traditional position.

For our part, let us begin by noting that we are well aware that in any disagreement one tends to discredit one's adversary. For instance in the case of our former friends in Campos, there are certainly false rumors circulating to the effect that "Bishop Rifan has concelebrated the New Mass", or, "Campos has completely given up Tradition". However, that being said, here is what we observe:

The Campos website lays out the Campos position on the burning question of ecuмenism: they claim to follow the Magisterium of the Church, past and present. There are quotes from Pius XI's encyclical letter Mortalium Animos, next to quotes from John Paul II's Redemptoris Missio. We cannot help observing that there has been a careful selection process: Campos quotes John Paul II's traditional passages while other passages introducing a quite new way of looking at the question are passed over. We read, "Being Catholics, we have no particular teaching of our own on the question. Our teaching is none other than that of the Church's Magisterium. The extracts which we publish here from certain docuмents old and new, bear especially on points of Catholic doctrine which are in greater danger today".

The ambiguity implicit here has become more or less normal in the new situation in which they find themselves: they emphasize those points in the present pontificate which seem favorable to Tradition, and tip-toe past the rest. Say what we will: there took place in Campos on January 18, 2002, not only a one-sided recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but also, in exchange, an undertaking by Campos to keep quiet, And how could it be otherwise? It is clear by now that Campos has something to lose which they are afraid or losing, and so in order not to lose it they have chosen the path of compromise: "We Brazilians are men of peace, you Frenchmen are always fighting". Which means that, in order to keep the peace with Rome, one must stop fighting. They no longer see the situation of the Church as a whole, they content themselves with Rome's gesture in favor of a little group of two dozen priests and say that there is no longer any emergency in the Church because the granting of a traditional bishop has created a new juridical situation...They are forgetting the wood for a single tree.

Bishop Rifan, in the course of a brief visit to Europe, went to see Dom Gerard at Le Barroux Abbey in France to present his apologies for having so criticized him back in 1988 when Dom Gerard condemned Archbishop Lefebvre's consecrating or four bishops. In a lecture he gave to the monks, Bishop Rifan pretended there were two phases in the life or Bishop de Castro Mayer: up till 1981 he was supposedly a docile bishop respecting the rest of the hierarchy, from 1981 onwards he was a much harder churchman... "We choose to follow the pre-1981 de Castro Mayer", said Bishop Rifan to the monks, some of whom were surprised at such words, and one of them was scandalized to the point of coming over to the SSPX.

Within this way of thinking even the Novus Ordo Mass can be accommodated. Campos forgets the 62 reasons for having nothing to do with it, Campos now finds that if it is properly celebrated, it is valid (which we have never denied, but that is not the point). Campos no longer says that Catholics must stay away because the New Mass is bad, and dangerous. Bishop Rifan says, by way of justifying his position on the Mass: "So we reject all use of the traditional Mass as a battle-flag to insult and fight the lawfully constituted hierarchical authority of the Church. We stay with the traditional Mass, not out of any spirit of contradiction, but as a clear and lawful expression of our Catholic Faith (…)". We are reminded of the words of a Cardinal a little while back: "Whereas the SSPX is FOR the old Mass, the Fraternity of St. Peter Is AGAINST the New Mass. It's not the same thing". That was Rome's argument to justify taking action against Fr. Bisig of the Fraternity of St. Peter at about the same time that Rome was cozying up to the SSPX. The cardinal's curious distinction is now being put into practice by Campos, as they pretend to be for the old Mass but not against the new. Likewise for Tradition, but not against today's Rome. "We maintain that Vatican II cannot contradict Catholic Tradition", said Bishop Rifan quite recently to a French magazine, Famille Chretienne. Yet a well-known cardinal said that Vatican II was the French Revolution inside the Church. Bishop de Castro Mayer said the same thing....

So little by little the will to fight grows weaker and finally one gets used to the situation. In Campos itself, everything positively traditional is being maintained, for sure, so the people see nothing different, except that the more perceptive amongst them notice the priests' tendency to speak respectfully and more often of recent statements and events coming out of Rome, while yesterday's warnings and today's deviations are left out. The great danger here is that in the end one gets used to the situation as it is, and no longer tries to remedy it. For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted.

LEAVING THE SSPX BEHIND

Besides this wholly foreseeable evolution of minds by which the Campos priests have, whatever they say, given up the fight, we must note another occurrence, the increasing hostility between us. Bishop Rifan still says that he wants to be our friend, but some Campos priests are already accusing us of being schismatic because we refuse their agreement with Rome.

A little like one sees a boat pushing into mid-river, drifting down-stream and leaving the bank behind, so we see, little by little, several indications of the distance growing between ourselves and Campos. We had warned them of the great danger, they chose not to listen. Since they have no wish to row up-stream, then even while inside the boat things carry on as before, which gives them the impression that nothing has changed, nevertheless they are leaving us behind, as they show themselves more and more attached to the magisterium of today, as opposed to the position they held until recently and which we still hold, namely a sane criticism of the present in the light of the past.

To sum up, we are bound to say that the Campos priests, despite their claims to the contrary, are slowly being re-molded, following the lead of their new bishop, in the spirit of the Council. That is all Rome wants —for the moment.

One may object that our arguments are weak and too subtle, and of no weight as against Rome's offer to regularize our situation. We reply that if one considers Rome's offer of an Apostolic Administration just by itself, it is as splendid as the architect's plan of a beautiful mansion. But the real problem is the practical problem of what foundations the mansion will rest on. On the shifting sands of Vatican II, or on the rock of Tradition going back to the first Apostle?

To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today's Rome clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday. When the Roman authorities have re-stated with actions speaking louder than words that "there must be no innovations outside of Tradition", then "we" shall no longer be a problem. And we beg God to hasten that day when the whole Church will flourish again, having re-discovered the secret of her past strength, freed from the modern unthought of which Paul VI said that "It is anti-Catholic in nature, Maybe it will prevail. It will never be the Church. There will have to be a faithful remnant, however tiny".

LIFE INSIDE THE SSPX

Let us also tell you of life inside the Society, to give you a little share in our apostolic joys and labors. And let us make use of this letter to tell you a little of our activity in missionary countries. It is true that today almost all countries, especially in our old Europe, are again becoming missionary countries. Priests, in their apostolic travels, visit over 65 countries, some of them still today suffering direct persecution of the Faith. But as this letter is already long, let us confine ourselves to two new areas of our apostolate. We had been visiting them off and on for a number of years, but just recently we think they are opening up in an astonishing way: Lithuania and Kenya.

In order the better to organize our apostolate in Russia and White Russia, we have established a bridgehead in Lithuania, a country which suffered much under Russian Communist persecution and where it took heroism to keep Catholicism going. Once the Iron Curtain fell, the Eastern countries put their trust in the novelties from the Vatican, being persuaded that anything coming from the West had to be good… These countries swiftly caught up on the state of disaster inflicted by the reforms. Any reaction is rather passive than visible, so we do not see them taking action. But once our priests got over the language difficulty, they are discovering ground that promises to be fertile for Tradition, more so than our first fruitless attempts had given us to expect. Welcomed with a severe warning from the local bishops to Catholics to stay away from us, our priests nevertheless discovered numerous priests wishing to join us. These explained their bishops' severity: it was out of fear that Catholics would come to us in large numbers. For instance we have been approached by a little congregation of sisters, founded by Cardinal Vincentas Sladkevicius, Archbishop Emeritus of Kaunas. Before he died on May 28, 2000, he left orders with the sisters: "When the Society of St. Pius X comes, you must join them. They will restore the Church in Lithuania". May God with His grace enable us to live up to the Archbishop's expectation! The main cities now have their little Mass center where interest is slight for the moment, but becomes more pressing each day.

Kenya has been receiving sporadic visits from Society priests for the last 25 years, but we have only just discovered the existence of a group of 1,500 faithful organizing their struggle for the Faith with their refusal of communion in the hand and standing. Our first contacts with them show very clearly that they are battling not only for the right way to receive communion but also for a whole traditional attitude. We are discovering also a number of nuns who have left their different Congregations or been chased out of them because they refused the Vatican II reforms. Living in the world they remained faithful to their vows. Now 16 of them are coming over to us in the hope of being able once more to live in community.

A young priest said to us, "If you set up a chapel here, it will empty out the cathedral. When I visit the faithful they say to me: 'Why have you changed our Church? Say Mass like it used to be!' But I don't know the old Mass, I don't know how the Church was before. When I ask older priests, they send me packing. Can you teach me to say the old Mass? Can I visit you to learn?" Another priest, also young, said in a tone of voice that spoke volumes. "I will note down in my diary for this evening: my first Tridentine Mass".

How can the Church authorities not heed the cry of these souls thirsting for grace and the Catholic life? Beneath the ashes and ruins left by Vatican II, there are still traditional Catholic embers glowing, needing only to blaze up again. The Church does not die. God watches over it. May He grant us to be His docile instruments to spread the fire that His Heart burns to spread throughout the world!

But you in particular, dear faithful, are well aware that we cannot manage to do all we would like to do; how we need priests! Pray, pray the master of the harvest to send numerous workers into his apostolic field.

At the beginning of this new year, full of gratitude and warm thanks for all your unfailing generosity, we entrust you with praying for priests, for the sacrifice of the Mass. God bless you and all your families with an abundance of all His graces.

+Bishop Fellay
January 6, 2003

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #26 on:** January 01, 2013, 02:03:48 PM »

Most Reverend Bishop Fellay

Mendoza, 12 October 2012

Your Excellency,

Through this, I express to be, with all due respect, my deep concern about the current state of our congregation, and for the future of it.

Since the middle of this year, the SSPX is in a state characterized, internally, by a deep division and a serious crisis of confidence in the authority, and, externally, by a noticeable weakening of our defense forces in of faith and a growing disrepute. They breathe, indeed, other air in the congregation, very different from the usual, as we see around us is installed confusion, discord, fear, suspicion and accusation.

This internal breakdown reaches the entire congregation, from our bishops to the laity, the most general and profound ever in the 42 year life of the SSPX. The fracture is due to the way it conducts ongoing talks with Roma liberal. The secret that has fallen on the talks, has meant a series of obviously foreseeable dangers, but has not decided SER effective means to counter them. In these circuмstances, some members of the congregation, tired from the long fight or yielding to the dominant liberal tendencies, approving an agreement with the idea modernist Rome, while others fail because they think that it is reasonable to assume that the Church will come out the terrible crisis being experienced since the fateful Vatican Tradition subjecting the Liberals to power. The question: What would be the use of an adjustment in the current context? Are we at fault in the eyes of God, to remain for four decades outside the official structure, no counterweight dominated by modernists any? Is it realistic to think that we could get that balance? Is it reasonable to undergo a stubborn liberal authorities whose aim is to bring to Vatican II? Does such a thing is clearly not suicidal? Or is that the current pope is no longer a true liberal? Certain appointments recently made by the Holy Father, as the Card. Müller, does not prove that it is irrational to put in the hands of the current Rome?

No matter that the initiative has come from the Vatican agreement or our superiors, since the mere acceptance of the possibility of a peace-necessarily false and unfair-that continue to destroy the Church, constitutes a clear and dangerous illusion . It is intended that the 1988 would be a precedent in favor of this agreement, but rather what happens contrary, for if it is to follow examples, should imitate the holy men in their successes, not their mistakes, and we know that Archbishop Lefebvre prompt and expressly retracted his erroneous and fleeting intention to regularize the congregation subjecting the power of the modernist hierarchy (cf. letter to the Holy Father of 02/06/88). We must stick to his final will, not a temporary desire was explicit, unambiguous and finally revoked.

As part of the negotiations with Rome, it has resorted to the use of expressions often ambiguous. Ambiguity has acquired, with that citizenship rights in the SSPX. This new way of talking to the modernists and the world is causing, among other evils, grave scandal to many traditionalists. No doubt about it, in the present circuмstances of gradual extinction of faith, defend the truth with clear and precise words with the destroyers of the Catholic religion and to all men, is a serious duty. The first charity is the truth. The devil used the ambiguity for that big win hers called Vatican II, and now we will fight with more ambiguity ambiguity? His Excellency, however, has chosen to dilute with weasel words several truths, including precisely the categorical and unequivocal condemnation that for 42 years we have made the council, the main cause of the current disastrous state of general apostasy and consequent condemnation many souls. The ambiguities were generated, as was perfectly predictable, a lot of rumors, but what HE dispusiera relevant to dissipate promptly.

There is now in the SSPX, and not only at the level of words, a "new style" whose characteristic features are the ambiguity, diplomacy, secrecy, hesitation and timidity. This major change is undermining our fight against the errors that poison the Church and against wolves in sheep's clothing that broadcast, and yet, we are discrediting the basis: we are no longer the Congregation of the Priests of that "yeah yeah, no no "that Christ commanded, that of calling things by their name, no matter what happens and no matter what happens. The driving mode, SER, in addition to the above, is authoritative for the subjects and too soft and yielding to the enemy, is impacting disastrously at all levels of the life of the SSPX.

The soldiers, for better or worse, follow their General, hence the old attitude of direct, manly and resolute belligerence against the enemies of Christ, who is admired in our priests, has given way to the diplomatic calculation, the fear, the discouragement and even cowardice. So the statement in Chapter July, at a time when the whole Church we looked closely, it was not without some ambiguity and some weakness. The six conditions for regularization, recently released, are clearly insufficient and equally demonstrative of some weakness before the modernist Rome.

In this unfortunate scenario, trust among members of the congregation is particularly wound. How can you trust a Superior discarded the advice and warnings of all other bishops and our Founder? In May we read a correspondence between the four bishops, in which BE is trying to impose its own opinion to the latter, in order to reach an agreement with Rome. By letter dated April 7, the other three Bishops warn the General Council: "Monsignor, Fathers, pay attention, you lead the fraternity to be a tipping point, a deep division no turning back, and if you come to a such agreement, to powerful destructive forces that she will not support. If up until the bishops of the Fraternity have protected it is precisely because Archbishop Lefebvre rejected a practical agreement. Since the situation has not changed substantially, since the condition issued by the Chapter of 2006 has not been made (change of course by Rome to allow a practical agreement), listen back to its founder. "Despite these words His Excellency went ahead in the attempt to reach an agreement with Rome.

Several months earlier, Bishop de Galarreta also warned His Excellency, equally clear, foreseeable consequences that would continue with the fact that intent: "Moving towards a practical agreement would deny our word and our commitments our priests, our faithful, Rome and against everyone. Such a procedure would manifest a serious diplomatic weakness by the fraternity, and indeed, more than diplomatic. It would be a lack of consistency, honesty and firmness, which would impact the loss of credibility and moral authority that we enjoy. But not listened to Bishop de Galarreta.

No case was His Excellency the warnings of his peers, but continued to lead our ship into the rocks of the agreement. If finally it was not signed, was solely due to the Pope, surprisingly, the demands raised over what was willing to accept (cf. conference Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of 09/12/16) Today we suffer the predictable, serious and perhaps irreparable consequences of such stubborn attitude incompressible.

Excellency is highly surprising if you have opted to discard the apparently unanimous and warnings from their peers, much worse and more worrying is the fact that BE has said that the will of the Roman modernist outweighs the good of the SSPX: "For the common good of the fraternity, by far prefer the current solution of intermediate status quo, but obviously not tolerate Rome more" (response to 3 Bishops, 4/14/12). Read: the liberals and modernists in Rome not tolerate more.

Therefore, considering the above, and considering the first-to-the SSPX is in a serious crisis caused by a very poor exercise of authority, by failing to take steps to bring it to prevent the evils which today easily foreseeable regret, and-second-that this situation persists, we will gradually destroying without any agreement with Rome, as a member of this congregation, respectfully beg Your Excellency that for the good of the Church, for the good of the SSPX and for its own sake, the sooner resign the office of Superior General. Only the replacement of existing authorities by other farsighted, really diligent about the essential duty to ensure our unity, and to retain the spirit that has always characterized our congregation, will enable the SSPX back into righteous and holy way by that led Archbishop Lefebvre.

Sincerely in Christ,

P. P. René Miguel Trincado Cvjetkovic.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #27 on:** January 01, 2013, 02:13:45 PM »

Letter of Fr Joseph Pfeiffer to Fr Couture:

Dear Fr. Couture,
In Answer to the Second "canonical monition" and after taking counsel from a Canon Lawyer, and other priests, it is necessary to note the following:

1. It is soley within the competence of the Superior General to give Monitions of expulsion to the members of his order. Lower authorities do not have the competence. (e.g District Superiors can punish only within their districts in regard to their district) Hence the Superior General is the correct authority to both admonish and expel his subjects according to Justice and the law.
Therefore, the two "canonical monitions" sent from the District of Asia go beyond the competence of the District. Expulsion of members, especially perpetual members of the SSPX belongs to Superior General alone. To date, I received no communication either of praise or correction from the Superior General. Therefore I remain, according to the law, a member in good standing in the SSPX.

2. No specific crime is indicated in the monition, hence no delict exists since "odiosa sunt adstrigenda." no one can be punished for "scandal and spiritual damage" as you claim in your second monition, but only for specific acts which can thus be exposed by the prosecution and answered by the defendant before an impartial tribunal--which tribunal does not exist.

The 2 "canonical Monitions" are invalid on the grounds of exceeding the competence of the one issuing it and on the grounds of lack of clear accusation of crime. On either ground the case of expulsion should not only be thrown out of court, but should not be allowed to be tried.

3. I have received a positive command from you to be completely silent on anything that either is or may be perceived to be a criticism of the Superior General and his current direction. This last week, Bishop Fellay seems to have reversed his current and now says that he was deceived and erred in a dangerous way in the past few months. Does this mean that those in favor of the current that flows to Rome should now be silenced? Does this mean that now I can criticize compromising with Rome? Now I can say no deal with Rome until Rome converts? (Yesterday this must have been wrong since yesterday the SG had a different idea. But today it is true since today the SG has changed his mind.) Does Truth evolve? Your answer must be "Not so but distinguo in the Superior YES in the subject NO" This is mitigated modernism, Truth evolves for the modernist period, but for you and the neo-SSPX truth cannot evolve in mere mortals or mere popes, but only in "the Superior General." Your place in the fight for Tradition is thus undermined and completely unstable since it rests on the cult of a man instead of the Divine Cult of God in His Church and in His unchanging Faith.

4. Fr. Chazal and myself made no predictions about the deal with Rome. Fr. Schmidtburger and Fr. lombardi announced it for the end of May. Then The Vatican for June 13, We only repeated what they said, so that the faithful would know. We are not the prophets of doom. We only preach what we SSPXers, including yourself, have consistently preached for the last 40 years. (i.e VII =Bad, eternal Rome=Good: Compromise=evil: Fidelity to unchanging Truth=Good: Deal with Rome before Rome converts=Bad: Deal with Rome w/o conversion=Wicked betrayal etc. cf. ABL ubique)

We let our yes be yes and our no be no. We operate in the open and resist Modernism and its protaganists "to the face." Our fight is not with men nor even Menzingen, but with the Devil and his host.

If you were secure in your position of turning to Modernist Rome to make the SSPX another Novus Ordo appendage as the FSSP et alii, you would be able to defend this position in the light of day with clear arguments, and proofs of the supposed change of Rome, and of the clear difference of Rome today with the Rome of Vatican II errors. If you stood on Truth, you would not need to resort to threats and defamation to discredit those who disagree with the neo-SSPX.

Further our problem, Fr. Chazal and myself, is not only with a deadly wicked deal with non converted Conciliar Rome, but more importantly, our problem with the neo-SSPX is its modernist tendancies, promoted by the official organs of the SSPX such as Dici.org and SSPX.org which have mixed Novus Ordo and Traditional things together, (e.g. present banner of Dici.org showing Novus ordo ordinands then SSPX ordinands as if they are the same! article on bishops criticizing lack of Religious Liberty in Afganistan, explaining away the popes promotion of condoms for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and so on) without any clarifications, condemnations of the various selected acts of Modernist Rome.

Fr. Chazal and I are not disturbed by the threats of excommunication from our Order or from any unjust treatments connected thereto. We are not upset with those who malign and condemn us, many do so with good will, unaware of the danger to Faith, now present within the SSPX ranks and pews throughout the world. We also have happily worked under your direction over the past 6 years for myself, and 10 years for Fr. Chazal. You have been in so many ways good to us. Our problem is only with the danger to souls presented by the present unstable modernist direction of the SSPX

We continue "as we are," priests of the SSPX at war with Modernism. We continue "as we are" loyal sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, following his clear non-compromising Catholic plan of action for our times. We continue "as we are" in the work of spreading the Gospel with the Caritas Christi which urget nos.

in Christ,

Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
London Airport Sept. 13, 2012

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #28 on:** January 01, 2013, 02:26:50 PM »

Fr Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin speaks out
From http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Declaration-by-Fr-Eric-Julien-Laurent-Jacqmin Downloaded on July 5, 2012
===
Arguments.
Like all my colleagues in the SSPX, I certainly would like, as I have done so far, to obey my superiors, but in the current case, I have serious doubts that the Common Good would be served.

A. Bishop Fellay gives as the reason for his decision to go forward with an agreement with Rome, in the introduction 'Word of the Superior General' in "Cor Unum" March 2012): p.8 "We can no longer believe that this is a 'steamroller' .. " but the steamroller is still moving forward: recent evidence is the letter of Mgr. Pozzo to Father Laguérie: IPB (Institute of the Good Shepherd) must accept the New Mass (for priests who are members; and they do not have the Tridentine Mass as their "own rite"), they must not criticize Vatican II so much and they must teach the new catechism in their seminary. p.6-7: the younger clergy is open to Tradition, we could catch them more easily: considerations: but there is a long way to go: they have little formation, they have suffered a deep deformation and they are difficult to convert completely (proof, the contact with young priests I've had recently: they are of good faith, I hope, and have admiration for tradition, but are steeped in error).

B An admission is proof. Mgr. Fellay admits that for the good of the SSPX it would be better not to make an agreement with Rome. That says everything. We would like to choose for the common good of the SSPX, obviously, this is the final cause of every society. But inexplicably, Bishop Fellay prefers the desire of the Pope, against what he knows to be the common good of the SSPX: 14 April 2012 letter of Bishop Fellay to the three bishops: "Let it be noted in passing that we have not sought a practical agreement. This is false. But we have not rejected a priori, as you request, to consider the offer of the pope. For the common good of the Fraternity, we would by far prefer the current status quo, though obviously Rome is not prepared to put up with that any longer."

C Mgr. Fellay said May 11th, 2012 to CNS "I cannot exclude that there might be a split (in the SSPX)." According to Aristotle unity is one of the greatest assets of a society.

D Even if Mgr. Fellay were right, then a good leader still does not advance until he has checked that he is being followed by a good majority: that is not the case now ... a very large part do not agree with him, including three bishops.

E Rules of 'Discernment of Spirits': This decision causes confusion and disagreement within the SSPX. It's a bad sign.

F After this pope, who is 85 years old, there will be another; the post-conciliar Hegelian pendulum will probably swing to the other side: progressivism. And then who will protect us?

F Bishop Fellay has said repeatedly that the Pope is so good and well intentioned towards tradition. Apart from the fact that this is a subjective argument and therefore weak, it is especially dangerous. The current pope, favoring tradition but not condemning progressivism (see list below *), operates in effect as a perfect modernist:

First proof: Proof let's read "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" St Pius X (September 8, 1907):
"Nr.36 ... So let us say, summing up modernist thought, that an evolution results from the conflict of two forces, one pushing for progress, while the other tends to conservatism. The conservative force in the Church, it is tradition, and tradition is represented by religious authority (A). This is so in law and fact: in law, because the defense of tradition is like a natural instinct of authority, in fact, because, hovering over the contingencies of life, authority does not feel, or very little, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, is one that meets the needs, and ferments in individual consciences, and especially in those who are in more intimate contact with life. You can clearly see here, Venerable Brethren, this pernicious doctrine that wants to make the laity, a factor of progress in the Church. Now it is a sort of compromise and agreement between the conservative and the progressive force that gradual changes and progress is made (B) ... "
Conclusion: According to the modernists is quite normal that the Pope supports Tradition.
See text in bold (A) – IN ORDER TO advance modernist trends in the Church: see bold text above (B).
This is evident in the life of the present Pope. As a theologian, Josef Ratzinger was in the "progressive party" neo modernist, and now, as authority (Prefect and then Pope) he must needs promote tradition, this modernist is acting according to the rule above. Indeed, the pope has not converted to Tradition, as he has reissued all his works from when he was an erroneous theologian when he was elected pope without correcting them and he has just refused our arguments for Tradition in the theological discussions. He favors Tradition, only to advance his Hegelian progress. Absit!

The pope has not converted: the list of facts that prove it is long:

21.10.2007: Interfaith Meeting of Naples;

28.04.2008: Visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє of New York;

15.07.2008: World Youth Day Sydney with its liturgy "enculturated" and pagan rituals;

12.05.2009: Visit to the Dome of the Rock of Jerusalem;
12.05.2009: Jєωιѕн Ritual at the Wailing Wall;
17.01.2010: Visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Rome;
14.03.2010: Active participation in the Lutheran worship in Rome;
01.05.2011: Beatification of John Paul II;
27.10.2011: Reiteration of the scandal of Assisi;
2012: theological discussions demonstrate the contradiction between the thoughts of Rome and Tradition.
Remember also:

common prayer with the imams in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul on 30 November 2006

his cordial meeting with a "woman priest" at the Anglican Westminster Abbey 17 September 2010,
the invitation to the Vatican of a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ group called "gαy Circus" December 15, 2010, who performed before him a choreography of perverts.
Benedict refused to kiss the crucifix on Good Friday, during the liturgy of the "adoration" of the cross, in 2009, 2010 and 2011 (we do not know what will happen in 2012).
"L'Osservatore Romano" (French) No. 3229 of March 29, 2012, p.17: Pope Benedict XVI in his homily at the Mass on Revolution Square in Havana (Cuba), 28-03, was still advocating religious freedom for all "believers" who "nourish the hope for a better world" (...) "When the Church emphasizes this right (religious freedom), it does not claim any privilege for itself. "
Bishop Fellay in the same way. said that the solution proposed by Rome is not a trap (letters to the bishops p.3), but there is evidence to the contrary:

Second proof: Admissions
2001: A legal maxim says that "an admission is proof."
In two interviews, the "Il Giornale" and the "Avvenire" - on the occasion of the presentation of his book "The Spirit of the Liturgy" - Cardinal Ratzinger argued that there was still a long way to go towards an agreement, and he attributed the blame for the delay in the ending of the discussions from the side of the Society.
See DICI No. 2 of April 6, 2001, which gives the text of an interview with Cardinal R. to the Italian newspaper "Il Giornale" Monday, April 3, 2001. I give only the gist of the text:

1) Cardinal Ratzinger said about the SSPX: "The road is still long. I must say there is a strong hardening in the # # # # movement, I notice that they are turned in on themselves, and this makes problematic the reconciliation process, at least in the short term."
"The followers of Archbishop Lefebvre have resented the post-conciliar liturgical reform (...)" ...

2) Question of IG: "What steps have the # # # # es to make to get closer to the Holy See? "
Cardinal Ratzinger replied: "Recognizing that the liturgy of the Council is still the same liturgy of the Church, it is not something else. Recognize that the church renovated by the Council is not another Church, but is still the same Church that lives and grows. "
The goal of negotiations is that we accept the NOM, post conciliar liturgy, and the new ecclesiology ("subsists in" etc..). The aim is downright bad. Numquam possumus.

3) Question of IG: "What can we do to meet them?"
Cardinal Ratzinger's response:
"We must do our best to attract these brothers and sisters, to give them the confidence they have lost. Inside the church a wound heals better: if the confrontation takes place outside, we shall grow further apart. "
"We must recognize that by the traditional liturgy of Saint Pius V, they are still inside the common church tradition. We must be generous to allow that the common Christian tradition is expressed in different ritual forms. It is a difficult path of reconciliation, as often happens in a family dispute. We need to provide a starting point in the reconciliation process. "
The means to achieve the goal is by means of generosity. Being generous, that is to say: open your heart, recognize, allow, provide a starting point, the reconciliation process.
In practice: the creation of an apostolic administration etc. .. are the generous practical means to attain the goal.
Conclusion: Frankly, to try to achieve a bad goal (this goal is confessed: to make us accept the errors of Vatican II) by means of generosity, this is called a maneuver.
At the time, Archbishop Lefebvre had already seen this with the Fraternity of St. Peter, he gave them ten years ( of "generosity")
Shame that Campos etc. .. have fallen into this same trap. In the IPB it seems already after 5 years ..

3rd Ad confirmandum: another confession of Pope Benedict XVI, "the Motu Proprio is simply an act of tolerance"
September 12, 2008, on the plane that took him to France, Benedict XVI publicly confirmed its intention: "the Motu Proprio (" Summorum Pontificorum "of July 7, 2007) is simply an act of tolerance" .. "There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by Vatican II and the old ".... On their side friends of the old liturgy can and should know the new saints, new prefaces of the liturgy, etc. ..... In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our times. Thank you. Source: Zenit

4th Lourdes September 14, 2008 before all the bishops of France,
Benedict-Ratzinger has continued to clarify his thoughts, before the bishops of France, following the same guiding principle: that of the absorption of traditionalist splinter group within the conciliar church, in the name of the same tolerance ". . I was led to state in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм, the conditions for exercise of this office, regarding the possibility of using both the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962), that of Pope Paul VI (1970). I know your difficulties, but I do not doubt that you can achieve in reasonable time, satisfactory solutions for all so that the seamless tunic of Christ be not further torn ... Let us therefore always be servants of unity!

Let's be careful. This is the "unity in Vatican II ...": there are two masses, because there are two groups, the conflict should lead to progress and evolution (nr cfr.Pascendi 36 above): the reform of the reform, "the Mass of St. Thesis [synthesis]" (that is to say, according to Hegel, the conflict between a useful and necessary thesis and an antithesis produces a "synthesis" that makes progress and evolves).
"Personally, I am mistrustful ... I've always had a feeling of distrust and I must admit I've always thought that all they do is to get us to accept the Council and to accept the post-conciliar reforms "(Lefebvre, 1988).

5th We will not do what we want
Proof: 08/06/2012 Dici:
DICI: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you have indicated in recent statements. .. Are you willing to accept that future works are possible only with the permission of the bishop in the dioceses where the Society of St. Pius X is not currently present?
Mgr: ".... It remains true - as is the law of the Church - that to open a new chapel or found a work, it would be necessary to have permission from the local ordinary. We have of course presented in Rome how our current situation was difficult in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here and there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? .. "

6th note:
Since the common good is at stake (the unity of the Society, preserving of the deposit of faith), it seems useful to ask some fundamental principles on this subject:

1) Quote "Cor Unum" nr 85, page 26:
"Motions [and decisions] of the General Chapter - I.1. Relations with Rome"
"If an agreement with the Holy See were seriously considered, an extraordinary general chapter would be convened to address the issue."

2) Quote of Raoul Naz "Treatise of Canon Law", T 1, nr 816,
"Chapters":
"General Chapter has more power than the superior general.
It can make laws or at least take steps that must remain in effect until the next chapter. "
Naz does not place restrictions on these two principles. He gives a reference to the Dictionary of Canon Law which confirms the history of religious families in the Church through the centuries.

3) Conclusion absolutely clear:
Of the supreme authority of the SSPX and a chapter must be held to address the issue of a possible imminent agreement with Rome.

The text box is checked and approved by an official of the SSPX.
Tradition gives this principle which can be summarized thus: "A General Chapter has supreme powers in a society of law of the Church. Therefore it has the powers and the grave duty to elect or to remove any person of authority as required by the common good and to verify and sanction fidelity to the founder, to the Rule, the Constitutions and Statutes of the General Chapters past ".

7th "Mortalium Animos"
An agreement of "SSPX with Rome without conversion" is entirely under the doctrine of Vatican II, which advocates a "ministry of unity with everyone without conversion" (Nostra Aetate, the "spirit of Assisi", the new ecuмenism) condemned by "Mortalium Animos".

8th Archbishop Lefebvre

Conference in Flavigny, in December 1988 Preview Fideliter No. 68 (March 1989) p. 16

"We must be free of compromise both with regard to sedevacantists as well as those who absolutely want to be subjected to ecclesiastical authority. We remain committed to our Lord Jesus Christ. But Vatican II was dethroned our Lord. We want to remain faithful to our Lord, the king, prince and ruler of the world. We cannot change this course of action. So when we get asked the question when will there be an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: when Rome recrowns "Our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot agree with those who uncrown Our Lord. The day they recognize again our Lord King of peoples and nations, it is not us who shall have rejoined them , but they who come back to the Catholic Church in which we live. "
+ Marcel Lefebvre, Flavignv, December 1988

Conference in Sierre (Switzerland) on 27 XI 1988 fideliter Extract from No. 89 (September 1992) p.12:

"This is a general apostasy, which is why we resist, but the Roman authorities would have us accept it. When I discussed with them in Rome, they wanted me to recognize religious freedom like Cardinal Bea. But I said no, I cannot. My faith is that of Cardinal Ottaviani faithful to all the popes, and not this new doctrine which has always been condemned. That's in what consists our opposition, and that is why we cannot agree. It's not so much the question of the Mass, the Mass is precisely one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism and thus transform the worship, sacraments, catechism, etc. ... The real fundamental opposition is the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ. "Opportet regnare Illum," says St. Paul. Our Lord came to rule. They say no. And we say yes, with all the popes. Our Lord came not to be hidden inside houses without coming outside. Why the missionaries, of whom so many were slaughtered? To preach that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God, to tell the pagans to convert. Then the pagans wanted to make them disappear, but they did not hesitate to give their lives to continue to preach Our Lord Jesus Christ. And now we should do the opposite, saying to the Gentiles "your religion is good, preserve it, provided you are good Buddhists, good Muslims or good pagans! "This is why we cannot get along with them, because we obey our Lord saying to the apostles:" Go and teach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. "
That is why we should not be surprised that we did not manage to make an agreement with Rome. It will not be possible until Rome returns to the faith in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as long as it gives the impression that all religions are good. We clash on a point of Catholic faith, clash as Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani, and as all popes clashed with liberalism. This is the same thing, the same current, the same ideas and the same divisions within the Church. "
Ave Maria, ora pro nobis.

Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on us.
Father Eric Julien Lawrence Jacqmin +

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #29 on:** January 01, 2013, 03:06:36 PM »

Rivarol
Quoted from Rorate Coeli
June 1, 2012 Interview with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
Last Public Words of Opposition
He Became an Accordista 1 Month Later After the 2012 SSPX General Chapter:

R: What do you say to those who believe that Rome has changed with Benedict XVI?

Bp. T: It is certain that Benedict XVI has made some gestures in favor of Tradition. Especially by declaring that the Traditional Mass has never been suppressed and, in second place, by suppressing the so-called excommunication that had been declared regarding us following our episcopal consecration by Abp. Lefebvre. These two positive gestures drew bitter complaints from the episcopates towards Benedict XVI. But Pope Benedict XVI, while he is Pope, remains Modernist. His programmatic address of December 22, 2005 [on the hermeneutic of continuity and reform] is a profession of the evolution of the truths of faith according to the dominant ideas of each time. Despite his favorable gestures, his real intent by integrating us in the conciliar orb cannot be other than to lead us to Vatican II. He had said it himself to H.E. Bp. Fellay in August 2005, and a confidential note by himself, published fraudulently, has confirmed it recently. (Rorate note: the reference here is to a note attributed to Pope Benedict XVI and referring to the SSPX that was among those publicized in the Vatileaks affair.)