CathInfo.com

37 Priests Defend Their Anonymity
Communiqué of La Sapinière about the letter to Bishop Fellay March 4th 2013

Whatever thinks Jacques-Régis du Cray, the February 28th letter to Bishop Fellay was written by some Society priests of the district of France.

Mr. Ennemond (Jacques-Régis du Cray), who claims he knows the SSPX well, stated that no priest of the district could have acted this way. He is mistaken; not all the priests share the ideas of Father Lorans or Célier. Some writers of his forum Fecit believed they could blame us for our anonymity. This is laughable when we know how Mr. Jacques-Régis du Cray uses and abuses it [anonymity].

Mr. Jacques-Régis du Cray put our bravery into question. Anonymity is not necessarily a sign of cowardice. To publicly resist the lies of our Superior General, we think opportune not to leave the Society. As Archbishop Lefebvre reminded to Dom Thomas Aquinas, prior of the Santa Cruz Monastery in Brazil, after the rallying of le Barroux (French Benedictine Monastery in Provence): “the goods of the Church belong to Christ the King, one shouldn’t sell them off and hand them over to the enemies of his universal reign”.

Anonymity is not an escape from the cross, as Father de Cacqueray [district superior] thinks in a fax sent to all the priests of the district on March 1st 2013. We bear the cross. It is even a heavy one. For a recent time, the meditation of the anguish of the heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ facing the betrayal of Judas has been deeper and renewed our inner priestly life.

We have met some cries of horror from liberals and ‘agreementists’.  We understand them without agreeing with them. They had an idol that they took for a saint and they realize he is a liar. They wanted his policy of rallying Rome to be saint because they shared his liberalism. Rather than submitting to the facts, they preferred to deny them. They don’t want to see the lies because they don’t want to set the conclusion that this policy doesn’t come from the good spirit.

Yes, liberalism is a sin that ends up making blind its people. Those cries of horror are only hypocritical. One takes offense of an anonymous letter which denounces the repeated deceptions in a serious matter, of a superior towards his inferiors, but one doesn’t want to take offense of the lie itself. This is backward. For them, subversion doesn’t involve lying but denouncing a lie. What strange morals!

Father de Cacqueray, who is not liberal, but who is rather victim of his benevolence, in the fax, blames us for our “objectively destructive behavior”. But, we may wonder what is objectively destructive, lying or denouncing the very lie?

Father de Cacqueray thinks ludicrous the number of 37 priests agreeing with this letter. This is amazing to us, because he knows more than anyone else the number of priests who showed him their total loss of confidence toward the General Superior and his Council, is over that number. Moreover, the value of the facts doesn’t rely on the signers but on the trustworthy eye witnesses, mentioned in a circuмstanced way. At last, Father de Cacqueray thinks also ludicrous the judgment of this Chapter member: “It is necessary to recognize that the [General] Chapter failed. Today it is okay to have a liberated Society [of St. Pius X] inside the Conciliar Church”.

Father de Cacqueray invites us to have a “frank and respectful” attitude toward the superiors. But we then ask him how long we will have to put up with lies directed to us and the faithful?

Your Excellency, dear colleagues, dear faithful, an original version received by all the Society priests on January 24th 2009 that we had to read on the pulpit, said: « the decree of January 21st quotes the letter of December 15th to Castrillon Cardinal Hoyos in which I expressed our attachment “to the Church of O. L. Jesus-Christ that is the Catholic Church”, stating our acceptance to its bi-millenary teachings and our faith in the primacy of Peter. I reminded how much we suffer from the current situation of the Church where this teaching and this primacy are trod, and added: “we are ready to write the credo with our blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of the faith of Pius IV; we accept and make ours all the Council until Vatican II, about which we make some reservations.”

But, several days later, this passage has become:
“We are ready to write the credo with our blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of the faith of Pius IV; we accept and make ours all the Council until Vatican I. But we can only make some reservations about the Vatican II Council, which wanted to be a “different one” from the others.

How to justify such a difference? Back then, Bishop Fellay said to the priors that it was a mistake of the Secretary General who, by working the whole night, made that mistake. But, eventually, after deleting the first version, the corrected version was published, the very one which is now on all the websites of the Society, … Today, we know that this is the first text which was the thought of Bishop Fellay because he seeks to submit to the official Church. On the 29th of October 2009, the editor-in-chief of the Osservatore Vaticano, Vini Ganimara, published an article entitled: “strengths and weaknesses of the diplomacy of Bishop Fellay”. In it, we read:

Bishop Fellay knew how to take up a moderate language, language which has his past statements forgotten, not like the aggressive speeches of the other bishops of the SSPX, and which takes weapons away from the episcopal “public opinion” (in Germany for instance), trying to captivate the good will of the pope. This third point – decisive, for there is no negotiation without compromises on both sides - shows its diplomatic capacities, at the same time as the weakness of his possibility to maneuver. I quote an example:  after the lift of the the excommunications, he sent a “letter to the faithful” by fax to all the priories of the world (24 january 2009), containing the quotation of his own letter to Castrillon Cardinal Hoyos (15 December 2008) which allowed the lift of the sanctions: “we accept and make ours all the Council until Vatican I. But we can only make some reservations about the Vatican II Council, etc…” This is the first version that received Cardinal Hoyos. The 2nd version is not a fake: this is a translation useful for the public opinion of the SSPX.”

http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/dos-articulos-de-vini-ganimara-y-un-recuerdo/

Bishop Fellay and the communication of the General House lied in the past, they lied again recently in their communiqué; why believe they will stop doing so in the future?  This scandal and this mascarade have lasted too long. They have to stop and they will stop.

La Sapinière

Correction about the Communiqué of the District Superior of France on the letter to Bishop Fellay of February 28th

A letter, shared by 37 priests of the district of France has well been posted on the website of La Sapinière. The truths that they contain displeased very much the General House, which decided to punish three priests among the thirty-seven ones. Their crime: not supporting the lies of the General House.

It [the General House] commands them, based on the canon 2331 § 2 to stop their ministry and to be quarantined until the next lawsuit, where the one we accuse will also become our judge. It means that Bishop Fellay will be judge and party at the same time.

We don’t know any canon of the law of the Church which permits to lie. On the other hand, We know the 8th commandment of God which forbids it.

All the contents of the letter of the 28th of February is true and verifiable. The General House, embarrassed, first said it was a fake, that this letter couldn’t come from priests. In front of such facts [described by the letter], it is well aimed [by Father de Cacqueray] to have people believe “it was just a confabulation”.

We have nothing “against the authority of the Society”, to which we owe everything; we just want the General House to stop misrepresenting the truth and being in favor for a practical liberalism.

Whatever they say, there is not but “a few priests” who wish “the resignation of their superiors”!

Three priests have been punished, of course, but this doesn’t change anything to the facts. The whole problem is still there. We refuse the accusation of the General Secretary. We have always justified our sources. We have committed no slander, no defamation, no hodgepodge. If we are decided to reveal the evil done by the General Superior and his assistants, this is only after asking (and praying) Saint Thomas and the moral authorities of the Society. Our aim is to have this scandal of the blurry and ambiguous policy of the General House stopped.

Our “attitude” is not grounded on “nothing objective”, on the contrary! We have not been “moved by irrational distrust against the authority of the Society”. The reasons of our worries are not only reasoned but have good arguments and summed up in the “catechism of the crisis in the Society”.

We don’t doubt of the doctrinal rectitude of the District Superior of France, but we notice that he is no more free to write what he thinks.  He has to twist his conscience in order to exempt his Superior from his deviations, so that he may be able to preach the doctrine.

Without the letter of February 28 of the 37 priests, would Bishop Fellay have given this conference in Nantes on March 1st in this way?

Would the letter to friends and benefactors of the month of March have obtained the permission for publication from Menzingen, without this “gratitude to him for this courageous refusal that he addressed to the pope”. Here we are no longer in the doctrinal rectitude but in the swamps of diplomacy.

La Sapinière will continue its work. Est est, Non non!

We hate nobody, neither Bishop Fellay, though his duplicity scares us, nor Father de Cacqueray to whom we have the highest esteem. But to both of them, and to all the chapter members who, instead of truly solving the problem at the Chapter back then in July 2012, only hid and backed it, we say to them those words of the Lieutenant Degueldre to his executioners, before being shot: “I don’t hate you, I just feel sorry for you.”

Father Olivier Rioult>, SSPX
One the 3 punished priests
Posted Today, 4:03 pm   

From The Recusant:


A Commentary on Bishop Fellay's proposed Preamble

By a priest of the SSPX

I have been asked for my first impressions of the text published today on La Sapiniere and other good websites of resistance to the sell-out. I hope that someone better qualified than I will have time to study all the subtleties of this preamble, but certain problematic points are already easily identifiable. Here then, as asked for, are a few blunt remarks.

As Bp. Fellay himself said in May or June 2012, the reaction to this text will depend on the disposition of the mind of the person reading it. (“Rose-tinted or dark-tinted spectacles...”). In effect, after several paragraphs reaffirming attachment to the Pope and traditional doctrine, we come across some scandalous affirmations. This mixture of truth and falsehood reminds one of the methods of the Modernists as St. Pius X denounces them in Pascendi.  In other words what we have here is an ambiguous text, which in itself is a serious fault, since we can hardly hope to rebuild the Church if we have a misunderstanding as the foundation. It is not honest towards Rome nor is it honest towards Tradition. The General Council shows us, in effect, that it believes that the end justifies the means. They still do have a little bit of shame left however, it was left to the Resistance to publish this text.

So, here briefly are some points which cause problems, to say the least.

1.    We find in this text, not surprisingly, what we have known about for a while, since it was revealed by Fr. Pfluger on 5th June 2012, at Fanjeaux I think, and which is in itself an abomination [paragraph 3.4] Saying that Vatican II makes explicit “certain elements” contained implicitly in the entire Tradition of the Church means we have just put this pastoral Council (which was diverted and hijacked by the Freemasons and modernists) on the same level as all the other legitimate doctrinal Councils. When you think about it, Vatican II is more akin to a secret get-together of plotters and schemers than a true Council, even if it was presided over and approved by two Popes, because these two Popes made illegitimate use of it: they used it to make a revolution in the Church. That’s why I call it a plotters’ get-together. The first thing a Catholic Pope will to will be to declare the Council illegitimate and void, as was the case with several oriental councils at the start of the Church.

2.    The second serious fault of this part of the text is that it doesn’t say which elements of Tradition were supposedly made explicit by Vatican II. Is it talking about Religious Liberty? Does it mean Collegiality? Or the “subsistit in”? Or ecuмenism? Or permission to say Mass in the vernacular? Or permission to wear a clerical suit instead of a cassock?

3.    The third thing that occurs to me is that instead of saying that there are erroneous texts which simply cannot be interpreted the right way, it says that there is a way of discussing things in order to arrive at the correct interpretation. We are no longer saying that Vatican II teaches doctrines previously condemned by the traditional Popes.  But this goes against what was always our position, that there are three types of docuмent in Vatican II: the “good bits”, the bits which have to be read in the light of Tradition, and the docuмents which need to be totally corrected. (cf. Fr. Gaudron’s Catechism, No.29)

4.    So, overall this Preamble says that we’re going to stay faithful to Tradition but that we’re prepared to leave the doctrinal questions to one side. We’re ready to sign an agreement now and a commission will be assigned the task, in the future, of explaining the points of Vatican II which appear to contradict Tradition (cf. para III.6) What this amounts to, then, is the laying down of the principle that we are ready to sign a purely practical agreement without having first corrected the errors of Vatican II.

5.    Instead of a declaration against the New Mass, as being something which seriously undermines the majesty of Almighty God and thus in that way a serious sin against the First Commandment, we’re now content simply to recognise its validity under certain conditions (cf. para III.7) We hide under a bushel the fact that the Novus Ordo MIssae directly attacks the greatest treasure of the Church, the source of supernatural life which is the Sacrifice of the Head of the Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

6.    Then there is the recognition of the 1983 Canon Law, under which we’re happy to place ourselves. Abp. Lefebvre said that he detested this Code, a Code poisoned by the theories of Vatican II. Let us remind ourselves of Canon 844 which permits “communicatio in sacris” the sharing of sacraments between Catholics and non Catholics. (cf. para III.8)

In  conclusion, this doctrinal preamble shows us to just what depths the General Council has sunk into the abyss.  It confirms the warning of Fr. Gaudron’s Catechism which alerts us to the grave danger of contamination entailed by frequenting the Roman authorities. (See pp. 291-294 in the 2008 edition) Utinam! Would to heaven that the General Council had made Fr. Gaudron’s Catechism its bedtime reading! Then we wouldn’t be where we are now!