CathInfo.com

Part 1-3 of 5:

(Originally Posted by "Parents for Truth")




Essay #1: Resistance to What?
Introduction:
A Response to Fr. Daniel Themann’s Lecture Piece by Piece.

by Fr. Don Rua, SDB

How happy I was to receive and listen to the talk of Fr. Themann’s concerning the crisis which the Society of St. Pius X is experiencing. Finally there is a concrete statement concerning the principles by which the Society operates. I want to thank him for his presentation and encourage him to enter into the essays which I will write in order to methodically come to the truth which determines the prudential action in the circuмstances in which we find ourselves. Now let us consider a word about the talk’s presuppositions and definitions.

“Truth is first” initiates Father’s preamble and all must agree to serious and precisely define the truth which causes us to act. The primary truth which is not stated in the address is the fact that “one must save one’s soul.” This is the underlying truth in everything we say, think or do. Our Lord remarks, “What good is it if a man gains the whole world but loses his immortal soul.” This truth is a metaphysical truth as opposed to an intellectual truth or a physical truth. It is a truth of the faith and so surpasses and encompasses all other truth.

Truth is not romantic but serious. Yes, Truth is serious for it is the word of God. I am the Way, I am the Truth thus spoke Our Lord. He, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is the Truth incarnate. This is serious because every word He spoke and every deed He performed draws us into union with the eternal truth. Through a correspondence to eternal truth we can arrive at judgments that are clear and prudential. Our judgments will follow the Truth which we hold.

Our judgments can be speculative, practical and prudential but they must be based upon a serious reflection of the truth and the circuмstances in which we live, move and have our being. Hence speculative judgments which deal in the truths of the faith are non-negotiable (e.g. murder is a mortal sin; there are three Persons in the Blessed Trinity). Judgments that are prudential and practical are determined by the circuмstances.

Father states: “Prudential truth is to say that within a given set of circuмstances, which is a reality, such and such a course of action is prudent. It is the correct way to act in order to achieve what is good. As concrete circuмstances change what is prudent changes as well.” Here then is a key – circuмstances. We must correctly assess the circuмstances in which a prudential judgment is made. If then the circuмstances are not correctly assessed then the prudential judgment will be in error. In his address Father will present the circuмstances as he views them which make the actions of the leadership prudential. We will note that our assessment of the circuмstances may call into question the prudential judgment of the same leadership. Hence keep this key in your mind – circuмstances help to dictate our prudential judgment.

Now the danger is exposed when Father tells us that “there is no faster way to get people at each other’s throats than to confuse a question of principle with a question of prudence.” When one makes a prudential judgment one already knows the good (the principle) and now we must decide how to accomplish that good in prudence.” Therefore the principle must be clearly presented as the good to be achieved. If we find that the good to be achieved is not a good then we must contest it with a greater good. Now we have two things to keep well in mind: the circuмstances and the good to be achieved.

Finally we come to the last key in the introduction to the address: “Remember a question of risk does not in itself make a course of action imprudent because any course of action involves some risk and so it is a question of balance weighing the risk with the good to be achieved.” Third element for the discerning listener is the element of risk. I took a risk in listening to this talk in order to achieve a greater understanding of the problem facing the Society. Risk is balanced with the good to be achieved. Keep in mind these three keys: circuмstances, the good to be achieved, and the risk to be taken.

During the body of the address truth will fluctuate from eternal to physical, good will be defined as a response to the authority of Rome, circuмstances will be accepted as favorable to tradition and risk will be accepted for the good of regularization. The great good is the legalization of seminaries, churches, schools, chapels and whatever else comes under the SSPX umbrella. So our desire is to analyze this address from the perspective of eternal truth, which is our faith. Is the risk that is being taken for the protection or the destruction of our faith?

Conclusion of Essay 1 – The Introduction.


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essay #2: Principles Upon Which the Society Has Always Acted. Comment upon Fr. Daniel Themann’s Address
By: Fr. Don Rua, SDB

After the preliminary remarks concerning truth, correct judgments, understanding circuмstances and the acceptance of risk, Father leads us into what he calls the first problem in understanding the Society’s direction in these days. It is the question of the principles upon which the Society is founded and continues to operate. The principles he enumerates are these two:

1. The Society has and continues to recognize the authority of Rome and Rome’s right to govern the Church (e.g. the Pope is the Pope, the Cardinals and Bishops hold offices of authority). For this reason the Society has never fallen into sedevacantism nor followed the route of the Ecclesia Dei communities.

2. The crisis in the Church is based on Vatican II and the new mass.

Considering these two principles we respectfully submit the words of Archbishop Lefebvre concerning the principles that form the foundation of the Society. I quote from the Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger July 8, 1987:

“In order to prevent the auto-demolition of the Church we beg to Holy Father, through your mediation, to allow the free exercise of Tradition by procuring for Tradition the means to live and develop itself for the salvation of the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls: that the traditional foundations may be recognized, especially the seminaries; that His Excellency de Castro Mayer and myself may consecrate some auxiliaries of our choice in order to give to the Church the graces of Tradition, the only source of the renewal of the Church.”

Upon reading this text to Cardinal Ratzinger, the basic principle of the Archbishop seems to be the preservation of the Tradition of the Faith at all costs.
Flowing from this desire to preserve the faith is the action of Rome to protect and foster the faith through recognition of its essential structures (i.e. seminary).

In reality the essential principle guiding the work of the Archbishop was to preserve the holiness of the priesthood and the holiness of the faith. Secondary to this was his effort to bring Rome back to the Tradition of the Church as understood be the Church of all ages. Did he try to establish a canonical structure for the Society – yes but as he remarks in a 1987 ordination sermon in Econe:

“There you have 20 years that I have been going to Rome—writing, speaking, sending docuмents to say: ‘Follow Tradition. Come back to Tradition, or else the Church is going to her ruin. You who have been placed into the succession of those who have built up the Church, you must continue to build Her up, and not demolish Her.’ They are deaf to our appeals!
“This is why, if God asks it of us, we will not hesitate to give ourselves auxiliaries in order to continue this work; for we cannot think that God wants it to be destroyed, that He wills that souls be abandoned, and that by this fact itself the Church will have no more pastors. We are living in an age that is completely exceptional. We must realize this. The situation is no longer normal, quite particularly in Rome.”

Society of St. Pius X we live in abnormal times where the auto-demolition of the Church seems willed by those who ought to build her up. The Assisi event, the uncrowning of Christ in the Catholic countries of the world, the refusal to listen to the pleas of our Blessed Mother, all this argues against a canonical recognition from those who hold position but fail to act according to that position.

These circuмstances have not changed from 1987 but have worsened as now the Church seeks ways to placate the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ life style. The one bastion of true Catholic life came to us from the Archbishop who recommended the fostering of large families, the development of serious seminaries and the mission of priests to go everywhere to preserve the faith. Their battle cry against the Council and the new mass used to be heard and united the flock.
Now the confusion caused by the desire for legal recognition is more than risky it is suicidal.

As the Archbishop remarks this is a battle against the powers of Satan which are found in the deceitful tongue. That tongue is operative in Rome as the Archbishop learned. His experience ought to guide our relations with the Modernist Rome that is currently playing a cat and mouse game with the leadership of the Society.

In the Arian crisis the visible Church was Arian while Athanasius remarked that they have the churches but we possess the faith. It is the faith that saves our souls not the canonical regularization of our Society. The greater good is the salvation of our souls from a house united around the guidance of its founder. We appeal to you to recognize that the visible church is not the Catholic Church.
It is the Conciliar Church, the Church of the new Advent as they call themselves.
This Conciliar Church is suicidal and will bring about the institutional death of the Catholic Church but the faith will remain and hence the Mystical Body will remain for all days.

The root cause of the crisis is not per se the Council but the ones who robbed the Council and used it for their liberal agenda. Those individuals continue to elect each other and the battle continues. Archbishop Lefebvre did what he had to do in 1988 to preserve the Faith of all ages. He consecrated four bishops with the prayer that they would stay the course and rebuild the church.

Dear Society and leaders in the Society your greatest good is the salvation of the souls entrusted to your care. The circuмstances have become more dangerous now than in the times of the Archbishop. The risk accompanied with union is the death of the society. Re-evaluate those who love you and desire your greatest welfare for they only seek to preserve you from a decision that will kill you.
Prudence demands that you re-consider. Your principles are out of order and need to place the priority of salvation over regularization. The history of the good Archbishop’s attempt to work out some kind of canonical status ought to be a warning to you of the deceitful tongues found in Rome. We pray in the wonderful Our Father …. Lead us not into temptation.

Applying your own words Father, the society must hold to its consistent principles (goods) and make a prudential judgment based upon a clear and precise evaluation of the circuмstances then take the risk to save the souls of its families and not put them and their faith in jeopardy. Keep Christ as the Lord of this holy Society and recall the words of warning from your founder:

“Who has been uncrowned? Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Who has uncrowned Him? The Roman authorities of today. …This is a tremendous scandal for souls, for Catholics, to see thus cast into doubt the universal Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is precisely that which is called Liberalism.” (p. 17 Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, Rev. F. Laisney)

End of Reflection on Point One in Fr. Themann’s Address



 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESSAY 3: THE MEANING OF THE TIMELINE IN
FR. THEMANN’S ADDRESS.
By: Fr. Don Rua, SDB

Our next “worry” as Fr. Themann calls it is the timeline which has not been outlined clearly and presents the faithful with doubts. Returning to the Roman
Pilgrimage of 2000 in which a strong presentation of the traditional faithful impressed modernist Rome with the strength of the movement and consequently caused Cardinal Hojos to contact Bishop Fellay to discuss an eventual agreement. In 2001 the General Council met and proposed two conditions to prove the sincerity of the Roman approach. The two requirements were:
1) The liberty of the Tridentine Mass which was never abrogated; 2) the admission that the excommunications were null and void.

Father remarked that Bishop Fellay stated that given “that Rome made the effort it is normal for the Society to take it with the seriousness it deserves.” In order to assess this section it seems good to this author to summarizes Fr. Themann’s chronology and then to fill in the chronology with missing elements. From those two lists the question will arise: Why be selective and why not show the complete actions of Menzingen? So we proceed to Fr. Themann’s chronology:

1) Jan. 2001 – General Council met and established two conditions for initiating a discussion with Rome. (cfr. Above)
2) 2006 – Election of Pope Benedict XVI – Tradition receives the Motu Proprio 2 years later freeing the Tridentine Mass – not a perfect docuмent but significant (Fr. Themann’s statement concerning the Society’s opinion).
3) Jan. 14th, 2009 – withdrawal of the decree of excommunication from the 4 bishops but does not mention Archbishop Lefebvre or de Castro Meyer. Again the docuмent is:”not perfect but significant”.
4) 2009 – 2011 Doctrinal discussions take place under Bishop De Galleretta and other outspoken Society leaders. Bishop Fellay could have chosen others who might “sweep the issues under the rug” but he didn’t.
5) Sept. 2011 Card. Levada invites BF to come to Rome “to make an assessment of these discussions and to consider prospects for the future.
6) Mid-Aug. Sources close to the Pope let BF know that the Pope wishes to recognize the Society unilaterally. In other words, no concessions and the Society will be recognized as it is.
7) Sept. Bishop Fellay meets with Card. Levada and receives a doctrinal preamble and in the following month the superiors meet in Albano to discuss this preamble. It is rejected. The hermeneutic of continuity cannot cover up the Vatican II docuмents which contradict the previous Church teaching.
8) Jan. 2012 Bishop Fellay is asked to send a more detailed explanation concerning the unacceptable preamble. He writes a more detailed explanation while holding to the first response – rejects preamble.
9) Bishop Fellay insists that the Society must be recognized as we are and in teaching as we do according to the principles that define us. Unofficially, BF is told that the Society can continue to attack the errors of Vatican II and the new mass and yet be recognized canonically.
10) March, 2012 BF meets with Card. Levada who gives him a harsh letter which CL says has been approved by the Pope. This letter mentions an excommunication of the Society (threatens the Bishop) if the preamble is not accepted in the present form. This will prove that the Society does not accept the authority of the Pope no matter what you say. BF has one month to reconsider.
11) Bishop receives the conviction that Rome does not think that the Society accepts anything that the Church has done since 1962. Fr. Themann “says that this is a false impression and in April Bishop Fellay will submit a response to that impression and his letter is designed to indicate that the Society does recognize much good and consequently BF will be attacked for this attempt to shatter that impression held by Rome.
12) The unofficial response from Rome is that the Pope accepts it. Now go through the proper channels (i.e. Card. Levada and the Commission). It is sent to the Commission but again it is rejected and the Congregation of the Faith changes it despite the fact that BF said if you change one word we will not accept it.
13) Early June Bishop Fellay grants an interview with DICI to test Rome by attacking Vatican II as erroneous. Pope has no problem saying that Vatican II has been abused but you cannot say it has errors. This is the issue. Bishop Fellay criticizes the new mass and the interview goes to the Pope via Card. Levada. The Cardinal says to BF that he has no right to say that the teaching of the Church today is in opposition to what it said in the past. Bishop Fellay answer that it is a fact. The Cardinal response that you have no right and then hands him the revised text in which words were changed hence makes it unacceptable.
14) Bishop Fellay writes to the Pope concerning this changed docuмent and the Pope then confirms that he approved the re-introduction of the objectionable material. He also states three conditions:
A) That Rome has the authority to determine what is part of tradition and what is not. This condition is true and part of the faith (Fr. Themann’s remark). “It may be your job but does not mean that you get it right.”
B) Vatican II is an integral part of tradition.
C) The new mass is valid and legitimate. Society has always said that the new mass is valid but not that it is good or legitimate.

15) July 2012 – The General Chapter condemns the three major errors of Vatican II in indirect terms.
16) Oct. 27, 2012 – Observatore Romano has an article stating that the Commission is still waiting for an answer from SSPX. However, Bishop Fellay has stated three times that he cannot sign it.

This is the summation of the timeline given by Fr. Themann in his address and now we shall proceed to fill in the missing data.

1. Normality – these are not normal times for Rome has “lost the faith” as the Archbishop pointed out to the Society years ago. In “normal” times the Church focuses on its goal “to save souls.” In abnormal times the Conciliar Church favors the temporal over the eternal. Fr. Themann shifts the term “normal” from the eternal life to the temporal life and loses.
2. Motu Proprio is not only an imperfect docuмent but a deceitful ploy since it presents the new mass as the “ordinary” rite of the Church thus usurping the position of the only legitimate mass which is now consider the “extraordinary” form. It weighs on the new mass over/against the Mass of the ages.
3. The Roman authority “lifted” (as opposed to repealing) the decree of excommunication. From an illegal act on the part of the authority we are presented with another ploy which denigrates the bishops as well.
4. This doctrinal preamble runs contrary to the Archbishop’s warning that “the superiors form the inferiors; not vice-versa….We were protected by God when He allowed the agreement of May 5th to come to naught.” (Letter June 12, 1988)
5. In Albano Bishop Williamson was left out of the proceedings and relegated to a position of silence.
6. The recognition that Rome offered to the Society was similar to what they offered La Barroux, Fraternity of St. Peter, Campos….
7. The harsh letter caused Bishop Fellay to cower whereas the Archbishop was ready to “lay down his life for the faith.” Quite a difference in the leadership one might remark.
8. April 7th, 2012 Bishop Fellay received the letter of the three bishops begging him to stop this madness.
9. April 12th Bishop Fellay responds that these bishops have no faith and are favoring “sedevacantism”.
10. April 15th Bishop Fellay submits the Doctrinal Preamble as a compromise to Rome. Here he does walk a fine line; we might say that he crosses the line in fear of the pseudo-authority of a modernist authoritarian mechanism.
11. May 11th CNS interview reveals the ambiguity in the Bishop’s statements.
12. June 8 – DICI Interview Bishop Fellay remarks that the SSPX has new friends of Tradition in Rome. It is recognized that the Society would naturally fall under the local bishops. This is not a trap by the Pope but an opportunity for the Society.
13. April 15th secret docuмent comes to light in March, 2013 and reveals that Bishop Fellay admits that Vatican II “enlightens and deepens” Tradition? He also called the new mass valid and “legitimately promulgated”. Thus the new mass can sanctify those who attend it.
14. July, 2012 – General Chapter presents the new principle differing from 2006 – which stated there should be no agreement without the conversion of Rome; but in 2012 the Chapter said: “we approve and determine an agreement without Rome’s conversion!” In paragraphs 6 and 7 we find ambiguity rivaling Vatican II. Six conditions are listed: a) Society “agrees to disagree” in order to make an agreement; b) exclusive use of 1962 Liturgy and retention of the current sacramental structure: c) one bishop offered the Society but from whom and from where? Now the desirable conditions (3) follow; d) Ecclesiastical tribunals first instance (but decisions could be overturned in second or third instance); e) placed under diocesan bishops (!?); f) Pontifical Commission (under whom?)
15. On Oct. 4, 2012 Bishop Williamson is expelled on the grounds of disobedience and fomenting rebellion.
16. On October 29, 2012: US District Superior, Fr. Rostand, in his Post Falls conference stated: “Will recognition of the Society make the Society grow and influence the Church? More to the point, that even to have to ask permission to the other bishops will become, over time, not a problem; it is a question of prudence.”(sic)
17. Finally, to date there has been no rejection, repudiation or correction of the main ambiguous statements from: a) CNS and DICI interviews; b) General Chapter statement and the Six Conditions; c) April 15, 2012 – Doctrinal Preamble
18. Consider the manner in which the Society chastens those who in one way or another raises questions of the prudential policy change. We can docuмent that priests have been expelled, silenced, punitively transferred. Our faithful have been refused communion; have had their children expelled from their schools; seminarians have been indoctrinated in a false obedience and to desire a union with modernist Rome; priests and laity have been blackballed from Society property. All this because the Society now desires to protect their new orientation in the name of unity. Faith is no longer the principle of unity but has been subordinated to the prudential policy change.

Now why would one who is presenting the chronology omit the 18 salient points that fill in the SSPX story? Could it be embarrassing to the record? If these facts were presented to the people at large could they recognize the duplicity in the leadership? Could they see that the priests of the resistance have a point to make? Could they recognize the Communist-style of leadership which brooks no opposition and crushes sincere questioning priests and laity? It causes this author to wonder and wonder and wonder. What about you, Fr. Themann?

Don Rua
 
 

http://www.therecusant.com/letter-of-entreaty

A Letter of Entreaty
to
Fr. Morgan and the Clergy of the British District

21st May, 2013

(St. Godric; Bl. John Haile)



Dear Fr. Morgan, Dear Fathers,


We beg of you in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, high priest and lover of souls, in the name of his Blessed Mother, in the name of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and in the name of all the wonderful, holy ideals which led you to answer the call to become a shepherd and a lover of souls – aid our souls now, in our moment of need.

The Subversion of the Society of St. Pius X

For some time now, we have felt betrayed by one portion of the SSPX and let down and abandoned by the lack of response from another portion. The leadership of the SSPX are wilfully pursuing a new direction and a new agenda, remaking the Society in their own image with reckless disregard for the souls which Divine Providence has placed in their care. Every month, sometimes it seems every week, some new, fresh piece of evidence emerges of the liberalism at the top which is being forced downwards upon the lower members and faithful of the Society. We have heard not one single convincing explanation, nothing to put our minds at rest, although it is not uncommon for Menzingen or DICI to issue “clarifications” or for Bishop Fellay to claim that his words have been misrepresented in some way.


What concerns us especially is that we see what amounts to a new direction officially enshrined in the SSPX. Recently we have seen proof of the liberalism of Bishop Fellay in the form of a modernistic “Doctrinal Declaration”, a declaration of the his own doctrinal position, presented to Rome with his signature as supposedly representing us also. Amongst other things, we are now able to see that Bishop Fellay accepts the legitimacy of the New Mass which Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX always held to be illegitimate; he accepts the idea of collegiality which Archbishop Lefebvre fought against at the council since it undermines any previous notion of the Church's Magisterium, replacing it with a sort of 'teaching democracy' in the form of the modern Bishops; he accepts the 'hermeneutic of continuity' and the idea that Tradition and the revolution can be thought of as consistent with one another; he accepts all of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which John-Paul II said was Vatican II translated into law, and which includes Canon 844 which provides for the giving of the sacraments to non Catholics; he states explicitly that diabolical modern ideas such as ecuмenism and religious liberty are reconcilable with the true teaching of the Church and with Tradition; and finally he also explicitly states that Vatican II “enlightens and deepens... the life and doctrine of the Church.”


Father, you can see as clearly as we that this Doctrinal Statement is a serious insult to Almighty God, and a total betrayal of the mission of the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. It is also a personal betrayal of every soul who has reposed confidence in the SSPX and worked to build it up and strengthen it, and of course a personal insult to the Archbishop who, far from accepting the New Religion of the conciliar church, declared that it “begins in heresy and ends in heresy, even if not all of its acts are formally heretical.” Let me remind you, Father, that this docuмent in question is not a throwaway remark, a bad translation, or an unfortunate choice of words made in the heat of the moment – it took months to prepare, and once handed over two months were waited to see whether it had been accepted or not. This docuмent, furthermore, is a Doctrinal Declaration: its purpose is to declare doctrine. If one declares something, surely one declares it in public and not in secret? How can one have 'secret doctrine'? Furthermore, since it is a declaration of doctrine, i.e. Bishop Fellay's “Declaration of what I believe”, it is perfect nonsense for him to say that he has “withdrawn it” - in what meaningful sense can one possibly “withdraw” doctrine? If Bishop Fellay was prepared to believe those things recently, but claims to have “withdrawn” his secret docuмent now that it has come to light, then we can take it that he as good as believes them still today. Since he has been caught betraying the Society, it would be “optimistic” to the point of reckless irresponsibility simply to pretend to ourselves that he is one of us once again. Neither he nor any of his allies can be trusted, and we think that if you are honest with yourselves you must admit that.

How are we to remain faithful to Tradition?

Taken together with all the other signs of the past year, and especially the General Chapter's scandalous “three conditions” (and “three desirable conditions – which in effect amounts to “three things we are not prepared to fight for, and are thus quite happy to lose”) which took the revolution in the SSPX and the Superior General's disobedience to the 2006 Chapter and legitimised it and made it the official position of the Society – what we now see is the revolution inside the SSPX fully established in power. Ideas not personalities are what concern us most. And in the persons of Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, and a large number of Superiors and members of the General Chapter we see new ideas which we abhor, and with which we wish nought to do. We do not wish to be underneath these clerics, whose ideas and doctrinal position are so much at variance with our own, and we do not wish there to be any risk or danger to the Faith by continuing under priests with whom we disagree. We cannot help but be reminded of the simple but insightful words of Archbishop Lefebvre: it is the superiors who form the subjects, not the subjects who form the superiors.


It is clear to us that the SSPX is now a sinking ship. The men who hold authority over it are the problem, and yet they cannot be removed from their positions (the only real opportunity to do so would have been at the last General Chapter). The very thing on account of which Almighty God blessed the SSPX, its faithful adherence to Tradition and its determination not to compromise with modernism, has been officially jettisoned and is now gone. Its absence is the one essential difference between the SSPX of yesterday and the SSPX of today. The good priests opposed to compromise who remain inside the SSPX are now good in spite of their being in the SSPX and not because of it. Since you cannot serve two masters, you must ask yourselves this: to which SSPX do you wish to remain loyal? Although you may have been left comparatively unmolested by Menzingen thus far, you cannot be unaware of what is happening all around the world in the Society. Which being the case, it is now only a matter of time: sooner or later if you do not choose to remain traditional at the cost of SSPX membership, you will find that you chose to remain SSPX members at the cost of your fidelity to Tradition.


Fathers, please consider: at your judgement Almighty God will not judge you faithful servants on account of what you said or thought in secret, but rather what you spoke openly and what actions you did in public. We your faithful have waited now for a year since the liberalism became apparent. We did not wish to act rashly. We have been giving you an opportunity to lead us. If, however, you will not do so, then we must reluctantly part company. It is clear that the situation can only become worse, and in such cicrumstances we can see no alternative but to start again. We can be confident for the future, however, since the only thing being begun again would be the administrative structure. The Faith remains, and that is what matters. If we do the right thing, everything else will be taken care of: God helps those who help themselves, as the saying goes. We beg and implore you to come to our aid and not to abandon souls which need you, especially not on account of a false obedience to superiors who regard you as, at best, a problem and with whom you will have increasingly little in common.


God bless you and reward you for your years of work caring for our souls.



Gregory Taylor
Waltraud Taylor
Olivia Bevan
Jeremy Bevan
Susan Warren
Alun Rowland
Anna Thompson

1st Sermon of Fr. Girouard in New Resistance Chapel:
The "Branding" of the SSPX by Fr. Wegner (Canadian District Superior)
June, 2013


In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

I will be brief in this sermon because I have to read that statement again, and you already had it before mass, but what I want to say today is that, obviously, this is my first mass since I came back from exile, and I would like to say a little bit to correct a little bit things that had been said about me when I was away by Father Wegner and the other priests. They said that basically I had not talked with Father Wegner before to preach my sermons, and so forth and so on. So this is not correct, this is not a true statement. In fact I have talked with him many times...

Like in July last year, on a phone call of 80 minutes, and I mentioned all the problems in the Society; and in October, when he came to visit in Langley, we had a two hour conversation, and I told him of these problems in the Society; and then, in November, I sent him two emails with a very important question about Bishop Fellay, and I am still waiting for the answer to the second email. So if I would wait for the answers all the time, I would probably reach the age of retirement before I get the answers! And, therefore, I decided to preach. The other reason also is because the reason why someone asks a question is because he has a question to ask. If you know already the answer, it is no use to ask the question, unless you are a teacher! So I don't have any questions to ask him anymore.

I saw the docuмents that came out from Bishop Fellay, especially his Declaration of April the 15th 2012 that he brought to Cardinal Levada, as the basics for an agreement with Rome. And when you read that, you realize the Society is in deep trouble! Because in that Declaration, in that draft for an agreement with Rome, Bishop Fellay accepts the New Code of Canon Law. He also says that the new mass has been legitimately promulgated. He also says that he recognizes the Magisterium of the Church of today and that he is ready to sign the 1989 Profession of Faith of Cardinal Ratzinger. Which Profession of Faith, as I have explained to you before in one of my sermons, is very bad, especially the third , which basically means that the priests who will take this oath of fidelity, the one drafted in 1989, will accept to submit to the modern Magisterium, that is to say to the modern teachings of the Pope.

Anyway... So I have preached against this Preamble, and I have preached, as I said, in my announcements on March 10th, about the Preamble, and about the letter from the 37 priests, and also the fact that the Carmelites in Germany have decided to leave the Society because of the same reasons; and also I have talked about the expulsion from the Monastery of Silver City of Father Raphael. So I thought that the faithful needed to know. But the reaction was to transfer me to St. Césaire, with the specific order that I should be silent. I should not communicate these things to the faithful. I should not criticize the Superiors. I should not show nor express any distrust for them or their actions. So it was kind of a pact that was asked of me: We will take care of your material needs, you will have a house and beautiful chapel in St. Césaire and in exchange for this security you will remain silent; so I refused. I cannot remain silent.

It would be a sin for me to remain silent, so therefore I refused and went into exile, as you know, and came back a couple of weeks ago because you have had a series of meetings, once a week, and you studied these docuмents; and you studied some articles that I wrote from afar for you, and you studied some copies of the magazine The Recusant, and so forth and so on. And you have had the same reaction any good and normal Catholic would have in front of those docuмents: You have understood that you, that we, have been misled for the past couple of years; that the Society has done a 180 degrees; and this is why you have decided to start your own chapel. Because you knew you could trust me to preach you the truth, because I have to suffer, and I have to make sacrifices to do it now. And we have organized and have now founded, this is our first mass, St. Joseph Defender of the Church Chapel.

And one of the things I would like to share with you about my conversations with Father Wegner in October... The thing that will explain why you do not anymore see the Society criticize in a strong manner, in a vigorous manner, the evils of Vatican II, the evils of the New Mass and what happens in Rome. You would think that maybe it's just that we forget, the Society is... it has forgotten its role of explaining the truth and battling against error. Maybe it's just a coincidence; just because your priest at that parish didn't think to talk about it... Well, that's what I said to Father Wegner; I told Father Wegner, I said to Father: “Look at the DICI website; look at the Angelus magazine; look at the website of the SSPX in the United States; look at the website of Father Couture in Asia; look everywhere, and you don't see any spirit of fight anymore against Vatican II and the New Mass! It seems to me that the Society has become a blunt sword in the hands of the Lord! There is no cutting edge anymore, it is useless!”

And I thought he would say: “Oh, you are wrong” or, “really, Father, we are still strong, and we are still fighting, and you are, you know, it's a misconception that you have. How can you say this?” So I was really taken aback when he agreed with me, and he said: “But yes, Father, it's true!” Well, Father Wegner agrees with me! So I thought I was making headway! I thought: “Well, that's good! Now that he understands the problem, maybe we will start to fight again!” But when my jaw dropped, was when he said that this was a good thing, this change was a good thing! Okay! Also, well, he explained to me how it came to be. He said this is not just a coincidence, or it is not because priests are becoming lazy or they are afraid of Rome. No, no! He said: “This is a decision that has been made in Menzingen, okay? Yes, Father Girouard, and this decision in Menzingen was made because we have been branded!”

So here, I don't know... You know, normally, you brand a cow! But he tells me now that the Society has been branded! So I was able to keep walking, I did not drop dead but... And then he told me: “Yes Father, that is true, and I did it!” Oh! You did it. How did you do it? “Well, when I was in Holland, District Superior, I met with somebody, I became friend with the President of a company...” (and then he named me the name of the company, it is a Flemish name which uh... is too strange to remember) but he said: “This is the fifth most successful company in Holland, so it is a very important company, a very successful company, and a couple of years ago I visited them and I met again with this man, and I asked him to take care of the Society and to do the branding of the Society, because that company is specialized in branding.”

So for those of you don't know what branding is, I will explain briefly. Branding is... That company who makes a branding, suppose it takes as their customer Coca Cola. So Coca Cola would hire that company, and would ask that company "do my branding". And that company will send men to Coca Cola offices, and everywhere, to study the whole industry of Coca Cola, to study all the advertising of Coca Cola, to drink a lot of Coca Cola! And to basically have as much knowledge of Coca Cola as possible. And then they will study all the other companies that make cola; so they will study Royal Cola, Pepsi Cola, King Cola, and so forth and so on. And they will try to figure out, and they will drink a lot of cola of course, and then they will try to figure out how could the Coca Cola company distinguish itself in a very striking manner from all the other brands. That’s the branding: To find out the striking difference of your customer and then, with the branding, they will say: Well, your product is more... It has a little bit more bitterness, or a little bit more fizz in it, and the color is more dark than the others, and so your branding should be that uh... I don't know, “Cola Cola... gives you a kick!” I don't know: “Coca Cola is a product that has more kick than all the others!” That is as an example of branding.

And so Father Wegner asked that man of that company to do the branding of the Society, and so that man said: “I will look into the Society on the website; I will let you know.” A couple of weeks later he phones Father Wegner, and he says: “Father, I refuse; I refuse the contract, because I looked over your name SSPX, and you don't have a good name out there, and I don't want my company to have the blemish of having you as a customer.” So Father Wegner says: “Well, at least give us a chance! Let's hear our own side, what we have to say. I will organize a meeting for you and Bishop Fellay in Menzingen, in Switzerland, and at least give us the chance to answer all of your questions, and after that you will decide!” So the man said : “Fair enough.” So they organize the meeting in Menzingen, and Father Wegner told me that the man went there and asked one hundred and fifty questions to Bishop Fellay, and Bishop Fellay answered all of these questions, and it lasted six hours! For six hours! And, at the end, that man said: “Okay, I will take the contract of the Society, and I will do your branding.”

So I don't know exactly how long this took... A few months... And I don't know how much it cost, but... I talked with some people, and they think it was a bundle of money, and I wish they would have given it to us, so we could have a nice church by now! And afterwards he gave the conclusion to Father Wegner and to Bishop Fellay, the conclusion of the whole survey of the branding, and he said to Father and Bishop Fellay: “Bishop Fellay, the result of my survey, is that for the last fifteen years, you had it all wrong! You will never get more faithful and more people to come to your churches if you continue this way, because right now, the Vatican II Church is like an old man dying, and it's like dying flat on the street. Like they lose their seminaries, they lose their monasteries, they sell their churches, and it is a dying church! And you are really looking bad when you continue to fight that Church! It makes you look like a cruel... or like you exaggerate, or like you are kicking somebody who is already dying! So your new branding has to change you completely! You have to stop arguing; you have to stop fighting; you have instead to go on the positive side, and to show the beauty of the traditional liturgy, the beauty of the traditional theology, and that way people will not see you as cruel, or bitter, or things like that.”

And this is why, since the branding of the society, DICI has changed; the SSPX websites have changed; the Angelus has changed. And in fact, interestingly enough, if you go back to the first issue of the new Angelus, what does Father Wegner say? Go back if you have it, and read it. He says: “We will not anymore put the emphasis on the battle and the fight, but we will put the emphasis on the beauty of the Gregorian chant, the beauty of art...” And so forth and so on. Go ahead and read it. It is exactly the branding of the Society and, really, I had to put my jaw back into place, because I said to myself: “I thought that if there was one person in the world who was authorized, and who knew better, as of the branding or the definition of the Society, that would have been its founder, the Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre! Not a layman who is not even a Catholic, who is not even a traditional! How can you go ask a pagan to define what we are, and what we should do? It is a complete madness!

They accuse us of not being supernatural, and what is that: to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to that company, a pagan company, and to say: “Well! Forget about Coca Cola! And do the SSPX, brand us!” Instead of listening to the founder, instead of reading the founder, who said who we were! As if what the founder said was not good enough, and now we have to have pagans telling us what to do!

So we refuse to do that, and this is why we have started our chapel here, of “Saint Joseph Defender of the Church”. And today, this morning, you have read and you have signed this mission statement that says to everybody why we are doing what we do, and it is not because of emotions, or anger, or resentment, or bitterness. It is because we have read these docuмents and we have understood that the Society has been changed, and has been doing a one hundred degree cycle, and we are not anymore doing what we should do. And, therefore, this is the only way we can continue. We are not making anything new here! You know that I have not preached to you, I have not shown to you any article that is new! We are continuing exactly what you came to Langley for, and Langley is not doing it anymore, and no other parish is doing it anymore in the SSPX. Because they have to follow the General Chapter of 2012, where now they accept the principle of signing a deal with Rome. It doesn't matter if it's not signed yet, because you have accepted the principle: “But yes! We can do a deal with Rome without the conversion of Rome!” And we refuse that, because it's a Revolution. We just continue here, in this hall, what we have been doing from the beginning.

So, my dear friends, we will have to continue to pray for each other to be strong, and to pray for all our other friends who remain in Christ the King. I am in contact with others who are not here this morning, and I have given them these articles and docuмents, and they are studying them. I will not name them. They have to take the time to study, and to be convinced. But, you know, you are not alone here. There are other people who want to continue the real fight of the SSPX. Let us pray for each other and for them.

In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Amen