.

Curiously, this important Resistance docuмent has been missing in
the collection here, for whatever reason..............



Source

AFD =  April Fifteenth Declaration


Perhaps at times like this, it's easier if one has been reading IA.  
HAHAHAHA

But seriously, in this GOLDMINE of Resistance principles, terminology
and sound bytes, Fr. Chazal provides an excellent example of how
this fight is not of men but of principalities and powers in high places,
for any logical man reading this would be persuaded, but show me
any evidence that Fr. Laisney has even READ it!  BTW:  Have YOU?  
 
As for anyone who wonders what "AFD" means, well -- the term,
"AFD" is used here Fifteen times!



A Letter from Fr. Chazal to Fr. Laisney:






Dear Fr Laisney,

Part One:  THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE APRIL 15TH DECLARATION [AFD]

The burden of proofs is such against Bishop Fellay, that you find it easier to simply ignore the many declarations, allocutions, interviews, sermons, internal letters, discussions etc. all of them clearly put to the fore by us. Why would Bishop Fellay need to reassure his constituency that he is still against Vatican II and the New Mass today, just after the release of the April 15th Declaration? Amongst the many accusations we have made and that you fail to see as proofs that Bishop Fellay is a liberal, this declaration presented to Cardinal Levada (that I shall abbreviate AFD (April 15th Declaration)) was indeed the puzzle’s missing center piece, just like the liberals in the SSPX hinge their whole argument on the May 05th 1988 Protocol.

Everybody must read it because it is so loaded with implications, from which Bishop Fellay is still trying to extricate himself unsuccessfully because he refuses to retract the substance of the text. “That text can be read with (DICI) pink or dark (resistance) glasses. But for a moment, my dear opponent, put on these cool looking glasses and ask:


1- HOW COULD BISHOP FELLAY WRITE SUCH A TEXT EVEN ONCE?

Even if he lists the evil items of the text; something he refuses to do, and retract them; how did such a son of the Archbishop declare, simultaneously, and with his own hand:

- Official endorsement of the word “living” with Tradition as a “living transmission”, a first in the SSPX (III,3).

- That Vatican II “enlightens” (in the miraculous light of Tradition of course), “deepen and make explicit” the doctrine of the Church, when all we saw since then was a diabolical disorientation in the Church? (III,4)

- That the worse text of the Council, (which is directly against Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Pius IX, and that was invoked repeatedly in order to destroy the past union of Church and State and old Concordates, leading in turn to a massive apostasy in South America for instance) that this text is RECONCILIABLE, albeit with difficulty, with the prior Magisterium. (III,5).

- That the post Vatican II Magisterium relating to the relationship with Lutheran, Calvinists, Born-again, schismatics etc. can be understood in the light of Tradition.

- The euphemism of #III,6.

- That the new Mass is legitimately promulgated, (III,7).

- That the novusordo Sacraments are both valid and legitimate, when we have such doubts on confirmations, and to a lesser extent, Holy Orders (III,7).

- That we promise to follow “ESPECIALLY” the new Code of John Paul II, not even mentioning the old Code that the Archbishop told us to follow. (III,8)

- That he endorses the 1989 Profession of Faith (in the notes), a docuмent totally rejected by the Archbishop (in le Bourget for instance) because it forces Vatican II on the consciences and submits to LG25, even in today’s abnormal circuмstances (#II). LG25, cannot be applied to the erroneous magisterium that followed Vat II, neither can it force our submission to those points that are not currently deemed infallible, including what the bishops say (cf. first paragraph of LG25).


So, obviously, as Fr Themann said recently, this is a good diplomatic docuмent... and a pity that Cardinal Levada wrecked it on June 13th, adding unacceptable conditions! Pink glasses will only see prudence and diplomacy, dark ones sees that list of items, a new doctrine in the SSPX. But the doctrine of the Faith is what has kept the SSPX together, miraculously. So far, it was understood that in necessary things, there must be unity. Bishop Fellay has divided the Society in two camps; and within the official Society, some priests now endorse or defend this declaration, which Fr Thouvenot promises to publish with commentaries, for us to know what to think about it. Three priests have “paid with their lives” to bring forth this accusation on Bishop Fellay…


2- HOW CAN ONE SAY THAT IT IS NOT US JOINING VATICAN II ROME BUT THAT IT IS ROME WHO IS COMING TO US, WRITING THE AFD AT THE SAME TIME?

Last year, in his Pentecost sermon His Lordship said “Today at least I reach this certainty that the one who wants to recognize the society is indeed [bel et bien] the Pope.” “The attitude of the official Church has changed, not us” (interview of June 08 2012) In the many conferences the Superior General and Fr Pfluger gave in the running up of the crisis, the notion was hammered constantly: We are not changing, but Rome is changing. The three superiors of Morgon, Avrille and Bellaigue were lectured for two and a half hour on that topic alone.

All this happened all the while concocting eruditely, with the help of theologians, this one massive doctrinal move toward Vatican II and the NOM, the mention of which confuses Menzingen now. Fr Selegny told me: “You caught Bishop Fellay with the hand in the jelly pot (or cookie jar), and you expect him to be happy at the same time?”


3- WHY NOTHING IS DONE AGAINST THOSE WHO AGREE WITH THE AFD, WHY BISHOP FELLAY REFUSES TO WITHDRAW THE TEXT POINT BY POINT?

I ask this question because some may say that the declaration has been withdrawn. The only withdrawal I know so far is the private one in Econe, not for reasons of substance, but because it is a text that divides us (to say the least), and a text in which Bishop Fellay thought that he had avoided all ambiguities. This text is linked in substance to the letter of the previous day, and to the extract of the CNS interview of May 10th.

Bishop Fellay can still tell us that he is against Vatican II and the new Mass, but he has also to tell us what he thinks of the new code, of the new profession of Faith, living tradition of the new sacraments, and how Lumen Gentium 25 #1 applies today, because we are missing reassurances on these points.


4- THE AFD IS THE MODUS OPERANDI OF ANY ECCLESIA DEI PRIEST.

Check the constitutions of the FSP, IBP & ICK, the doctrinal terms (you keep on sliding on their bad practical terms. Be of good faith, stay the course.) are almost identical with what Bishop Fellay proposed. Rome was expected to be happy with these terms, for good reasons. Once you say that the novusordo Mass is legitimately promulgated, what prevents you from saying it once, even if you personally believe that the Traditional Mass is better? Doesn’t Benedict XVI say that the Council of Vatican II can only be understood in the light of Tradition? Aren’t the Ecclesia Dei groups claiming to use the new erroneous Magisterium profitably, thanks to the cleansing rays of the light of Tradition? I remember that they were all in extasis over “Veritatis Splendor”, which entrapped Fr Simoulin for some time. Ecclesia Dei groups work under the conditions of the New Code of Canon Law, to the exception of their particular laws. A canonical regularization with Vatican II authority can only be under the new Code of law; It is one of the big things you refuse to analyze when you embark on your praises of a canonical regularization for us today.


5- THE LIBERALS ARE ENCOURAGED BY THE AFD

Poor Bishop Fellay. In the case his Easter attempt is sincere (albeit still loaded with ambiguities), what can he do with liberals, agreeing with his past liberal statements, at all the controls of the SSPX, or what can he do with people who were antiliberals before, like Fr Petrucci and Fr de Cacqueray, but who are acting in favor of the Revolution in order to stay loyal to him? Once a leader embraces double talk, the subordinates start double talking, misjudging and become heavy handed in their turn, as we see in many places. In the view of protecting itself against hostile forces, defending the unity of the Society implies the defense of new liberal principles. As thereconciliarsspx spends more energy attacking the resistance, its stance against the novusordo weakens further.


6- THIS AFD BEING AN OFFER THAT ROME COULD NOT REFUSE, HOW DID ROME REFUSE IT?

30 Pieces of silver, as Fr Hewko said, that’s a good price. Bishop Fellay proposed to work with Rome under the same doctrinal and canonical terms as the Fraternity of St Peter, and Rome is not happy. What’s the matter with Rome?

*TIMING: It would have been better to obtain Rome’s agreement before April, when the disagreement of the three bishops became apparent. In March, Rome would have been assured to take the whole Society.

*CHANGE: Rome is changing, but for the worse. The toleration of Ecclesia Dei contraptions might be running thin, if we go by certain discourses of Pope Francis (Good Friday w.o.c., scorn for pontifical regalia, sermon at St Martha). It is time to implement Vatican II fully.

*BAD APPLES need to be neutralized first. How can the SSPX have so many obnoxious priests and bishop (W+) and be taken seriously? Menzingen must do his homework and turn around the mind of the members, as Fr Lorans, the GREC and others do so well, but such a shift of doctrine has not yet totally happened. Rome recognized that the AFD was a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done, even after Bishop Williamson’s expulsion. Rome is like a fisherman catching a big fish, pulling and releasing, wearing down the strength of the fish before pulling it at last out of the water.

*PUBLIC OPINION: The past experience of 2009 shows that one must be prudent before acting. The wider public, especially our separate elder Jєωιѕн brethren, and the media after and under them, may not understand perfectly everything. Past political incorrectness has “skunkified” the entire SSPX. I believe that such a smelly shield has saved the day several times for us, still worked wonders three years later, and duly congratulated His Lordship for it.


7- ANYTHING IS ACCEPTABLE IN THE LIGHT OF TRADITION

This declaration shows us what happens from the abuse of an expression that the Archbishop ended up dropping, because it is too ambiguous. In matters of doctrine, you cannot accept anything bad in the light of something good.

There are too many errors in Vatican II for us to be able to rescue that Council. Even in a good light these errors are meshed, most of the time, in a most subtle way with the truth, making them more lethal for the Church, because, precisely, they can penetrate under the guise of Tradition. Pascendi applies. Real people, the mass of Catholics, didn’t make fine distinctions in practice, carefully rejecting what is bad in Vatican II. They took the poison and died in the Faith. I thought Bishop Fellay had understood this. I was able to tell him last September, when he told me I was too black and white “But My Lord, the errors of the Council are not in explicit form as you know so well, but under the note 'favenshaeresim'.”

The consequence for us is a grave slide, like recognizing that we follow especially the New Code of Canon Law. Fr Themann says it is OK, but how? By what is above in the text, which is, guess what... the Light of Tradition!

And why is the light of Tradition so good and so different of the Hermeneutics of Continuity of Benedict XVI? It is because Rome rejected it, just like Bishop Fellay said in Albano that the Hermeneutics of Continuity cannot be glossed over”. If LOT and HOC are a total different way of saying that VII can be understood in a traditional way, then who said that when the Pope says that Vatican II must be understood in line with Tradition, this is something we totally agree with? You must study reconciliational classics.


8- HOW CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE NEGOCIATIONS FAILED BECAUSE OF VATICAN II AND THE NEW MASS WHEN THE AFD PRECISELY RECOGNISES BOTH?

Precisely because of the light of Tradition. It is a great device; switch it on, anything bad can become good or almost good; but switch it off, and that bad thing can become really bad once again, like the council of Vatican II in a letter to benefactors. To please Rome we have to agree with Vatican II and to our faithful we have to say we are against Vatican II. So we pick up some 1976 Archbishop’s statements and the fact that he sat and signed Council docuмents while ignoring his final conclusion that Vatican II is a total perversion of the spirit, and there we are. I think it is to the credit of the Archbishop that he didn’t reach such a drastic conclusion suddenly on Vat II. Such caution on his part makes the final conclusion even stronger: Vatican II is unsalvageable.

The Archbishop dumped the light of tradition, unlike Vatican II who took the principles of the Revolution in the light of the Gospel, like Lammenais, and unlike John Paul II who took Kant in the light of St Thomas. The Archbishop understood that if you put Tradition and the Council in the same bag, one kills the other. The problem of the Archbishoplefebvrologians is that they think they can quote the Archbishop backwards. The fact that he took always his time before condemning totally Vatican II, even signing most of its texts when he sat there, is all to his prudence. But that only made his final decision stronger: Vatican II is a total perversion of the spirit, unsalvageable. Liberals, on the contrary, untighten the screws.

In a liberal democracy, the left always wins, as we see clearly, worldwide, with the issue of gαy marriage. Today hard core modernists are taking over; they don’t care for the light of Tradition at all. So there is no merit in Bishop Fellay disagreeing with them, just like there is hardly any merit for a tradcat to be against gαy marriage. What we are referring to is that Bishop Fellay really made a proposition to Rome based on soft core modernism, something of the same kind as the hermeneutics of continuity of Pope Benedict, (which Menzingen ended up liking in the April 14th letter to the three bishops). The fact that Rome didn’t like our version of the hermeneutic of continuity (or light of Tradition) doesn’t prove that it is good, just like when Adventist don’t like Mormons both are wrong. The AFD is just an unrequited ready acceptance of error. Girondins, liberals, always end up misunderstood by the left.


9- HOW CAN ONE COMPARE THE AFD WITH A SIMPLE PROTOCOL?

When I met Fr Rostand a few months ago in Post Falls, I soon realized that his whole argumentation was based on the May 05th protocol. I tried them to explain that the Archbishop didn’t write the protocol, that he rescinded it quite soon, went on consecrating bishops, saying at the same time “had I signed this protocol we would have been dead within a year”, ranted against its content, point by point (Vat II, new Mass, new Code), before as well as after it. All these attempts were futile, because for Fr Rostand that protocol is like a treaty. Thankfully there was a dictionary in Fr Vassal’s office, and this is what big Webster said about protocol: …draft!

So I told Fr Rostand I was impressed by his archbishoplefebvrology, (he has tons of quotes, with the exact time and place, at his fingertips), but that the expert on the matter is Bishop Tissier, a direct witness of the protocol who is even pictured at the moment of the signing.

Fr Themann is right to say that we must understand the Archbishop in the light of his actions: by consecrating bishops, he junked the draft! No more question of protocolizing once four ugly ducklings get consecrated without papal mandate. We also need to look at the circuмstances of the actions on both sides. At that time the Archbishop consulted the contemplatives, who, led by Mother Anne-Marie Simoulin, told him not to sign and consecrate bishops. What do we have today? This time it is the heads of the three main contemplative orders that came to Menzingen, asking him not to sign. All they got was a lengthy denial of the real situation in Rome, and a few weeks later, ordination blackmail (Benedictines), and denial (Dominicans and Capuchins) for those who had to leave Fr Couture’s retreat just before the set date. Around the 18th of May, a fax was sent to all priories, stating that this preamble would be sent to Rome, the approval of which would lead to the creation of a canonical structure for the Society on the part of Rome. So there is nothing common between a failed bad DRAFT and a carefully prepared and duly submitted DECLARATION, that led to actions, expectations and preparations.


10- IS THE AFD A SIMPLY DIPLOMATIC TEXT?

Of course yes! When one says, nay writes: ”We Promise” “We declare” “We declare” “We recognize” “We declare that we recognize” and “We promise to respect”, it’s got to be diplomacy, or a minimalist approach. As Fr Pfluger said in Post Falls (Apr 10th) and Fr Thielman in St Mary’s, this text does not reflect what we exacly think, but a certain desire to lure Rome into discussions, because, note well, it is not Rome deceiving us; no, it is our diplomacy working wonders in Rome.

Fr Themann also told us that the AFD walks a delicate line because it was designed to correct a misconception of the Roman Authorities saying “you don’t accept whatever the Authorities say”. People should understand the fine line of Bishop Fellay: he is telling the authorities that we accept what they want us to accept, but it doesn’t mean that he accepts, that would be treason indeed. When he says the new Mass is legitimately promulgated, it doesn’t mean that the new mass is licit, but that the authorities that promulgated it are legitimate. Read the text, it says the Mass but, obviously, it means the Authorities, how can it be otherwise! Let us all be believers.

A fine line indeed; but it is only a prudential one, not a doctrinal one: to accept living Tradition, Vatican II, the new Magisterium, the New Mass, the new Sacraments, the new Code the new Profession of Faith all the while you keep the right to attack these things. A fine line indeed...


Part Two:  THE LIST OF SOPHISMS GROWS LONGER

In a controversy, you must refute your opponent point by point, otherwise his accusations stand and you maintain your sophistic stance. But you, my dear Fr Laisney, in order to defend your sophisms, you add new ones, fulfilling all my hopes, unlike Fr Rostand who is not giving his “Against againstagainstagainstagainst the rumors” against me (after I gave my “Against ×4 the rumors”). I hope you will keep the ball rolling; people need to know where the liberals are leading them.

Let me list first your previous collection of sophisms, that you are keen to maintain:

1- It is good to be regularized now,

2- The new Popes are bad or liberals, not heretics,

3- The new Popes are not that liberal,

4- We must rejoin the Visible Church now (as if we had left it),

5-Bishop Fellay fights Vatican II,

6- Rome is moving towards Tradition,

7- It is better to heal than to prevent a disease, 8- Pray pay and obey.


You leave out entirely some main points I make. Instead of jumping around angrily, recognize with me that a law is more than just an order, an ordinance, but an ordinance of reason promulgated for the common good by the one who has the care of the community. This is textbook philosophy. You do not challenge the affirmation that Bishop Tissier’s book proves that Benedict XVI is a heretic; you cannot refute my allegation that things are getting worse in Rome; and you refuse to admit what the AFD entails: you just say that you don’t like it. You don’t dare to say what you think of the CNS interview (May 2012) or the lame six conditions of the Chapter. You are the first one I bump into denying the existence of the 1976 Declaration or “remarks on a suspension”, that Fr Roberts recommended us to put in our Vienna, August 10th declaration.

I still ask you, How the “sin” of questioning Menzingen can be reserved to Menzingen in virtue of supplied jurisdiction?  We asked that question to Fr Couture and he told us, “I will not answer that question,” and went straight to his room.

If you leave some points, don’t leave out the main ones. We are in a very interesting debate here.

With the addition of the first part, and the refutation of your confused ideas on the two Churches, it makes my text a little long this time, I do apologise; I’ll pay you a beer later - but I have to kill four birds (two Laisneys, the AFD, Fr Themann) with one stone. Let’s go point by point:


SOPHISM #1:  BISHOP FELLAY IS ACCUSED WITHOUT ANY PROOFS

Cf. first part, the fact that Menzingen is embarrassed by the AFD at least is an admission that there is something. The hilarious reply of Fr Pfluger about it in Post Falls on April 10th speaks volumes about this embarrassment.

Bishop Fellay doesn’t speak that often; that projects an image of prudence and caution. Therefore when he says repeatedly the same thing, (i.e. “Rome has changed”, “Vat II is not so bad” etc.), it gives it a lot of weight.


SOPHISM #2:  YOU ATTACK BISHOP FELLAY BECAUSE YOU DON’T LIKE HIM

I am not quite sure you interpret my sayings in the best possible light, because, as soon as this light comes into light it calls me: “vicious” “wicked” “schismatic (restrictively)” “bitter” etc. What is your worse possible light Father, maybe it’s better, can we try it a bit?

If we were ill disposed towards Bishop Fellay we would have left him a long time ago, but I think we gave him the benefit of the doubt. For instance, when I was in India, I expelled Mr John Menezes because he called Bishop Fellay a traitor and refused to apologize; and when Bishop Fellay told me “why do you call me a traitor?” I answered “No, my Lord, only if you sign; then only shall I call you a traitor.”

YET I do admit leaving out the word soon, which is for you the final proof of my wickedness. Well… I just quoted out of memory, and I should have gone back to the text, mea culpa. So, for my penance, let me quote the whole section of the text. It is interesting because it contradicts Bishop Fellay Easter Appeal and is chronologically quite close to us: ”We know very well that it is very difficult to ask the authorities to condemn the new mass. In reality if what needs to be corrected were corrected, it would already be a big step, [then follows the description of the dreamy big step] As far as Vatican II is concerned, just like for the mass, we believe that it is necessary to clarify and correct a certain number of points that are either erroneous or lead to error. That being said we do not expect Rome to condemn Vatican II anytime soon. She can recall the truth and discreetly correct the errors while preserving her authority.”

When did the Archbishop tell us that a hybrid new mass would be a step to be wished for? Isn’t this the reform of the reform? Isn’t this worse that a hybrid Tridentine Mass since the point of departure is the new Mass? How can a discreet recall of the truth convert the massive apostasy? Isn’t it because we said for 40 years that the New Mass and Vatican II is really bad, that many have left the novusordo and joined Tradition?


SOPHISM #3:  THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS NOT A SEPARATE CHURCH

Sophists love to quote themselves, as John-Paul II used to. They are also big experts (archbishoplefebvrology, donatism, Church Fathers etc.) Let me archbishoplefebvre you in my turn:

“That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. [it has new… new… new…] The Church that admits such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Reflections on a suspension a divinis, June 29 1976). “Let there be no mistake. It is not a question of a difference between Mgr Lefebvre and Pope Paul VIth. It is a question of radical incompatibility beween the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church”. (note of July 12th 1976 to AFP) “Vatican II is a schismatic council” (Aug 76). “All who cooperate […] and adhere to this new Conciliar Church […] enter into schism” (Le Figaro, Aug 2 1976). “A Church which no longer brings forth fruits, a Church which is sterile is not the Catholic Church” (Ordinations 1978). “The modernist Rome is changing religion? I refuse it and reject it […] I refuse that church” (Dec 9 1983 press conference). After reviewing the four marks of the Church, in favor of us, the Archbishop concluded: “All this shows that it is we who have the marks of the Visible Church. If there is still a visibility in the Church, it is thanks to you. Those signs are not found in the others. We are not of this religion, we do not accept this new religion, (goes on and on and on…)” (Fideliter 66 nov 1988). “Upon reflection it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion during these meetings” (May 24th 1988). “Resulting from these principles and facts is the absolute need to continue the Catholic episcopacy in order to continue the Catholic Church” (Letter to Bishop Castro de Mayer, Dec 4th 1990).

(These are only a few quotes, on a specific topic; the Church. On other topics, the Archbishop spoke; take for instance the Pope, whom he called an “Antichrist”. That quote, you are going to tell me, is purely rhetorical, and certainly doesn’t mean that the Pope is a heretic, or it is a very limited quote, or a quote to be understood restrictively! And, mark my words, with such a Pope as Pope Francis, the Archbishop would never use such a language, also because the triumphant 70’s are over: he would have the same restraint, prudence and diplomacy that Bishop Fellay has used with Pope Francis for a month and a half, and many more months to come)

Now, also, let me profit from the occasion. With the blessings of Frs Couture and Rostand you embark to prove that the Conciliar Church is a part of the Catholic visible Church, using the quote of a man who says that the new Church is neither Catholic, nor the Catholic Church! (top and bottom of left column, page 8, Apostle)! Your sophistry is outstanding! If I am neither pfeifferic nor Fr Pfeiffer, how can I be a part of that entity, no matter how big that entity is?

To uphold his credibility, Fr Cacho publishes locally a series of talks of the Archbishop called, “They are changing our religion!”, indeed a famous expression of the Archbishop, alongside the “New Rome”, or “Rome of neo-modernist tendencies”. Distinct Faith (ordinations 1976), distinct Rome, distinct Church, distinct religion.

It all points to something we don’t love and don’t recognize; something dying, dead or deathly to billions of souls, and you conclude that we must recognize and be recognized by this new Religion, this new Rome. There are caveats in the thought of the Archbishop, for he says to whatever extent one unites to the novusordo, he separates himself from God, which means that some people still have the faith or may be saved despite the novusordo, but certainly not because of it. There are novusordo people that are rescuable from it, our faithful are the proof of that. To describe such a church leading into apostasy, I think the best image is the conveyor belt: those who are on it have not yet all fallen in the abyss. But there you go again, in your last letter, you want us to run on this belt, canonically of course, and run against it because we are true Catholics. This is what you say, you want us to be in that structure, that you call the order willed by Jesus-Christ. Our souls are in danger out of that conveyor belt, canonical devices are in place to allow us to run fast on it and denounce its errors at the same time.

And if I grant you that a dead part of a body is in a body (Fr Simoulin 2001 argument)… it will always be on the way out; the body will always do whatever it can to rid itself of the necrosis. Similarly, it is not because we cannot say, “outside the SSPX no salvation”, nor say that all novus ordo people go to Hell, nor know at what moment this separation actually takes place that we don’t have a process leading to two separate entities, like in the meiosis and mitosis of a cell. The two things, entangled as they may, are still really separating, way before the end of times. Ask the millions of souls that have lost, not just the state of Grace, as St Augustine refers to, but the Catholic Faith. They are cut off from us, they refuse to believe that Christ is God or that Mary is a Virgin, like Cardinal Muller. They bear an appearance, nothing else. They really have already fallen off the vine, totally, unlike simple sinners, (that you confuse with heretics).

What you fail to realize is that the whole work of the Archbishop, from 1965 to March 25th 1991 was to keep us clear from this operation of death called novusordo Church. Two isolated quotes after June 1988 won’t do. After June 88 the Archbishop denounced the protocol, simply because it would have placed us under the wrong people, and the consecration of Bishops was the best way to escape them. People were very grateful, nobody was thinking much of the protocol at the time, except the Fraternity of St Peter). The approval of Bishop Charriere is the certification of an escape pod. Haven’t we always compared ourselves to a life boat, a rescue operation, a little bench of survivors? Like the sedevacantists, I think you try too much to figure it out. This whole process, involving the damnation of so many souls is beyond our comprehension. Just be happy to stay clear and safe; keep the lifeboat discipline, (which, by the way, Bishop Fellay is not keeping by asking, like you, to paddle towards the vortex!).


SOPHISM #4:  REGULARIZATION UNDER NOVUS ORDO LEADS NOT TO SUBMISSION TO IT

I never said, “to submit to evil out of obedience is a sin” -- the archbishop said it on 09th of August 1986, and it does not prevent the saying to be perfectly true (S#3 proves that you agree less and less with the founder). Go to the principles. You should read the papal bull “cuм Ex Supremi Apostolatu” at this stage. In it Pope Paul IV tells, nay, commands all Catholics to stay clear of all hierarchs stained with heresies. I still don’t know how God shall rid us of these intruders; “cuм Ex” doesn’t specify, but this I do know, from the clear words of this good Pope, that I must stay clear of them. He himself says that what you portray as Donatism has always been the discipline of the Church. Tell me how St Athanasius dealt with Arian bishops… if I recall, he consecrated bishops to replace them, something quite stronger than consecrating simply auxiliary bishops, as the Archbishop did. I would be glad to know how St Augustine treated heretic bishops of his time, but I don’t have a library any more in my situation. Maybe somebody should come to my rescue and refute your misleading historical allegations.

Yet it remains that a canonical recognition is more than just a recognition; it’s us falling in the wrong hands.


SOPHISM #5:  A RIGHT CANONICAL STRUCTURE ENABLES TO RESIST ALL PRESSURES WITHIN THE NOVUS ORDO, WE DON’T NEED TO WAIT FOR ROME TO CONVERT IF WE HAVE IT

You repeat again and again that if the FSP, ICK, IBP Campos and SOR failed lamentably, it is because of a lack or a proper structure, like the dreamed of prelature. Oh! But I forgot! We also have friends in Rome and lots of novusordo Bishops are saying the Latin Mass these days… they are going to welcome us and ask our help.

Fr Themann confirms that if the reconciliar sspx no longer puts the conversion as a condition for a canonical structure, it is in order to retain better the right to condemn errors. The aim is to force Rome to admit that Vatican II is fallible which would be a tactical defeat for the enemy and a help for the fence sitters, providing cover for those priests who want to return to Tradition. We are back to the little oyster syndrome. Read what I wrote before, I am not going to quote myself, it’s too pretentious for a small French fry.


SOPHISM #6:  NOT TO ASSOCIATE WITH NOVUS ORDO IS DONATISM

You still maintain adamantly that we are donatists, but I repeat to you what I said: that we do have sinners, and dubious people among ourselves or working for us is the clear proof of your calumny. Now and then I hear, “How can you take so and so? How can you take that person?” You can’t have it both ways, Father. Then you will go on saying that we have a Donatist schismatic mentality, the “proof” being your superior knowledge of Donatism, over us, ignorant readers. This knowledge doesn’t entitle you to insinuate that we are schismatics … that sounds too much like the novusordo weapon “you are not in communion…” (“YANIC!” “VEPCA!” in French).


SOPHISM #7:  YOU SHOULD NOT JUDGE POPE FRANCIS

By now Menzingen should be firing broadsides after broadsides at the scandals of Pope Francis; that would in a way discredit a key argument of the resistance (the official sspx is not fighting the novusordo any longer). But what do we see? The Dominicans of Avrille are still firing, their last “Sel de la Terre” is very good, but, most worrying, the guns of Bishop Tissier have fallen silent. This is not good. As the iniquities of the Fornicating New Rome grow, we should be less and less silent in the face of this open and repeated mockery of the first commandment on the part of Pope Francis. It is the honor of the Catholic Church, which you say you understand so well which is at stake. The final plunge of the New Rome into heresy is actually taking place, and you tell me that I judge prematurely Pope Francis. All we have so far from Bishop Fellay is a little more than zero, a genteel rebuke about the lesser aspects of Pope Francis. Nothing has appeared about the scandal of Holy Thursday, the inauguration Mass, the various discourses of the Pope and what he is preparing. Pope Francis is very prolific; look at what he said, even during his election: “The Church is worldly if she says that she possesses the truth” (Preconclave) and to Monsignor Marini, the Master of Ceremony who presented him the Mozzeta: ”Wear it yourself, the carnival is over” (bbcnews 16th March), the various bizarre “blessings”, the quote “Cardinal Kasper is a great theologian”. After all that, the pink glasses of DICI are just a little bit shaken of the nose of Menzingen. The same thing applies across the ocean (sspx.org, sspx asia). No, Father, the harshest judgment against Pope Francis are his actions themselves, they speak for themselves, they don’t need any harsh interpretations to be damning. Pope Francis has promised a lot more to come, and so far, he is a man of his word.

But in the reconciliar sspx, yes is not a yes anymore, unlike the Archbishop, who six months before his death told his priests in Econe that, “The docuмents of the Council are a total perversion of the spirit”. Now, Fr Themann is the last one to proclaim officially that the 2006 principle (no practical deal without doctrinal deal) is ditched, all the while the March 2013 Cor Unum endorses the AFD, with a growing number of liberals within the SSPX. Tell me how the little sspx will defend itself… when before being taken in, it is already toothless, only able to swallow…

Our Lady should have told us that Rome is going to lose the faith and become the see of the Antichrist with restrictive clauses. On you tube we have this moving recording of the Archbishop, but without restrictive santa clauses “Rome has lost the Faith, my dear Friends, Rome has lost the Faith…”. Bishop Tissier should have restricted himself in the past, his containment is just. The bitter who don’t restrict themselves should be constrained like him. Bishop Williamson should be loved with an big crowd of restrictive santa clauses: “Bitterness to the bitter, no liberty for the enemies of liberty”.


SOPHISM #8:  LET’S GO IN THE FIELD OF WHEAT AND COCKLE

Another of my mistakes (I should keep some in this text, it keeps your appetite!) was to confuse the English words chaff and cockle. But am not I the only one. “It is Our Lord himself who gives us to understand with His parable of the chaff that there will always be in one form or another weeds to be pulled up and fought against in His Church” (infamous letter of April 14th). I think the English translator tried to correct the enormity of the mistake of the French text: “C’est Notre Seigneur lui-meme qui nous a fait comprendre avec sa parabole de l’ivraiequ’il y aura toujours, sous une forme ou une autre de la mauvaise herbe a arracher et a combattre dans son Eglise.” In French, ivraie means cockle, not chaff. As you rightly point out, the parable of the chaff is from the discourse, not of Our Lord, but of St John the Baptist, (Mt 3,8). In his text, Bishop Fellay did not mention the threshing floor, but did tell us to go on the field of wheat and cockle to eradicate the cockle, contrary to the order of the divine Master. I don’t think the Church’s Fathers agree with Bishop Fellay on this. I don’t think you have read the April 14th letter often enough which you seem to confuse with the April 15th declaration (which you call the April 14th statement). We all make mistakes, and the biggest mistake is to deny we make some. The best means to avoid confusion is to remember that on April 14th the Titanic hit the iceberg late at night, and sunk on the 15th, a few hours later with this horrific surrender declaration of Menzingen. I hope it helps.


SOPHISM #9:  TO CONSIDER REGULARIZATION TODAY AS BAD IS AN OBSTACLE TO SALVATION

Just before the Consecrations, the Archbishop told the four bishop-elects that “we must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than maneuvers, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.”

Not too long ago, three bishops of the Society used to say together that, “the Roman authorities can (will) tolerate the Society, continue to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not permit that it condemn Conciliar teachings. That is why an even purely practical agreement would necessarily silence little by little the Society, a full critique of the Council and the New Mass. By ceasing to attack the most important of all the victories of the Revolution, the poor Society would necessarily cease being opposed to the universal apostasy of our sad times, and would get bogged down.[…]”. Doesn’t one see already in the Fraternity symptoms of a lessening in the confession of the Faith?”

What is becoming an obstacle to the salvation of our faithful is the liberal behavior of more and more priests of the reconciliar Society. I know one who, according to witnesses I can name privately, (or publicly - if you persist to deny the facts!), who told our Bombay faithful to attend a motuproprio Latin Mass at St Anthony’s, Malwani church, near our own mass center in Malad. That priest told them they could receive communion, and he even sang himself in the choir. This is a complete ignorance on how the novusordo treats the true mass these days, for as in Buenos Aires under Cardinal Bergoglio, these masses are put in place to counter our presence, by novusordo priests saying the novusordo mass most of the time, under the condition that they recognize Vatican II and the New Mass, some of them disliking publicly the Traditional Mass, like in Bandra (Bombay), botching the rubrics (Mahim), and saying this mass under throttling conditions and lack of traditional catechism, retreats and other sacraments. If there was a need to say the anniversary mass of Mrs Wilfried, why didn’t that priest of the Society say it himself since he was around? If such priests are misguiding the faithful before a deal is signed, how much more shall they entrap our faithful later on? Fr Couture acknowledged not the problem, but the embarrassment, by promising the faithful that he would not send that priest back to Bombay anytime soon.

The same problem is happening elsewhere; for instance, people whom Fr Rostand tries to separate from Fr Ringrose go to the Indult mass when the reconciliar priest is not coming, people in the isolated center of Bismarck were told they could go to the Indult mass, many mixed marriages (with a diocese approved priest receiving the consents) are taking place in France. How can the lines be clear when we sing the Te Deum for the ambiguous Motu Proprio of 2007 and when Fr Pfluger tells the French priests that they would have to compete on the same grounds as all the other Ecclesia Dei contraptions in Nov 2011… A new attitude towards what I call the novusordo Latin Mass (NOLM) is being put in place.


SOPHISM #10:  ARCHBISHOP DI NOIA BEAUTIFUL QUOTES OF ST AUGUSTINE REFER TO OUR DANGER OF SCHISM

Dear Father, I read again these beautiful quotes of St Augustine, but they refer to people causing schism (and breaking Charity). These quotes don’t concern us, or maybe you feel yourself a tiny bit schismatic hearing them. Contrary to the fallacious insinuations of Archbishop Di Noia, I hold the SSPX not to be in schism, and truly charitable because of the precedence of the Charity of the Truth over the novus ordo truthless chawity, to use the expression of a bishop you love with so many restrictive clauses.


SOPHISM #11:  THE MAY 05TH PROTOCOL IS AN AUTHORITATIVE PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR THE SSPX

Cf. part one, paragraph eight.


SOPHISM #12:  TO OPPOSE BISHOP FELLAY TODAY IS PURE REBELLION

This is your last and most lengthy sophism, to which I refer you to the whole first half of this letter. If our case is unsubstantiated, I agree with you, the Society is facing internal rebellion and grave scandal.

If there is a serious wave of liberalism taking place, it cannot be left unfought, because ultimately, liberalism leads the souls entrusted to our priesthood to Hell. Since you don’t see the liberalism, all you see is rebellion. Anoint your eyes with the collyre (Apoc. IV,18) and you shall see that we cannot allow the entire work of the Archbishop go to the dogs. Most of the real estate will stay yours, don’t worry.

Bishop Fellay is ambiguous about Vatican II and the New Mass, as recently as mid February, and just say that many Novus Ordo Bishops love the Latin Mass... but he is not yet in favor of altar-girls. To this day he doesn’t come clean on the AFD, made plenty of other fallacious statements, has placed liberals at the controls of the SSPX, refuses to return to the principle of 2006, wears the DICI pink glasses (and the sspx.org rosy fluo lipstick), has not reinstated Bishop Williamson and others whose 2012 fears have proved to be substantiated even more by the AFD, continues to lose priests (6 in march, 4 so far in April), religious and faithful by his heavy handedness and double speech. The mess is huge. Fr Moulin told me that there are various forms of infighting in most of the communities of nuns in France. The most famous case is Mother Anne-Marie Simoulin who is warring her own brother in Fanjeaux itself.

Bishop Fellay is determined. Four days after his AFD is “refused as a step in the right direction,” he writes to the Pope: “I committed myself to this perspective [practical agreement without doctrinal agreement] despite the quite strong opposition within the ranks of the Society and at the price of a lot of trouble.” This I grant to him: he is a stout Swiss fighter… and he is far from stupid. The pity is that his liberalism is in such a powerful position.

We must keep in mind that Bishop Fellay rebelled against the guidelines of the 2006 Chapter which, by law, he was obliged to follow, namely that no practical agreement can be sought without the previous consent of the Chapter, and without the conversion of Rome. Saying, “What do we exactly mean by 'conversion of Rome'?”(Econe, Sept 2012) only compounds the problem. Briefly, if you go against the DNA of the sspx, don’t be surprised to get cancer. The blessings of Bishop Charriere and the Archbishop do not apply to an organization that returns to novusordo principles, because what the Archbishop and Bishop Charriere were looking for, was an escape from the novusordo (narrative in the cospec). You don’t like it, but canonic legality follows the Faith, not the other way around.

Don’t you see Father, that we also cannot collaborate any longer, because we do not agree? For you I am vicious, for me you are delusional. To you as to Fr Couture last year I said: “Go to the novusordo if you will, but go there without me; I still have oaths to keep.”  As for the better half of the Society, I told Bishop Tissier, Fr Giraud and Fr de Cacqueray that I shall not accept silence; if we wait for ever for each other, like porcelain dogs, nothing shall ever be done to rescue the sspx position. If you mislead the faithful, we shall lead them, if you lose your priests, (six already in one year in Asia), we shall take them in, as long as confusion reigns upstairs.

Wouldn’t it be great if Bishop Fellay converted? He would thank all those who torpedoed the deal, reestablish solemnly the principle of the 2006 General Chapter, fall into the arms of Bishop Williamson and say with tears, “Had I signed this agreement, we would have been dead within a year” (I think some Archbishop famously said that). But I think he should resign and allow Fr de Jorna or Bishop Tissier, I mean some really untainted antiliberal to clean house, not necessarily one of us rebs (as you call us). The task would be herculean, but you never know, one cannot despair of the Grace of God, just as I trust you shall keep the ping pong ball bouncing with me. You have been great so far. Don’t leave my love unrequited.


God bless you, my dear fighting Fr Laisney,

In Iesu et Maria
Francois Chazal+

Source

posted June 18, 2013 at 2:50 PM  (date of posting, not date of Asian Report)


by Fr. Francois Chazal


ASIAN REPORT

Dear Fr Pfeiffer

Thanks for waiting so long; as i was preaching a one man show retreat in Tagαytay... and i am not like Josey Wales, capable to preach a whole retreat, carry the sollicitude of all the Churches, run a worlwide resistance network and spiritualdirectionize lost souls on the otherside of the hemisphere via cell phone.

 

Bishop Williamson trip in Asia was a shot in the arm for all centers. He saw 400 people, gave 52 confirmations, lots of speeches, consecrated two Chalices and his good humor, punch lines and british touch were totally enjoyed by everyone. He is up and running, but I agree with you, his fourth piston is yet to fire. but the fact that we discussed so long on the issue demonstrates that at least he is not irritated by the question and expresses a willingness to understand that if he departs this world, leaving us orphans, either his soul is lost or we don't need sacraments. "You are almost making me a Christian"... did he tell me as i was piling arguments sky high. Fr de Tanouarn, a prince among our french liberals, says he will not do it; I think it is an omen to the contrary.

As a consequence i feel fully exonerated from the obligation to come to Virginia. I have done my part. But, could you please give him a copy of "Gods and Generals" as a birthday gift, or at least play Stonewall's Virginia speech on a big screen, saying: "Just as we, would never march into any other place, and novusordoize other people, so we would never allow anybody to march into our place, and novusordoize our people!"

 

The Korean Group is growing; 40 were present for the Confirmation on Sunday. The next Sunday mass after the Bishop's visit, the chapel was almost full, and plenty young with new faces, but i cannot tell if we are going to get back to pre-2012-crisis levels in Korea.

In the Philippines, the Manila ceremonies at Emmy Cortez' went very well for the little group. Again, the house of Julie Cordova is now too small for Sunday Mass. We have to look for another place, all the while the Tanay group is calling us, thanks to Fr Suelo. Manila area is then 100 souls, but i think the XSPX is going to counterattack in Tanay. Fr Suelo says they will hold. The coming of Fr Suelo is the key outcome of the Bishop's visit in Manila. If he continues like that, other soldiers are going to join. For my part i am immensely relieved by this one good old fighting priest. Fr Suelo is as old school as old school can be, as you know so well.

In Leyte 150 people showed up in Maasin, they came also from Santa Cruz, Sogod, Ormoc and Hindang. The Bato people have been totally brainwashed and call us schismatics, like Fr Laisney (who, by the way, refuses to reply to "L'illusion Liberale II" and calls me insane). His Lordship really liked his stay, it was like vacations for him, walking by the sea shore and enjoying my outdoor chess defeat at the hands of Fr Suelo. We had a procession of the Blessed Sacrament down the streets of Maasin, with plenty of missing liturgical items and rubrics, but the Good Lord understand that we come from almost zero. His Lordship looked in the Maasin situation and concludes the same as us: high handedness on good people that should have not be molested or scandalized.

Then we crossed to Dagohoy in Bohol, to a group that has been traditionnal for 20 years, but that was never visited by a bishop for confirmations. They were 40, 13 of them confirmands. The Bishop really liked that little chapel, in the middle of nowhere, and of course our main man, Romeo, was absent! Philippinos will be Philippinos! I wish he could have met Loyd also, the backup man!

Then we crossed to Cebu and met 50 people, half of them so late that those among them who needed it could not receive confirmation. Ramses did a great work. We were in a hurry, but the Bishop gave three speeches (because of the late comers), breaking spears with attorney Bakalso, whom i still respect very much. I also brought the Bishop to Lola Bertha, who was a bit confused because she is being blocked from letting the bishop that blessed the chapel on her property celebrate the Mass and Confirmations ten years later. But again, the Bishop was happy to see her and told her it was all right and that he understood the situation. I am going to begin to give Sunday Masses for Cebu, thanks to the flex given by Fr Suelo, whose health is improving just as we make him move around. The confinement in his room, day after day, in Manila, appears to be the cause of his lung problems. To be confirmed, though. I cross my fingers.

Another thing worthy of note; His Lordship told us to do all we could for the three or four aspirants to the Priesthood; then he went down and blessed the future house in Batangas. It should open in September. But if candidates can be shipped over to you, that would be still a solution that i would prefer, because there is not enough of us, (even if Fr Kramer comes for a few months), to train them fully. The Bishop told me to teach them the elements: Latin, Scripture, Encyclicals, History and English. No spirituality. Nothing going in to their heads, the total opposite of the Castle in Spain in Virginia. I really trust that you are going to do the same with the Seminary on the Hillbelly, under the laughs of the fancy clerics of our time. I am ready, as promised, to give you three months in three installments per year to help you in that task, and if i get a third priest for East Asia, whithout requesting you to swap your Mass circuits with me, even if it would be best. everybody is waiting for you.

Then we flew to Singapore, for 20 people, mostly from the Yeo Clan. They were very good and talked at length with His Lordship. He took a good 48 hours rest, just as we went to admire the glory of Babylon the Great. As it is my custom, I read him the corresponding chapters of the Apocalypse from the top of the Sands Hotel and Casino, the craziest babylonic place that i know of. We also had some tea at the Raffle's Hotel, a brilliant relic of some forgotten power's past.

The key people of the Malaysia group being abroad, i cancelled the visit of the Bishop, but they are going to receive monthly mass starting July. We also omitted Japan (15 souls), Iloilo (20 people yesterday), and other small centers together with the new groups that are calling us now and that i have not started to visit myself.

The news in India is good, Fr Valan is indestructible, Fr Pancras is joining the fray nicely, and preparations for Australia are almost complete. Ils ne passeront pas!

 Come in November.

In Iesu et Maria,

Francois Chazal sspx-mc

 

.

Source  (TheRecusant)



 from Fr. Chazal:
Posted by The Editor on July 25, 2013 at 5:05 AM    Comments comments (0)

SSPX-MC

What's behind the name?


As the forces of the resistance are gathering, tentative names have been given to it, provisionally; the most disastrous denomination being the holier-than-thou "strict observance" qualifier.

The following is just a submission that i make. Many priests of the resistance are in favor, and we are beginning to use the acronym... l hope it is going to stick.

                                               

ONE

The first, and maybe most important point is that we remain and will always be priests of the Society of St Pius the tenth. Our expulsion is invalid because we upheld the will of the Founder, and the goal of our institute which is the Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That Priesthood suffers a terrible offence once Vatican II and the new mass and all wicked reforms, especially the New Code, begin to be recognized suicidally by the top management of the Order itself, notwithstanding the practice of double talk.

Hence we refuse to admit to be the authors of the separation between the official sspx and a remnant of it who adheres exactly to the original notion of the society. Our Anti-modernist Oath, the "promitto" of our ordinations, our original engagement formula and the vows taken by those who can no longer accept the unacceptable, precisely because of these commitments, remain in full force, nay, are indeed fulfilled on this painful occasion.

Moreover, the rules and regulations of our Founder are very wise, and very mild, a little bit like the rule of Saint Benedict. The placing of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost as their common thread gives them a wonderful depth. They have worked very well for forty years, and we do not have the leisure to reinvent from top to bottom an entire set of rules and ceremonies for priests, seminarians and religious. To think ourselves wiser than the Archbishop would be certainly presumptuous. By keeping the name SSPX, we also retain automatically the other name of our order "Apostles of Jesus and Mary". This being said, the same constitutions need to be amended to remedy the disastrous centralization, businessification and bureaucratization of the Society in general, and the dangerous accuмulation of power of the Superior General over an excessive length of time. Some secondary changes may have to be made on the way priests are trained.

                                             

TWO

Hence, while the name sspx has to remain, a qualifier has to be added.

As the xspx, Fr Wegner saying, is clearly rebranding itself as a non fighting corporation, changing the tone of its public speech, while its founder famously described if as a little army of rebuilders, we need to stand firm against the liberal evils of this time:

# the recurrent desire to conform to this modern world,

# the desire to be accepted and recognized in our differences,

# the growing tiredness, apathy and loss of priestly flame, (something not too surprising after forty years of struggle).

# and lastly, the reigning intellectual anarchy.

Hence it would seem fitting to call ourselves an army, or even better, something less than an army, i.e., an army corps.

Army corps were originally designed to engage the enemy more quickly and more flexibly in order to take advantage of opportunities before they fade. Therefore it is a lighter and more adaptable structure than a whole cuмbersome army. At the same time, an army corps includes all three branches: infantry, cavalry and artillery. In the same vein we shall run a whole grid through priories, houses of training (schools and seminaries), and retreat houses, but in a lighter and more efficient fashion.

Therefore we hope to give a harder and more frugal training to our seminarians so that they learn how not to please themselves in a self conceited spiritual ego, but how to please God. "Christus non sibi placuit" (Rom. XV,3). Magnificent buildings are not indicated at this time as families are requested to struggle and be frugal themselves.

                                         

THREE

Then, again, precisely as the Fatima solution is despised, Our Lady remains ever more the "whole reason of our hope" (St Bernard). She leads us into battle like Deborah, because it is the will of God that victory be attributed to her (Iudic. IV,9). As the Archbishop told us on the occasion of her Immaculate Conception she is the opposite of this deathly admixture of truth and error and of this desire to be recognized by any Council of the impious ones, whatever be the place they unjustly occupy.

May she enable us to stand in the truth, in all humility before Our God who is the First Truth or Truth Itself, and then before other men to whom Truth is owed as a first Charity.

Francois Chazal SSPX Marian Corps.

.It's been a hot summer and it's getting hotter. Sorry for the delay,
but this article below is from the August Recusant.  It's almost time
for the September issue and I'm still reading the August issue.
These things take a lot of concentration to read, and my hat's off
the Editor, who must be capable of turning out copy faster than
lightening.  There are more equally impressive articles in the August
issue but this one catches my fancy because it contains so much
apt analysis of the SARD, some of which I had noticed earlier and
some of which I had not.  

{As much as I'd like to render just the article, I cannot help but to
put in a word or two edgewise, so they'll be in braces and in blue.
This article begins on page 19 of issue #9, August 2013.}







What’s wrong with Bishop Fellay’s
25th Anniversary Declaration?


What indeed. The answer, alas, is that there is quite a lot wrong with
it, though the task of demonstrating exactly what is wrong is not an
easy one. I hope therefore that I will be forgiven if I borrow heavily
from the excellent analysis done by Fr. Pfeiffer in various talks
available on the internet.

On a first reading, the text appears to be disarmingly sound: ‘staunch’
to use a word beloved of one English priest. It has lots of the right
vocabulary, with particular words and phrases standing out and
lingering in the mind of the reader:

“...duty to oppose errors publicly...”; “...errors...in the texts
themselves...”; “...cult of man...”; “...false concept of living Tradition...”;
etc.  However, the merit of a text such as this stands or falls on the
whole meaning, implied as well as explicit, which is expressed in whole
sentences and paragraphs, not in mere phrases. We must therefore
carefully re-read the whole thing, looking at what it actually chooses
to say and at what this means.

{One thing that echoes in my mind as I read this, and I can't help but
wonder why it isn't mentioned, is this:  Seeing what this docuмent
implies as its true purpose, if you were to have that in mind, why
would you choose to use these terms to achieve it?  All the traddy-
sounding phrases are objectively OUT OF PLACE and would not be
the first choice of any writer with this intention, with one lone
exception, and that is, to give the reader the IMPRESSION that the
docuмent is "staunch" or somehow upright and honorable.  But
seeing the overall effect of the piece, it is clearly not upright, nor
honorable and therefore the traddy terms are merely there for a
lure, and a deception for the unwary:  in a word, they are misused
as a "snare of the devil to entrap the innocent, as he prowls about
the world like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour." It seems
to me that Ed. might have gone that far, but he controls himself
better than I do.  My hat's off to you, Ed.}

On looking closer, it does seem that the text has been prepared with
a very thick layer of “Traditional sounding” rhetoric designed to put the
reader's critical faculties to sleep and obscure the various weaknesses
and loopholes also present. Those readers who have done the
penance of studying the deception practiced at Vatican II will recognise
immediately what is happening here. Texts at Vatican II were prepared
in precisely this way:  lots of traditional-sounding language for most
of the docuмent, and then, buried within it a deliberate and fatal flaw,
a loophole which allows the whole rest of the docuмent to be undone.

As one Traditional Catholic gentleman (himself a lawyer, if my memory
serves) once observed about the texts of Vatican II:  when reading a
contract, a lawyer will pay closest attention not to what the contract
provides for his client, but in what it permits the other party. A chain is
only as strong as its weakest link, and a legal docuмent is only as
good as its weakest loophole.  For example, the docuмent on the
liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) has many wonderful, Traditional
sounding provisions:  that Latin should be retained, Gregorian chant
be given pride of place, etc. And yet somewhere, mixed in with the
rest, it also contains one little part allowing changes and ‘updating’ to
take place.  The rest is history.  

{That one little part allowing changes and 'updating' was then the
basis for Paul VI's 30-some study groups in the Consilium comprising
members numbering in the hundreds, and one of which groups
was the one headed by a particular cardinal in charge of revising
all of the sacraments - starting with episcopal consecrations, mind
you, for no really sound reason, but change for the sake of change.
It is reminiscent of the presidential campaigns Bill Clinton and Barack
Obama.}

So let us try not to be too dazzled by the ‘hard-line’ vocabulary. Let
us look instead at what the text actually says.  Paragraph 1 begins by
expressing “filial gratitude” towards Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de
Castro Mayer. This is fine as far as it goes. It is easy to be theoretically
‘grateful’ to people who are dead.

The voice of the Archbishop lives on in his writings and sermons, which
is why we note with interest that nowhere does this 25th anniversary
text quote from Archbishop Lefebvre’s sermon at the consecrations.
Does the gratitude professed in the first paragraph not extend to
allowing Archbishop Lefebvre to explain his reasons for performing the
consecrations in his own words? Or Bishop de Castro Mayer, for that
matter? The signatories are so “eager to express their gratitude” to
Archbishop Lefebvre that they forgot to include him, and all-but left
him out, except for a few harmless references, some soft-sounding
quotes which suit the new agenda of diplomacy towards Rome.

{Please note:  this is typical of the Menzingen-denizen approach
of late, to downplay everything "staunch" and militant about what
ABL ever said or wrote, and only allow commemoration of the
soft, easy, pious and spiritual things he left behind.  In this way they
attempt to re-make ABL into a figure of their own image, now that
he's no longer here to defend himself, and those who would stand
up to defend him are accused of being "disobedient."}

Archbishop Lefebvre talking in his letter to the Bishops elect about
‘remaining attached to the See of Peter’ is included (in paragraph 2 ),
but Archbishop Lefebvre talking about how Rome is leading everyone
down the road of apostasy? Or Archbishop Lefebvre expressing doubts
over the new sacraments and the intentions of the Novus Ordo clergy?
Perhaps we’re not so grateful for those little bits. Interestingly enough,
the same two historic sermons (and Bp. de Castro Mayer’s was a very
short, succinct sermon) appear to be absent from all the official SSPX
websites as well.  Paragraph 3 concerns the errors of the Council. It
mentions that it is not a question of interpretation (hermeneutic of
continuity or that of rupture), which appears very good.  Here is the
relevant part:  “Following Archbishop Lefebvre, we affirm that the
cause of the grave errors which are in the process of demolishing the
Church does not reside in a bad interpretation of the conciliar texts ...
but truly in the texts themselves, by virtue of the unheard of choice
made by Vatican II.  This choice is manifest in its docuмents and in its
spirit; ...”

Look carefully at the subject of the sentence: what exactly is it that
‘resides in the texts themselves’? Not errors, but the cause of errors.
What is this cause? We are not told.  However, as Fr. Pfeiffer says, only
God causes Himself;  otherwise, a cause and the thing it causes are
always distinct, they are not one and the same, like rain and the black
cloud from which it came. The point can perhaps be best illustrated by
taking, as a concrete example, one of the most notorious teachings of
Vatican II, religious liberty: that man by his nature has an inaliable right
to profess and practise error. Can one claim that this teaching is a ‘cause
of error’?  Is it not rather an error itself? So what is meant by a cause
of error;  what causes errors?  Pride, laxity, worldliness, imprecision,
taking God’s grace for granted, lack of studiousness ... who knows;  how
far back need one go?  Is this text being deliberately imprecise in
employing such unusual terms?  What must be considered is that this is
a very pointed and precise phrase.

The normal thing is to speak of ‘the errors of the Council’ - that is a
phrase which we are all used to and which trips off the tongue easily.
Why suddenly change and speak of ‘the cause of errors’?  We believe
that it is a deliberate exercise in deception.  It sounds sufficiently
Traditional that to us it appears to be a restatement of Archbishop
Lefebvre’s position.  Future generations, further removed from the
Archbishop and the SSPX he founded, and as a consequence less
‘hard-line,’ will be able to interpret this in a more Rome-friendly,
conciliar-friendly sense.  After all, it does not tell us what this “cause”
is.  It only tells us that it was “by virtue of an unheard of choice,” again
another unusual and quite deliberate expression.  When did Archbishop
Lefebvre ever lament that Vatican II had made “an unheard of choice”?
What was this choice? We are not told. It is so “unheard of” that we’ve
still never even heard of it!

{The more I think about this section the more sinister it seems.  This
is a thing that has power to grow under your skin, like Morgellon's
disease.  This Internet rumour of "unheard-of choice" is so unheard-of
even after finding exposure in +Fellay's little SARD, it's STILL quite
unheard-of!  My goodness, it's really got a lot of stealth power,
whatever it is.  Maybe it's a fantasm of some demon, and that's why
we haven't been able to identify it. Hmmmm???}

What is happening is that although this text sounds sufficiently
Traditional to pass through the scrutiny of its contemporaries, yet it
is sufficiently ambiguous and novel that it leaves the door open to
future interpretation by more liberal minds, in much the same way
as some of the ‘time bombs’ in Vatican II.

The rest of the paragraph then goes on to talk about how the true
religion cannot be reconciled with the cult of man, and to criticise
some words of Paul VI.  In itself there is nothing wrong with this, but
following on from the talk of the causes of errors and ‘an unheard of
choice,’ it leaves the impression that the two are somehow connected,
that the one explains the other.  Whereas, on re-reading the paragraph,
the reader will notice that there is no explicit connection between the
two.  Yes, the cult of man is radically opposed to the Catholic Faith -
what does that have to do with Vatican II?  We are not told, we are
left to assume.  This way of speaking and thinking is most certainly not,
as the opening words of the paragraph claim, “following Archbishop
Lefebvre”.

{Actually, by putting two important topics in subsequent sentences,
but topics which have no explained relationship to each other, the
overall effect is to nullify the reality of BOTH of them, so as to, as it
were, remove them from the list of controversies by merely bringing
them up.  For if anyone asks about the one, then the Menzingen-
denizen can refer to the other, and if about the other, the one, and
in this way, no answer is made intelligible, but many words are spoken.}

In summary: that the texts of the Council “contain the cause of error”
can only mean that that the texts of the Council do not contain error.
(So when Vatican II tells us that we have a right to choose to be
Mormons or Bhuddists, this is not an error.) It looks traditional, sound
and orthodox, but its meaning is most definitely not.

Paragraph 4 seems very much concerned with the magisterium.
Magisterium refers to the authority of the Church, and thus it is helpful
to look at this paragraph together with paragraph 8. On the one hand,
it is true that Vatican II has effectively undermined authority in the
Church. On the other hand, that is not the main problem with the
Council. The problem is doctrinal, it is one of false teaching. Problems
with authority necessarily come in the wake of that, since authority is
at the service of the Faith, and not vice versa.

Archbishop Lefebvre was disobedient and strong in the Faith; Paul VI,
although utterly heterodox was a man who ruled the Church with a
rod of iron.  A delinquent father undermines and loses his authority
over his family, but the problem is his delinquency;  his loss of
authority is only a by product of that delinquency.  Despite
appearances, the Social Kingship of Christ is not mentioned in
paragraph 5, although “The reign of Christ” may well be the same
thing.  Or it may not be:  perhaps we are once again being allowed to
make our own assumptions, assumptions which will not necessarily
be made by future generations who read this same text.  As Fr.
Hewko says, a modernist can want “the reign of Christ” in his heart
but that is not necessarily the same as the Social Kingship of Christ.

We are told that from the time of the Council onwards, the “reign of
Christ” was “no longer the preoccupation” and sometimes was “even
combated.” (Even combated? Just imagine that!) Any Catholic
following the nefarious goings on in the conciliar Church knows that
Christ’s Social Kingship is not just ignored or “even combated”, it is
consistently and constantly denied and contradicted! Archbishop
Lefebvre wrote a book entitled:  “They Have Uncrowned Him.”
Not, “They Are No Longer Preoccupied With His Crown”! One implies
a willful and positively malevolent act; a positive action consonant
with diabolical disorientation, Rome losing the faith, and all the
other ominous prophecies. The other implies a neglect or absent
mindedness, irresponsible perhaps, but hardly of the same order of
magnitude;  a sin of omission at best. A similar distinction comes to
mind every time one hears an SSPX worthy talking about “helping
the authorities in Rome to rediscover their own Tradition” or
something similar, as if the authorities in Rome had accidentally
mislaid Tradition these last fifty or so years and had not been
waging an out-and-out total war of extermination against it! Lest we
forget exactly what is at stake, it should suffice to recall one or two
of the actual effects of the wicked teaching of Vatican II.  Reading this
text, one might forget that in South America, hundreds of thousands
if not millions of souls leave the Church every year to join ‘evangelical’
Protestant sects, as a direct result of Rome having ordered those
countries to abandon their Catholic constitutions and fall into line with
the teaching of Vatican II by accepting and enshrining religious liberty.
And let us not forget the appalling betrayal of General Franco and
many heroic Spaniards who, having literally fought, risked their lives
and in many cases shed their blood during three long years of civil
war in order to establish a Catholic constitution in Spain, were then
rewarded for their loyalty to Rome by Rome ordering them to undo
what they had established and open their constitution to all religions.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not famously say
to Cardinal Ratzinger:
“Eminence, if only you were more preoccupied with the
Christianisation of society! We are preoccupied with the reign of
Christ whereas you are not, and you even sometimes combat it.”

He said:
“Eminence, you are working for the de-Chrsitianisation of society
whereas we are working for the Christianisation of it.”

Incidentally, various people are reporting difficulties in obtaining ‘They
Have Uncrowned Him’ -of course, that might just be pure coincidence,
and not at all because it does not fit the new idea that Vatican II’s
religious liberty “is in fact a very, very limited one. Very limited. ”

Paragraph 6 in a similar manner appears at first glance to deal with
Religious Liberty, but ducks out at the last moment. This paragraph
tells us the Religious Liberty “leads to” demanding that God renounce
His reign. The problem here can be summed up easily: it does not
“lead to” it - it is it!

{Ed. gives credit to Fr. Pfeiffer for some of this material, but it has
come to my attention that since this Recusant came out, Fr. has
made the point in his sermons that this phrase "that God renounce
His reign" is rather gutless.  How can God "renounce His reign?"
Perhaps if the devil had his way, this would be his demand.  And
what exactly is this curious "reign" anyway:  is it the Social Kingship
of Christ, or is it some vague second thought in the heart of some
heretic who doesn't really want to think about God very much?}

This is akin to saying ‘the teaching “Jesus Christ is not God” leads
to heresy’. What nonsense. Once again, what can be seen here is
a refusal to deal with the problem of the Council.  Is the error in the
text, is it the Council itself which contains error, or rather is error
something which the Council merely leads to?  (Perhaps because
you make an ‘unheard of choice’!?)  As elsewhere, paragraph 6
appears to imply the former whilst actually saying the latter.

Paragraph 6 also tells us that the Church is being guided by human
prudence.  It may seem at first a relatively minor point, but we should
recall St. Thomas’ teaching that in the end we will be guided by the
good spirit or the bad spirit, either by Christ or the devil.   Especially
since we are talking about the Church, with a supernatural mission.
When the anti-Christ emerges, will he follow ‘human prudence’?  This
author thinks it fair to say that it is something far above human
intelligence, namely a diabolical ‘prudence’ which is guiding the Church.
The crisis in the Church is not due to bumbling, incompetent men
following their own flawed human intelligence.  The massive loss of
faith and loss of souls is the work a diabolical conspiracy, ultimately
the work of the devil.

Paragraph 7 tells us that due to ecuмenism and interreligious
dialogue, “the truth about the one true Church is silenced.”  Once
again, this is misleading.  The truth about the one true Church is not
merely silenced:  it is denied and contradicted.  

{It seems to me that what has been silenced is the voice of a
lot of otherwise good priests who now are terrorized into not
standing up and crying "FOUL" when idiocy like this SARD* is
cranked out like one of Teilhard de Chardin's "clandestines."}

Similarly, ecuмenism has not merely “killed the missionary spirit,”
it has killed the missions, and today is still killing millions and millions
of souls!  Teaching the truth only to your friends, not preaching the
truth to outsiders, not being welcoming of newcomers to your
Mass centre, these are things which merely kill the missionary
spirit.  The missionary spirit appears to be dying or dead in large
parts of the SSPX, but even we would stop short of accusing those
parts of the SSPX of being ecuмenical! Just as paragraph 6
pointedly does not say that religious liberty is an error, paragraph 7
likewise pointedly avoids saying anything similar about ecuмenism.
It tries to sound like it is against it without actually saying anything
of real substance against it.

As mentioned above, Paragraph 8 deals with authority, an interesting
subject given Bishop Fellay’s own preoccupation of late, and on closer
examination it is very revealing.  We are told that:  “The weakening of
faith in Our Lord’s divinity favours a dissolution of the unity of authority
in the Church.”

Leaving aside yet another example of weak and equivocal language
(‘favours’?), let us examine what this means.  What exactly is the
main problem being lamented in this statement?  The dissolution of the
unity of authority.  The secondary thing which is mentioned as a problem
only insofar as it ‘favours’ this dissolution of authority is Faith (‘faith’) in
Our Lord’s divinity.  Implication:  unity of authority is more important
than Faith in Our Lord’ s divinity.

“The destruction of authority,” we are told, “represents the ruin of
Christian institutions: families, seminaries, religious institutes.”
So once again, it is not a loss of Faith which has caused the destruction
of Christendom which we witness all around us.  The withered remnants
of the Catholic Church, closed convents, barely-any-longer-Catholic
schools, increasingly anti-Christ laws being passed by the governments
of once-Catholic nations, the almost complete apostasy of at least two
generations:  these are all things which we thought were the result of
Vatican II spreading its errors throughout the Church like deadly poison.
But no, according to this docuмent, it is as a result of a destruction of
authority. ‘If only there were enough authority, then everything
would be fine.’  We mentioned the preoccupation with authority
earlier on when passing over paragraph 4.

{It's nice to see an editor who doesn't forget to take up a topic
later when he said he would postpone it earlier.  I usually forget all
about it when I do that!!  HAHAHAHA}

Perhaps this is the right time to remind the reader of the words of the
scandalous General Chapter Declaration of 2012, which begins by
stating that, at the conclusion of its meeting, the General Chapter
“stands at the tomb of Archbishop Lefebvre, united behind the
Superior General Bishop Fellay.” It has been the contention of some
that this amounts to official recognition that the new principle of unity
for the SSPX, the thing which unifies it, from now on is the Superior
General. Previously it was the Faith, but the SSPX is no longer united
in doctrine. The idea of unity in truth is conspicuously absent in this
text.

{And please don't forget that the word enscribed on ABL's tomb,
TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI, should evoke some inkling of tradition
in the hearts of the capitulants who stood there, but alas, they are
quite content instead to "Do as thou wilt, is the whole of the law,"
as Alstair Crowley wrote in his abominable screed.}

Paragraph 9 attempts to speak about the new Mass, but once
again cannot quite summon the courage to attack it directly. We are
told that the New Mass “diminishes”, “curtails”, “obscures” and
“undermines”, all of which appear to be sins of omission. Cannot
worse be said?  Once again, one notices what it avoids saying.

Incidentally, one notices that the paragraph makes a point of
beginning not merely with “The New Mass...” but with “The New Mass,
promulgated in 1969...” as its subject. Perhaps it was thought that
this would satisfy the faithful that Bishop Fellay no longer believes the
New Mass was legitimately promulgated [Doctrinal Declaration, April
2012]. Apart from the problem of a Traditionalist Bishop who can
change his mind from one month to the next about a question as
important as the legitimacy of the New Mass, it is a fact that
“promulgated in 1969” does not contradict “legitimately promulgated
by Pope Paul VI.” The two statements are not mutually exclusive, and
therefore the one cannot be taken to represent a correction of the
other. It looks diplomatic, but its value is nil. Besides which, there is
no indication that Bishop Fellay has in fact changed his mind since he
composed the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. He has never yet
admitted that he made a mistake in admitting that the Novus Ordo
was “legitimately promulgated”, nor even that he had ever admitted
it. He usually tries to dodge questions about it and on the rare
occasions where he cannot avoid being asked, he retreats into his
standard defence of ‘I was misunderstood’, ‘I didn’t mean to say that’
etc.) Suffice it to say that this is as big a problem as ever it was.
Worse: it is a problem which now involves Bishops Tissier and de
Galarreta also.

Paragraph 10 begins thusly: “Fifty years on, the causes persist and
still engender the same effects.” Which causes, exactly? The “causes”
in question are what the first nine paragraphs of this declaration have
so skilfully avoided identifying, all the while equivocating and
downplaying “the effects”.

{Anyone who contends that the mention of these mysterious
"causes" was some kind of a fluke that should somehow be
overlooked, cannot anymore so blithely ignore them because
here they are AGAIN.  These same unidentified "causes" have
been persisting for 50 years, already!  You'd think that someone
could have bothered to say what they are when they've had
half a century now to speak up about them, but NO!  Not a
word, until The Great One comes down the pike muttering "the
causes" as if everyone should immediately know what he's
talking about.  This is beyond the pale!!  In consistent form,
the Liberal doesn't want to be specific because then he will
be accountable.  His comfort zone is vagueness, so that later
on he can claim to have been "misunderstood," and can more
readily deny that's what he meant.  He likes, in other words, to
keep his options open.  THE BUCK, MOST ASSUREDLY, DOES
NOT STOP HERE!!  Perhaps Incredulous could give us a
graphic image with that written on HEBF's desk!?!?}

It continues: “Hence today the consecrations retain their full
justification.” Notice the sleight of hand here: the Archbishop’s
justification for the consecrations, in his own words, is nowhere to
be found.  It is not even alluded to, much less quoted. So how is
the reader supposed to know what this retained “justification” is?
Presumably we are supposed to take Bishop Fellay’s version, as
presented in the preceding nine paragraphs, as being the reason
why Archbishop Lefebvre performed the consecrations in 1988.  

{Once again, right on par with the same-old, same-old.  This
is more of the same, the re-forming of the image of ABL, the
making over of his memory into something he was not, the
RE-BRANDING of the FOUNDER as well as the Re-Branding
of the SSPX, in the style of 1984, "We have always been at
war with Eastasia!"  Down the memory hole with the real ABL
and the new ABL miraculously arises like the Phoenix bird from
his own ashes.}

A very brief quote from Archbishop Lefebvre’s Spiritual Journey,
clearly [having] been lifted from a longer sentence, is offered as a
justification for stating that the SSPX, “at the service of the Church
... asks with insistence for the Roman authorities to regain the
treasure of doctrinal, moral and liturgical tradition.” Surely this sort
of language speaks for itself.  Did St. Augustine, St. Patrick, St. Isaac
Jogues or any one of the legions of heroic missionaries ever “ask
with insistence” that the pagans discover the treasure of the Catholic
Faith?  Or rather, the treasure of the “doctrinal, moral and liturgical
tradition” of Rome?  Did St. John Fisher “ask with insistence” that Henry
VIII rediscover the treasure of his moral tradition?!  Does the Church no
longer preach?  Did Our Lord and his Apostles never command?  How is
Rome likely to view a Society of St. Pius X which used to demand that
Rome convert and abandon the errors of the Council but which now
employs such timid, deferential language?  “Following Providence”
is the subject of paragraph 11, although we are never told exactly what
this means, nor are we given any kind of example to illustrate it.  What it
amounts to is a pious platitude:  it sounds nice and holy and it means
virtually nothing.  Three of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop
Lefebvre in 1988, as signatories of this declaration and on behalf of the
SSPX, say that “we mean ... to follow providence ... and not anticipate
it”.  What we can gather is that they at least mean well (or at any rate,
they say they do)!  Isn’t that nice!  More than that is unclear.  For
example, what are they actually going to do in the future?  Who knows!
Perhaps whatever they feel like doing.

Whatever this ‘following of Providence’ actually amounts to, it will be,
we are told, “either when Rome returns to Tradition and the Faith of
all time” or “when she [Rome] explicitly recognises our right to profess
integrally the Faith and to reject the errors which oppose it, with the
right and the duty for us to oppose publicly the errors and the
proponents of these errors, whoever they may be” - never mind the
fact that the correction of errors and the denunciation of the
purveyors of error is precisely what the SSPX has now ceased doing,
as the rest of the declaration makes abundantly clear.  Oh the tragic
irony.  So, the SSPX will “follow Providence” (whatever that means)
either when Rome returns to Tradition and the Faith of all time, or
before Rome returns to Tradition and the Faith.  That ought to be clear!

{Any thinking individual reading this would be pulling his hair
out with frustration, but somehow the Accordistas keep on
claiming that they defend this nonsense -- defend the
indefensible!  That ought to be their motto:  The Fellayites'
Defense of the Indefensible!  - and, of course, the British
version:  The Fellayites' Defence of the Indefencible!}

Paragraph 12 concludes the statement with another hand picked,
suitably innocuous quote from Archbishop Lefebvre about remaining
faithful to the Mass and the glory of Christ in heaven (it is doubtful
whether the worst modernist in Rome would have a problem with
that!), and a prayer to the Trinity “by the intercession of the
Immaculate Heart of Mary”.

The latter is notable in one sense as being the only time that Our Lady
ever gets a mention in the whole of this rather long docuмent.  Nothing
about Fatima, La Salette, Quito... one might be forgiven for thinking
that Our Lady has little to no role to play in bringing Our Lord’s triumph
out of this era of apostasy.

{When Our Lord told Sister Lucia that His intention was to do things
so as to place devotion to His mother's Immaculate Heart alongside
devotion to His Own Sacred Heart, we ought to recognize that He
is not making way for anyone to think that Our Lady has "little-to-no
role to play in bringing Our Lord's triumph out of this era of apostasy!
Perhaps one who thinks so may be "forgiven" but that won't make
the course of history any less painful when so many refuse to give
Our Lady the recognition that God Himself demands we give to her!}

What is the standing and significance of this declaration? It is another
official, ‘signed, sealed and delivered’ statement of the position
of the SSPX. It takes its place along side the General Chapter
statement of 2012 with its six useless ‘conditions’ of surrender,
and along side the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. It is the
studied opinion of this author that the June 27th 2013 anniversary
declaration {the Silver Anniversary Re-Declaration} is no less
alarming and dangerous than its predecessors, in fact in many ways
more so, since it ‘looks Traditional’, whereas at least the April 2012
{AFD} had the virtue of being a straight-forward ‘warts and all’
representation of where Menzingen now stands.  It did what it said
on the tin.  This declaration does not:  the tin is labelled “Tradition”
but it contains the same sour contents which are the staple fare of
Modernists.

What will Rome make of it? Who knows, but as has been said before,
in one sense it hardly matters. The danger of a deal was that it would
lead to the Society liberalising and dropping its war footing against the
new conciliar religion. In fact, even without an official deal the Society
has now been liberalising for some time already, a process which
continues apace, and the war footing against the new conciliar religion
is truly a thing of the past. When a deal finally happens, it will be a
deal made by a Society which already accepts everything that the
Romans would have reasonably wished for.  

‘Accept us as we are’ does have the drawback of making the matter
dependent on how we are.  And ‘how we are’ will continue to worsen
with the passage of time.

{Think of that, the next time someone asks "How are you?"}

Keep working and praying! Stay vigilant!



{*SARD = Silver Anniversary Re-Declaration}

Open Appeal to the Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X, By Fr. David Hewko

                                                                +
                                                                M

September 21, 2013
Feast of St. Matthew

OPEN APPEAL TO THE SUPERIORS OF THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X


Your Excellency, Bishop Fellay and Society of St. Pius X Superiors,

In the face of a Pope in the Chair of St. Peter, wielding the sledge-hammer like a second Goliath, dismantling and smashing what is left of the Traditional Teachings of Christ and His Mass, your silence has become alarming and has become a cooperation in extinguishing the Catholic Religion and His True Adoration from the face of the earth.

The “children” of the Society of St. Pius X have cried out for 40 years in this last hour, led by the most child-like Archbishop Lefebvre, who loved and defended his Father’s honor. The time has come for the “stones” of the street; the most unworthy, unglamorous, despised and the “off-scouring of the world” to cry out. Those of the SSPX Resistance can no longer be silent in the face of the present leadership of the Society, shamefully silent at the most necessary hour! All our letters, appeals, filial rebukes have been returned with silences, monitions and expulsions.

All of us who were alive under our saintly Founder, Abp. Lefebvre, remember his letters to the priests and faithful, his sermons crying out against the abominations of the Ecuмenical Assisi Meeting, the Pope’s scandals against the True Faith and Our Lord Jesus Christ, the True God! All of us remember hearing these, like a beacon of light in the darkness of the modern apostasy. A voice of the fearless Good Shepherd roaring out, like a second David or Samson, to protect the flock of Christ from the masked wolves inside. These wolves, tearing out the Faith of Tradition and ripping out the hearts of those consecrated to God, with the fatal blows of Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, Collegiality, the baneful New Mass and all the artful lies to seduce the handful of Traditional Communities into the Conciliar Church.

The catechism teaches there is a time when silence becomes gravely imprudent, reckless and even cooperates with sin and darkness. That time is now! From the SSPX pulpits, websites, magazines, articles, etc. comes a shameful silence. A silence that uses the “liberty of prudence” as a cloak for malice, a silence equivalent to those passively standing by, while their mother is defiled and violently ravaged by the very ones vowed and ordained to defend Mother Church!

The reason for this guilty silence is now known to all the world. It is expressed in the General Chapter Statement of July 14, 2012, which was the “Vatican II Revolution” within the last bastion of Catholic Tradition. In it, the Society binds itself to the six Conditions for the canonical normalization. An agreement with whom? With the Conciliar Church! The Archbishop was never silent about the Pope’s scandals and respectfully wrote to him, defied his ecuмenism and sins against the Faith, before the whole world, and even resorted to drawings showing the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II being excluded from the gates of Heaven for leading the world to believe that the gods of the gentiles are not devils, as at Assisi!

Now, Pope Francis has surpassed his predecessors in scandals against the Faith by the ecuмenical call for prayers for peace from all religions, celebrating the ecuмenical rite in St. Peter’s; by the unheard of scandals of World Youth Day in Brazil; with the shameful dancing of bishops who, like salt that has lost its savor, have become the laughing stock of the world, worthy to be stepped on for betraying the True God. His sweeping statements on atheists, the divorced, the Sodom and Gomorrhites, clerical celibacy, etc., etc., have misled millions of souls into error and, no doubt, sins. Sins that seem “not so bad,” since according to him, even “atheists can go to Heaven,” and “who am I to judge the gαys?”

Since the new policies of the Society fit the new principles of compromise, now it has lent its hands to abolishing what is left of the True Faith and Adoration of God from the face of the earth, by its shameful silence!

It is useless to pretend that the seeking a “canonical normalization,” an “agreement,” “recognition,” a “union” with Modernist Rome can be pleasing to God, before Rome’s conversion to Tradition. The six Conditions themselves, betray the clear teaching of our Founder who insisted that we never have to ask permission to preach Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ, Crucified! That we openly preach against Vatican II errors and prelates who attack the Faith, because Christ Himself gave that command to the first Pope and Bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre would shudder with horror at the thought of the Indifferentism subtly expressed in the six Conditions and would absolutely condemn the new policy of silence and expulsion of his priests who speak out, against a false union with the Conciliar Church that is aggressively wrecking the Faith and Mass of All Time.

Would he approve of your calling the New Mass “legitimate” or “legitimately promulgated” (which is the same thing)?

Would he approve of all the statements on the Council “not being the cause of errors,” Religious Liberty being “limited,” 95% of the Council acceptable, that the teachings of Vatican II “enlighten” and “deepen” Catholic Tradition?

Would the Founder approve of your signing the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012, which undermines everything he fought for to save the Faith?

Would he approve of the acceptance of the New Code of Canon Law without the clear distinctions he laid down?

Would he approve of the personal Prelature of the Society that submits to the present Roman authorities, who he called “dishonest men” seeking to remove Christ from society? Have his warnings been forgotten when he said: “With the See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is rapidly being carried out, even in His Mystical Body here below…That is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. This Rome, Modern and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove…” (Abp. Lefebvre, Letter to Future Bishops August 29, 1987).

Would Abp. Lefebvre even recognize his Society today when its leader says: “Vatican II is no longer in people’s heads,…fewer and fewer believe it”? “We have observed a change of attitude in the Church…towards Tradition,” or “Within the Society some (like Abp. Lefebvre himself!) are making the conciliar errors into ‘super heresies’”…or “the present situation in April 2012 is quite different from that of 1988”? That, having said and signed all these ambiguous statements, compromises and decisions, none of them have yet been rejected or condemned? None of them, neither clearly nor publicly!

Would Abp. Lefebvre look favorably on the expulsion of a bishop that he himself sent as rector of the Seminary in the USA and being fully aware of his “unpopular views,” chose him personally to be one of his bishops, as well?

Your Excellency, the grave dangers against the Faith which you have placed the priests and faithful into, by accepting what you yourself condemned 11 years ago, demand a response from your subjects. The Archbishop’s words ring ever true: “It is not the subjects who form superiors, but the superiors who form the subjects.” Now that your position is clearer, as you expressed to the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, “I committed myself,…and I do intend to continue to make every effort to pursue this path in order to arrive at the necessary clarifications, clarifications for the personal Prelature to be carried out,” knowing, moreover, that Rome has not converted back to Tradition, demands the Resistance to your boldness.

Since Vatican Council II, the Popes had a right to our resistance and disobedience because of dangerous errors on the Faith, so more and more people are seeing that you force us to do the same because of your new direction, acceptance of the legitimacy of the New Mass, New Code, Vatican II in the light of Tradition, etc. This is unheard of in the history of the SSPX!

Since you are deaf to your sons’ appeals, and fail to condemn your statements and persist to punish any who warn you or the faithful, you oblige the priests of the Resistance all over the world to pick up where you left off. You oblige us to continue the work of Abp. Lefebvre which is nothing other than the work of the Catholic Church, “without bitterness and without compromises.” The words of Our Lady of Quito, Ecuador seem frightfully so true, that “the Church will be full of those who accept compromise,” when we need to be the ones to cry out, fight, combat openly the evils of Conciliar Rome, leading many souls into apostasy and to Hell-fire. The glory of Christ the King demands it! The COMMON GOOD OF THE CHURCH demands it!

For the love of your soul, your Excellency, please hold an urgent General Chapter. Condemn the new policies and compromises with Vatican II and the New Mass. Return to the stand of Abp. Lefebvre on all the points listed above, resign yourself, and let there be a true son of Abp. Lefebvre to replace you, Fr. Faure, for instance. This alone could save the Society. Otherwise, the work of Tradition will peacefully continue, if it pleases God, in the SSPX Resistance, Marian Corps.

“If the children will not cry out, the very stones in the street will cry out!”

The Faith may be compromised and betrayed by men, but the True God does not die!

VIVA CRISTO REY!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, hasten Thine hour of Victory!

Sincerely in Christ the King,

Fr. David Hewko

An Anonymous SSPX Priest
Internet - 2012
(Quoted in Fr. Rioult's "The Impossible Reconciliation," pp. 42-47).
-Numerous footnotes omitted


"O Blessed John Paul, you who so 'respectfully' kissed the Koran; you who in the "sacred forest" of Togo, leaning over a 'dried pumpkin full of water and corn flour,' 'prayed for the first time with the animists'; you who invoked the 'Powers of Water'; you who praised the 'deep religiosity of Luther'; you who put Confucious, Buddha, Zoroaster, and Muhammad on par with Jesus Christ; you who through love of religious freedom pushed the last Catholic states to no longer profess the true religion as the state religion; you who have always known how to please our 'elder brothers,' by recognizing that 'the old Covenant has never been revoked,' help your traditionalist brothers so that they may arrive at 'full reconciliation' so 'that they may become one.'

"O Blessed John Paul, you who suffered so much from the integrists Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer who refused you the title of Good Shepherd, intercede with the God of the modernists and with the UN consciousness of humanity, ana strengthen your faithful successor, Benedict, who has happily glorified you, that he may succeed 'in breaking down the obstinacy and narrowness' of the SSPX 'to make room for what is positive and retrievable for all.' Grant also that he remembers his experience, where he 'saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole.'

"Oh Blessed John Paul, may Benedict persevere faithfully in your teaching corrupted with heresies, to 'confirm his brothers' with zeal, without abandoning 'the compass of the Church for the 21st Century: the Second Vatican Council," that he may keep the 'post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes' because 'the Church's teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 - this must be quite clear to the Society,' In this way the Church can be the sacrament of world peace.

"O Blessed John Paul, fortify Bishop Fellay so that he enlightens the skeptics who doubt that the SSPX has obtained, by its millions of Rosaries, what had been requested. May these 'men of little faith' understand that asking for the social kingship of Christ and achieving a 'healthy secularity' is the same thing. That asking for 'the reinstatement of the rights of the Tridentine Mass' and getting an 'Extraordinary Rite' deemed to be as holy as the bastard Mass promoted as the 'Ordinary Rite' is the same thing. That requesting the withdrawal of and obtaining the lifting of the excommunications the Society has always contested, it is the same thing. That to attribute these graces to the Holy Virgin is not blasphemy, but reveals a supernatural spirit.

"O Blessed John Paul, help the priests and faithful always to trust blindly the Superior General of the SSPX; that he will come to persuade them that things have changed in Rome. That Benedict XVI didn't want Assisi III, and this is why he 'caused Assisi to flop,' and 'wanted it to fail.' And, after your beatification, so desired by the villainous partisans of the hermeneutics of rupture, he heroically declared, but in private, 'And now that's enough!' Otherwise saying, leave me in peace with this doccier. In short, help them to trust this pope who through diplomacy does things that are gravely contrary to the faith, and who does not adhere to it himself, and who is prepared to do evil and work better afterwards for the glory of God, the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.

"O Blessed John Paul, give more and more supernatural prudence to Bishop Fellay to successfully go against the wished of the General Chapter of 2006 regarding the 'Relations with Rome.' That the members accept that the ultimate decision belongs only to the 'Superior General in his Council' and that the true principle which must direct the SSPX is no longer the 'luminous principle' of the founder" 'The official link to modernist Rome is nothing next to the preservation of the faith,' nor the Chapter's: 'no practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement,' but 'the only true principle is to remain Catholic' in the Conciliar Church.

"Oh Blessed John Paul, thank you for having changed Bishop Fellay's mind, who mistakenly thought that Benedict XVI 'himself feels completely and theologically committed to Vatican II. His teachings and government of the Church fall directly within the spirit of the Council. The proof is that he wants to incorporate us into the Church, according to ecuмenical concepts. He is practicing ecuмenism with us.' Thank you especially for making him understand the errors of Archbishop Lefebvre who was among those who 'do things to facilitate an identification between the official Church and the modernist Church. But it is an error, because we're talking about a concrete reality.'

"Oh Blessed John Paul, we ask that the un-Catholic and completely unrealistic claim of Archbishop Lefebvre be stopped forever, since 'Rome never loses face;' that the SSPX agrees to be free in a free Church. That blessed John XXIII and Blessed Pius IX make understandable, to those who have a false notion of 'living Tradition,' and its 'concrete reality,' that the pope of the aggiornamento and the pope of the Syllabus must coexist peacefully in the great Church, which is 'Communion.' That 'the Roman Pontiff' with the SSPX 'can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.' That the SSPX too must be 'from now on a miserable tributary of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church.'

"Oh Blessed John Paul, appeal to the Father of Lies that Christian hope and optimism silence the 'prophets of doom.' O Prince of Darkness finish your work! You have no time to deceive 'if you can, even the elect.' Convince them that it is not necessary for the Catholic Church to be against the Conciliar Church. Help them, as modern men, 'to baptize good what is evil and true what is false, so they become untruth themselves.' Smoke of Satan, make it that we no longer know what or when to believe or think. O prophetic words: 'In this new climate, we have the firm hope to obtain soon the recognition of the rights of Catholic Tradition.' O captious words said six months later: 'We are at war, we must not forget!' The happy ending approaches because if 'Rome denies the principle of non-contradiction,' today it is no longer alone.

"Oh Blessed John Paul hasten the coming of the sweet day of the beautiful 'agreement' of those who 'disagree!' And give us peace and kissed. Shalom!"
 
.........................
Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."
 
 

Branding and Crusade (10 Dec 2013)

 Editorial
 


By Rev. Fr. P. Girouard, Old SSPX



 Dear readers,



 The latest “Letter to Friends and Benefactors” from Bishop Fellay (#81), dated December 6th and published December 9th, is a new proof that the branding of the Society of St. Pius X has truly transformed this institution to the point where we can rightly call her the “Neo-SSPX”.



Indeed, even if Bishop Fellay laments, and rightly so, the moral and doctrinal decline that afflict the New Church and the modern world in general, he carefully avoids putting the finger on the real wounds and their causes. We will give you a few examples below. All parts in italics are taken from this letter #81.



“It seems to me necessary to mention once more the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the election of his successor, Pope Francis.”  What Bishop Fellay should have added here, is that this resignation is a great scandal! Indeed, instead of donning a normal cassock and going into a monastery, like St. Celestine V did, Benedict XVI keeps his name, his white cassock, and remains in the Vatican! At the inauguration of the new statue of St. Michael the Archangel, we were thus able to see two Popes sitting side by side! In practice, this revolution transforms the Pope in a mere CEO of a multinational called the “Catholic Church”. Benedict’s successors will be tempted, and will maybe feel obliged, to follow suit. Benedict XVI has ended his pontificate with another innovation, with a new “dirty trick” against Catholic Tradition! But Bishop Fellay doesn’t seem to notice, and remains silent!





“From the first days of his pontificate, the Supreme Pontiff from Argentina has appeared to be very different from anything that we have seen until now.”  This is not what Bishop Fellay was saying two months after the Pope’s election, when his only commentary was that Francis was a man of “deep Faith”! And everybody will agree that Pope Francis is much worse than “different”, he is a walking catastrophe! So, Bishop Fellay, why not say so? Are we not “between ourselves”, among friends and benefactors? Unless some of your friends and benefactors belong to the Novus Ordo Church?



“The recent Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium illustrates the difficulty of categorizing an unconventional person who does not hesitate to formulate vehement and repeated critiques of the contemporary world and the modern Church.  He points out many real problems; yet one might wonder about the effectiveness of the methods being extolled and doubt that they can be implemented.  It is not easy to care for a dying patient, and some treatments that are even more revolutionary than the ones already applied for that purpose could very well finish him off!” Once again the branding is playing its part! Instead of condemning firmly and clearly the errors and deficiencies of this Apostolic Exhortation, Bishop Fellay is happy with saying that “one might wonder about the effectiveness of the methods being extolled and doubt that they can be implemented.” His comparison with a dying man who risks to be finished off is nice, but it doesn’t have the impact of a vigorous and thundering condemnation! And instead of saying we face the “difficulty of categorizing” Pope Francis, as he is so much an “unconventional person”, why not say that this Pope is a new Attila, who will leave behind him only the ruins of the last few things that are still standing in the official Church?



“At first glance one could not say that the recent months of the new pontificate have improved this situation.” Instead of this euphemism of the first order, we would have liked a condemnation: the washing of the feet of a Muslim woman on Maundy Thursday; of the World Youth Day in Brazil; of the Bishops dancing the Rock and Roll; of the beach ball on St. Mary Major’s Altar; of the praises given to Cardinals Kasper and Martini; of the red clown nose; of the ecuмenical Day for Peace in Syria; of the letter to the atheistic writer; of the countless kisses to children and women; and so forth and so on.



“Although we continue to hope that an authentic taking of control inspired by God will come one day, the reality of the spiritual sufferings of the Church Militant remains nonetheless.” Yes, and one should not forget the sufferings of those who see the Neo-SSPX lose more and more of its mordancy, and who refuse to accept the official opening of a door to an eventual recognition by Modernist Rome, at the 2012 General Chapter. Considering this new positioning, which remains official to this day, we might be allowed to think that the “authentic taking of control” mentioned above refers to Bishop Fellay’s wish to transform the New Church “from the inside” through a canonical recognition!



“This will only be aggravated, both by the decrease in the number of priests that is weighing heavily upon Europe and other regions, and also by the formation being given in the seminaries.  The change of pope has in no way modified this disastrous situation, and the reaffirmation of the unfortunate direction of the Second Vatican Council makes us fear that, since the same causes produce the same effects, the worldwide situation of the Catholic Church will remain tragic, and that it is not about to improve.  The canonizations of two popes closely connected with the Council and its implementation are not going to fix it.”  Oh! Come on, come on, Your Excellency! I thought you had previously said that you accepted 95% of the Council; and that Vatican II was enlightening some “hidden” elements of the Revelation; and that Religious Liberty in the Council had a very, very, limited sense; and that what we thought had been errors of the Council were only the common subsequent interpretation of it; and that we should not transform the errors of the Council into super-heresies! Are you today, by any chance, contradicting yourself? Of course not, since you only speak against the “unfortunate direction of the Second Vatican Council”, and not of its errors and heresies! Your letter has all the ingredients to reassure the Pope (and his eventual successor) about your willingness to “cooperate”.



“The development of our Society that we see being accomplished before our eyes is a cause for joy and thanksgiving, and concrete proof that fidelity to the traditional faith and discipline always procures the blessed fruits of grace.” Bishop Fellay doesn’t fail to mention the Neo-SSPX has 253 seminarians (including 43 new ones), and that the new seminary in Virginia is progressing, and that the Society has more than a hundred schools all over the world, and that we don’t have enough priests to meet the needs of the faithful worldwide. Finally he exclaims: “Oh Lord, give us priests!” I would simply tell him that before praying the Lord for more priests, he should stop expelling the ones he already has!



 Finally, Bishop Fellay announces to the whole world that he is launching a new Rosary Crusade, the Fourth Crusade! It is normal he should do so from time to time, as he is a General! “In this dramatic context, it seems to us essential to launch a new crusade in the same spirit as the preceding ones, keeping in view the requests and the promises of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as they were expressed at Fatima, but insisting more this time on its universal character. We have to put our whole heart, our whole soul into this new crusade: not just being content with the daily recitation of the Rosary, but carefully carrying out Our Lady’s second request, which is penance.  Prayer and penance.  Penance, understood certainly as the acceptance of certain forms of self-denial, but especially as the very faithful performance of our duties of state.” Here we are! We knew it was coming! But we didn’t wait for it with joy and enthusiasm, but rather with a sense of foreboding, in light of all the evils that followed in the wake of the previous three: the 2007 Motu Proprio which officially relegates the true Mass to the second rank; the 2009 Suspension of the canonical effects, for the four surviving Bishops, of the 1988 Decree of Excommunication; the September 2011 Roman Proposal for a canonical recognition and Personal Prelature, and the negotiations that followed up to June 2012, and especially the disastrous July 2012 General Chapter! So, when Bishop Fellay tells us the new crusade will be done “in the same spirit as the preceding ones”, we are entitled to ask ourselves, with anguish, what will happen to us when it will be over?



 Then, after having quoted at length some texts of Archbishop Lefebvre about a crusade for transforming the world by the spirit of sacrifice that comes from the Sacrifice of the Altar, Bishop Fellay gives us some details about his new crusade: “We encourage you therefore to adopt a permanent spirit of crusade, although, because of human considerations, we will officially begin this new Rosary crusade on January 1, 2014, and conclude it on the Feast of Pentecost (June 8, 2014) for the purpose of collecting a spiritual bouquet of five million Rosaries in reparation for the outrages committed against the honor of Our Lady, against her Heart as a Virgin and Mother of God.” So we have gone from a lofty objective of, what? 25 million Rosaries at the 3rd Crusade, to a mere five million this time? What is going on here? Did Bishop Fellay, by any chance, realize that, since the branding of the Society, it has lost some support? Does he fear not to be able to get more than five millions? Is he, maybe, aware that many of the faithful who can’t, for major reasons, leave the chapels and school of the Neo-Society, remain nevertheless faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre’s work, and that they will not anymore follow him in his new endeavors, even if those look pious? And does he include, among the outrages committed against the Immaculate Heart, all the instances when he declared that the gestures of Modernist Rome, in July 2007 and January 2009, were gifts from the Blessed Virgin Mary in answer to the first two Crusades?



 My dear readers, as you can see, the situation in the Neo-SSPX, far from getting better, in continually degrading, as it continues to apply the strategy of conciliation and softness resulting from its branding! It is only towards the members, clergy and lay, of the true Society that such strategy is not applied! Therefore, hold on! The battle is going on!

 God bless you!


 Fr. Patrick Girouard

     Français