Curiously, this important Resistance docuмent has been missing in
the collection here, for whatever reason..............SourceAFD = April Fifteenth Declaration
Perhaps at times like this, it's easier if one has been reading IA
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:
L’ILLUSION LIBERALE II
Manila 18 April 2013
Dear Fr Laisney,Part One: THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE APRIL 15TH DECLARATION
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