Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:

Author Topic: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings  (Read 93464 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline B from A

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 903
  • Reputation: +575/-122
  • Gender: Female
Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« Reply #75 on: July 12, 2013, 06:43:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't know if this letter was in this thread or not, and don't have time to search through 15 pages to find out.  This was an important letter, docuмenting many contradictions coming from Menzingen this past year, and I just had an unbelievably hard time trying to find it.  Partly because the first few hits didn't include the full letter, but just this worthless link:

    I say worthless, because one could not find the letter using either "37" or "thirty".  

    I finally found it here:
    and here:

    But only with difficulty.  The Recusant site seems to have the original formatting (italics etc.).

    So, to make it easier for future searches, I am going to post it here, with the title done both with "37" and "thirty-seven", to make searches easier.  

    Open Letter to Bishop Fellay from Thirty-Seven French Priests (28 Feb 2013)
    Open Letter to Bishop Fellay from 37 French Priests (28 Feb 2013)

    (Translated by a priest of the SSPX)

     Your Excellency,

     As you recently wrote: “The links which unite us are essentially supernatural.” However, you took care to rightly remind us that the requirements of nature must nevertheless not be forgotten. “Grace does not destroy nature.” Among these requirements, there is truthfulness. Yet, we are obliged to note that a part of the problems, with which we were confronted throughout these recent months, comes from a grave negligence to this virtue (of truthfulness).


    Ten years ago, you used to speak like Bishop Tissier de Mallerais:

    "Never will I agree to say: ‘in the Council, if we interpret it well, yes, perhaps nevertheless, we could make it correspond with Tradition, we could find an acceptable sense.’ Never shall I agree to say that! That would be a lie; it is not permissible to tell a lie, even if it was a question of saving the Church!" (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Gastines, September 16th, 2012).

    But since then, you have changed:

    "The whole Tradition of the Catholic faith has to be the criterion and the guide to understand the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which, in its turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, implicitly present in her, but not yet formulated. The affirmations [teachings] of the Second Vatican Council and of the subsequent Papal Magisterium, relative to the relation between the Roman Catholic Church and the non-Catholic and Christian confessions, must be understood in the light of the whole Tradition." (Bishop Fellay, St. Joseph-des-Carmes, June 5th, 2012).

    At Brignoles, in May of 2012, you spoke about this docuмent which “suited Rome” but that “will need to be explained amongst ourselves, because there are statements which are so borderline, that, if you are ill-disposed, you could see one way or another—depending on whether you are looking at it through black or pink colored spectacles.”

    Since then, you justified your position in the following way:

    "If we can accept to be “condemned" for our rejection of modernism (which is true), we cannot accept being so [condemned] if we were to adhere to the sedevancantist theses (which is false); it is that which led me to draft a "minimalist" text, which took into account only one of both statements and which, therefore, could leave misunderstanding in the SSPX.” (Corn Unum, No. 102—an internal magazine for the SSPX)

    "Obviously, when I wrote this text, I thought it was sufficiently clear, that I had sufficiently succeeded in avoiding — how can I put it? — the ambiguities. But the facts are there; I am well obliged to see that this text had become a text which divided us, us in the Society. Obviously, I withdraw this text." (Ecône, September 7th, 2012).

    You are, thus, a misunderstood person who, by condescension, withdraws a very finely-worded text which narrow-minded people were incapable of understanding. This version of the facts is cunning, but is it correct? Withdrawing a docuмent and retracting a doctrinal error, are not formally the same things. Furthermore, to invoke the sedevancantist "theses" to justify this "minimalist" docuмent—which "suited Rome"—seems strongly out of place, when, at the same time, and for more than thirteen years, you authorized a priest to no longer mention the name of the pope in the Canon [of the Mass], confiding to him that you understand his decision, in view of the scandalous signing of a docuмent of common agreement between Catholics and Protestants [by Rome].

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais confided to a colleague that this "Letter of April 14th" [of Bishop Fellay to the other three SSPX bishops] should never have been published, because, according to him, you [Bishop Fellay] would be “discredited once and for all, and probably forced to resign.” Which confirms Bishop Williamson's charitable warning: “for the glory of God, for the salvation of souls, for the peace of mind of the Society members and for your eternal salvation, you would do better resigning as Superior General, rather than excluding me.” (London, October 19th, 2012). Nevertheless, you took it as an open and public provocation.

    But when Bishop de Galarreta declared, on October 13th, 2012, [in his sermon] at Villepreux, the following unbelievable sentence, which we can only listen to, but cannot read, because La Porte Latine [the French SSPX website] deleted it [the sentence] and did not include it in their on-line transcription: "It is almost impossible that the majority of the Superiors of the Society — after frank discussion, and a complete analysis of all the aspects, of all the ‘ins and outs’ — it is unthinkable that this majority would make a mistake in a prudential matter [he refers to the agreement with Rome]. And if, by chance, it happens—well just too bad—we are going to do what the majority thinks"[and go ahead with the agreement with Rome]— in Menzingen, the General Secretary, Fr. Thouvenot, wrote [concerning Bishop de Galarreta’s sermon] that he “explained the events, of June 2012, in a detached and elevated way.”

    How could have the Society fallen so low? Archbishop Lefebvre himself wrote:

    “On the day of the judgment, God will ask us if we were faithful and not if we obeyed unfaithful authorities. Obedience is a virtue related to the Truth and to God. It is no longer a virtue, but a vice, if it submits itself to error and evil.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter of August 9th, 1986), and Fr. Berto [the theological expert assisting the Archbishop at Vatican II] wrote in 1963:

    “We have to ‘see beyond the end of our nose’, and not imagine that we have a right to call on Holy Ghost by command, just like that, the moment we enter the Council.”

    During the conference of November 9th, 2012, in Paris, an [SSPX] prior asked you:

    “At the end of the priestly retreat, two colleagues accused me of being in revolt against your authority, because I showed satisfaction with the text of Fr. de Cacqueray [the SSPX French District Superior] against Assisi III. What do you think?” Your answer was: “I wasn’t aware of such things happening within the Society! It was I who asked for this declaration [of Fr. De Cacqueray]. Moreover, it was published with my permission! I completely agree with Fr. de Cacqueray!"

    Yet, during the [SSPX] Sisters’ retreat at Ruffec [France], you confided to six priests [SSPX] that you did not agree with the text of Fr. de Cacqueray! Moreover, for 20 minutes, you complained to him about the criticism you had received, from Cardinal Levada, about that subject. If you gave him the permission to publish it, then it was, you explained, so as not to appear biased, but, personally, you disapproved of the contents which you judged to be excessive. Your Excellency, who therefore is using “fundamentally subversive” means? Who is it that is revolutionary? Who is it that does harm to the common good of our Society [of St. Pius X]?

    On November 9th, 2012, in Paris, we heard a colleague ask you: “I am one of those who lost confidence! How many lines of conduct are there in the Society now?” You answered: “It is a serious wound! We underwent serious trials! It will take time!" In face of this elusive answer, another [SSPX] prior then asked you: “Do you dispute your answer to the three bishops?” Your answer was still vague: “Yes, when I read it again, it seems to me that there are a few little errors. But in fact, to help you to understand, know that this letter is not an answer to their letter, but to the difficulties which I had had with each of them separately. I have a lot of respect for Bishop Williamson, even admiration for him, he has bouts of genius in the combat against Vatican II, it is a big loss for the Society and it is happening at the worst moment." But who is responsible for his exclusion? In private, you say many things: “I was at war”… ”Rome lies” — but you have never released the slightest official statement to denounce these supposed lies [of Rome]. Recently, concerning the ultimatum of February 22nd, you officially supported the lie of the Vatican.

    Your language has become endlessly vague. This ambiguous way of expressing yourself is not praiseworthy, as Fr. Calmel [a traditional Dominican priest held in high regard by the Archbishop and the SSPX] wrote: “I always loathed the soft or elusive expressions, which can be pulled in all directions, which each person can have it mean what he wants. And those expressions are even a greater horror to me, when they clothe ecclesiastical authorities. Above all, these expressions appear, to me, to be a direct insult to the One Who said: ‘I am the Truth … You are the light of the world. Let your word be yes if it is yes, no if it is no!’”

    Your Excellency, you and your Assistants have been capable of saying everything and its opposite, without any fear of ridicule. Father Nély [the Second Assistant to Bishop Fellay], in April of 2012, in Toulouse, declared to twelve or so of his colleagues [SSPX priests], that “if the doctrinal relations with Rome failed, it is because our theologians were too closed-up” but he said to one of these theologians: "You could have been more incisive."

    On November 9th, 2012, speaking to us, you, yourself, maintained that: “I am going to make you laugh, but I really think that all four of us bishops, share the same opinions.” Whereas six months before, you had written to them: “Concerning the crucial question of the possibility of surviving, under the conditions of a recognition of the Society by Rome, we do not arrive at the same conclusion as you.” In the same retreat conference at Ecône, you declared: “I confess to you that I don’t think that I went against the [General] Chapter of 2006 by doing what I did.” A short moment after this statement, on the subject of the [General] Chapter of 2012, you said: "If the [General] Chapter treats of something, then it becomes a law which remains in place until the next [General] Chapter.”  When we know that, in March of 2012, without waiting for the next [General] Chapter, you destroyed the law [of the General Chapter] of 2006 (which was “no practical agreement without doctrinal solution”). Se we wonder about the sincerity of the statement.

    In Villepreux, one of your brothers in the episcopate, invited us: “Not to be dramatic. The tragedy would be to give up the Faith. One should not demand a perfection which is not possible in this world. You should not quibble over these questions. It is necessary to see if the essentials are there or not.” It is true—you have not become a Mohammedan (1st commandment); you have not taken a wife (6th commandment); you simply manipulated reality (8th commandment). But are the essentials always there, when the ambiguities concern the combat of the faith? Nobody asks you for a perfection which is not of this world. We can well conceive that we make mistakes when faced with the mystery of iniquity, because even God’s Elect could be deceived—but nobody can accept a double language. Certainly, the Great Apostasy, asforetold by Holy Scripture, can only disturb us. Who can claim to be unharmed by the traps of the devil? But why have you deceived us? To every sin, mercy, of course! But where are the acts which show that there is a conscience, a regret and a reparation of the errors?

    You said in front of the [SSPX] priors of France: “I am tired of arguments over words." Maybe there lies the problem. What stops you from going to take a break at Montgardin and enjoy the joys of a hidden life there? Rome has always used a clear language. Archbishop Lefebvre too. You too—in the past. But today, you maintain a confusion, by wrongfully identifying “the Roman Catholic Church, the eternal Rome” and “the official Church, Modernist and Conciliar Rome.” Yet, on no account, can you change the nature of our combat! If you do not want to fulfill this mission anymore, you have the duty, as well as your assistants, to give up the office and responsibility that the Society entrusted to you.

    Effectually, Fr. Pfluger [the First Assistant to Bishop Fellay] says he personally suffers from the canonical irregularity of the Society. He confided to a colleague, in June of 2012, “to have been shaken by the doctrinal discussions.” At the end of his conference at Saint Joseph des Carmes, he said, in a contemptuous way, to whoever wanted to hear him: “To think that there are still some people who do not understand it is necessary to sign! [an agreement with Rome].” On April 29th, 2012, in Hattersheim, after admitting that “the past events proved that the differences concerning the doctrinal questions cannot be resolved,” he said that he feared “new excommunications.” But how can we be afraid of the excommunication of modernists who are already excommunicated by the Church?

    At Suresnes [the French SSPX HQ], Fr. Nély [the Second Assistant to Bishop Fellay], on the occasion of a meal for benefactors, announced that “the Pope has put an end to the relations with the Society by asking for the recognition of the [New] Mass and the Second Vatican Council” he also added that “Bishop Fellay was on his own ‘little cloud’, and it was impossible to make him come down from it again.” But didn’t Fr. Nély also sign the monstrous letter to three bishops? Was he not “on his own ‘little cloud’” too, when, in Fanjeaux, he declared to the Mother Superior, who was worried about an ultimatum from Rome: “No, rest assured, everything is going well with Rome, their canonists are helping us to prepare the statutes for the prelature.”

    Can you say, in conscience, that you and your Assistants have taken on your responsibilities? After so many contradictory and harmful comments, how can you still pretend to rule? Who harmed the authority of the General Superior, if it wasn’t yourself and your Assistants? How can you claim to speak about justice, after having wronged it? “What truth can come from the mouth of the liar?” (Ecclesiasticus 34:4—“What truth can come from that which is false?”). Who was it that sowed the cockle? Who has been subversive by lying? Who has scandalized the priests and the faithful? Who has mutilated the Society by diminishing its episcopal strength? What can charity be without honor and justice?

    We know that we shall be blamed for not respecting protocol by writing you so publicly. Our answer will then be the one of Father de Foucauld to General Laperrine: “I believed, in entering the religious life, that I would have to above all recommend sweetness and humility; with time, I believe that what is mostly lacking most often, is dignity and [a wholesome] pride.” (Letter of December 6th, 1915). And what's the use of writing to you in private, when we know that a brave and lucid priest had to wait four years before getting a reply from you, and then it was not to read your responses, but your insults. When a District Superior is still waiting for the acknowledgement of receipt of his letter of seventeen pages, sent to the General House, it seems that Menzingen no longer has any other argument than voluntarism: “sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas”—“That’s what I want, that’s how it will be, that’s reason enough!”

    Your Excellency, what we are going through at the moment is obnoxious. Evangelical uprightness has been lost—the “Yes! Yes! No! No!” The [General] Chapter of 2012 has clarified nothing at all of the situation. Father Faure, a [General] Chapter member, recently publicly warned us against “letters and statements of current superiors of the Society these last months.” Another Capitulant [General Chapter member] said to a colleague: “It is necessary to recognize that the [General] Chapter failed. Today it is okay to have a liberated Society [of St. Pius X] inside the Conciliar Church. I was devastated by the level of reflection of some [General] Chapter members.”

    Your interventions and those of your Assistants are troublesome and let us believe that [currently] you have simply taken what is only a strategic retreat.

    At the end of 2011, one of your two Assistants, together with a priest who is in favor of the agreement [with Rome] had tried to estimate the number of priests, in France, who would refuse an agreement with Rome. Their result: seven. Menzingen was reassured. In March of 2012, you said that Mr. Guenois, of Le Figaro [a French daily newspaper], was a very well informed journalist and that his vision of things was correct. Yet, Mr. Guenois wrote: “Whether we want it or not, the pope and Bishop Fellay don’t want a doctrinal, but ecclesial [practical] agreement.”

    In May of 2012, you told the Superiors of the Benedictines, Dominicans and Capuchins: “We know that there will be a division, but we will continue right to the end.” In June, the ecclesial agreement [with Rome] was impossible. Nevertheless, in October of 2012, in the priory of Brussels, diocesan priests who were invited by Fr. Wailliez [SSPX prior of Brussels], manifested to you their desire to see an agreement between Rome and the Society. You reassured them by these words: “Yes, yes, that will happen soon!” That was three months after the [General] Chapter of July [2012].

    Your Excellency, you have the duty in justice to tell the truth, to repair the lies and to retract the errors. Do it, and everything will be back to normal again. You know how André Avellin, in the 16th century, became a great saint after becoming ashamed of a lie, which he had committed out of weakness. We simply want that you become a great saint.

    Your Excellency, we do not want History to remember you as the man that deformed and mutilated the Priestly Society of Saint Pius the X.

    Be assured, Your Excellency, of our total loyalty to Archbishop Lefebvre's work,

    February 28th, 2013

    Signed by thirty-seven priests of the [SSPX] District of France

    37 Priests

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8273/-691
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #76 on: July 13, 2013, 11:07:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

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


    AFD =  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:


    Manila 18 April 2013

    Dear Fr Laisney,


    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:


    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…


    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?”


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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...


    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:


    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.


    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?


    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!).


    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.


    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.


    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).


    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 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”.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    Cf. part one, paragraph eight.


    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 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+

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #77 on: July 14, 2013, 08:00:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Society of St. Pius X and the Diocesan Bishops

    The Recusant

    February - 2013

    One of the essential requirements prior to being canonically regularized by Rome that the leadership of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) had proclaimed for many years is that the work of the Society must be free from the control of the Diocesan Bishops; otherwise, its very survival would be at stake. A Catholic who is faithful to Tradition and understands the gravity of the Church crisis of the last 50 years clearly sees the wisdom of taking this position. However, during the year 2012 the SSPX leadership made a dramatic change regarding such an important matter. It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that this is indeed the case as well as to show some of the absurdities, discrepancies, and ambiguities in the speech of the SSPX leaders. The author of this paper believes the reader will find the evidence compelling that the current SSPX leadership cannot be trusted, regardless of good intentions, and instead must be opposed for the sake of saving the largest organized bastion of Catholic Tradition and many souls who will otherwise be like sheep led to the slaughter of Modernist Rome.

    The Record of Events
    1) “We must absolutely convince our faithful that is no more than a maneuver, 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 20 years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” (One Year after the Consecrations: an Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, July-August 1989 Issue)    

    2) In the August 2001 issue of Communicantes (former Canadian SSPX Magazine), there was published an interview conducted by Fr. de Tanouarn with His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay in which His Excellency spoke of a canonical structure proposed by Rome:    
       “You have no doubt heard talk of this idea of an apostolic administration. The Society of St. Pius X would have become incorporated into an apostolic administration. What does this signify? The apostolic administration ordinarily is a diocesan structure, or quasi diocesan, in a time of crisis, over a given territory. Well! For us this territory would be the entire world. In other words, they offered us a structure that covered the entire world, a kind of personal diocese…”

    Fr. de Tanouarn intervened:
       “Excuse me for interrupting, Your Excellency, you mean a personal prelacy…”

    Bishop Fellay responded (this author’s emphasis in bold):
       “Not at all. The apostolic administration is better than a personal prelacy. In the first place, a personal prelacy is not necessarily governed by a bishop. An apostolic administration, which is quasi diocesan, normally would be. Furthermore, and above all, the action of an apostolic administration is not limited to its members. The Opus Dei, which is the personal prelacy that exists today, is not subject to the local bishop in all that concerns its members, but it could not consider any external action without the consent of the bishop. With the apostolic administration, we avoid this restriction. We would be able to take an autonomous apostolic action without having to ask authorisation from the diocesan bishop, since we would have a veritable diocese, whose distinctive characteristic is that it extends to the entire world. It is very important that such a proposition has been made, because after all, this juridical solution has never happened before, it is ‘sui generis’. Now that it has been established, it can represent for us, from a juridical point of view, a reference, a position of comparison. Especially since it is to the Society of St. Pius X that this possibility has been proposed, which shows just how seriously Rome sees our resistance. It’s not by vainglory that I say that, believe me: symbolically (first of all, it’s not a question of numbers) we represent something very important for Rome, and this also is new.”

    3) In an interview conducted by Brian Mershon of The Remnant and published on February 18, 2009, His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay was posed the following question (my emphasis in bold):
      “Do you foresee any oversight by territorial diocesan bishops once the Society is regularized?”

    His Excellency answered (this author’s emphasis in bold):
      “That would be our death. The situation of the Church is such that once the doctrinal issues have been clarified, we will need our own autonomy in order to survive. This means that we will have to be directly under the authority of the Pope with an exemption. If we look at the history of the Church, we see that every time the Popes wanted to restore the Church, they leaned upon new strength like the Benedictine Cistercians whom the pope allowed to act as best as possible during the crisis, in a status of exemption, in order to overcome the crisis.”

    4) On June 1, 2012 an interview was conducted by Rivarol with His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais. The question was asked by Rivarol:
       “Some believe that the statute of a personal prelature proposed to you will provide sufficient guarantee to you
    concerning all danger of abandoning the combat for the faith.”

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais responded (this author’s emphasis in bold):
      “That is incorrect. According to the project of prelature, we would not be free to create new priories without the permission of the local bishops and, additionally, all our recent foundations would have to be confirmed by these same bishops. It would thus mean subjugating us quite unnecessarily to an overall Modernist

    5) On June 8, 2012, the official international news organ of the Society of St. Pius X published an interview with His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay in which the following question was asked:
      “A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you mentioned in recent statements. Now, in the Code of Canon Law, canon 297 requires not only informing diocesan bishops but obtaining their permission in order to found a work on their territory. Although it is clear that any canonical recognition will preserve our apostolate in its present state, are you inclined to accept the eventuality that future works may be possible only with the permission of the bishop in dioceses where the Society of Saint Pius X is not present today?”

    His Excellency answered (this author’s emphasis in bold):
      “There is a lot of confusion about this question, and it is caused mainly by a misunderstanding of the nature of a
    personal prelature, as well as by a misreading of the normal relation between the local ordinary and the prelature. Add to that the fact that the only example available today of a personal prelature is Opus Dei. However, and let us say this clearly, if a personal prelature were granted to us, our situation would not be the same. In order to understand better what would happen, we must reflect that our status would be much more similar to that of a military ordinariate, because we would have ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful. Thus we would be like a sort of diocese, the jurisdiction of which extends to all its faithful regardless of their territorial situation.

    “All the chapels, churches, priories, schools, and works of the Society and of the affiliated religious Congregations would be recognized with a real autonomy for their ministry.

    “It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? Very probably we will also have the contrary problem, in other words, we will not be able to respond to the requests that will come from the bishops who are friendly to us. I am thinking of one bishop who could ask us to take charge of the formation of future priests in his diocese.

    “In no way would our relations be like those of a religious congregation with a bishop; rather they would be those of one bishop with another bishop, just like with the Ukrainians and the Armenians in the diaspora. And therefore if a difficulty is not resolved, it would go to Rome, and there would then be a Roman intervention to settle the problem.

    “Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false.”

    6) In a statement dated July 14, 2012, the 2012 SSPX General Chapter declared,
      “We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization.”

    7) In a letter dated July 18, 2012 and addressed to the superiors and priests of the SSPX, Fr. Christian Thouvenot, Secretary-General of the SSPX, outlined the conditions for a canonical normalization. Desirable condition #2, which is related to the subject of this paper, is stated as follows:
      “Exemption of houses of The Society of St Pius X in respect of diocesan bishops.”

    8) In a conference given by Fr. Arnaud Rostand, SSPX District Superior of the United States, on October 29, 2012 in Post Falls, Idaho he admitted that under an agreement opening new chapels would require the approval of the diocesan bishop. This was stated in the question and answer period during which a person asked whether giving the diocesan bishops control of where the SSPX can locate hinders the Society’s growth and undermines the claim of the “state of necessity” that the SSPX currently uses to run and open up new chapels without the permission of the local bishops. In other words, the SSPX claims that it can morally open chapels wherever the faithful call and the means exist. The SSPX claims this moral right in the name of the “state of necessity”. However, given that the state of necessity would still exist under an agreement (this was even admitted by Fr. Rostand himself), why would the SSPX want to restrict this moral right to open up chapels, where necessary and where the means exist, by placing this moral right under the canonical control of the local bishops. This seems to be like shooting oneself in the foot. In reply, Fr. Rostand said the following:
      “Will a recognition of the Society make the Society grow and influence the Church more to the point that even to have to ask permission to the other bishops will become over time not a problem; it’s a question of prudence.”

    9) In a conference given by Bishop Bernard Fellay on December 29, 2012 in Toronto, Canada he spoke about the
    canonical offer of a personal prelature. Note that the term “personal prelature” was not used, but we know that it is the canonical structure offered by Rome. Refer to the June 8, 2012 interview in point #4 above.
       “One of the major accusations which is made against me is to pretend that I would accept that we would be under the local bishops. That’s crazy! It’s impossible! We have the example of St. Peter and Christ the King and we see what the bishops do. They (impose?) whatever they want. They’re transforming puppets – these priests which are under them for the apostolate. The only way to be able to continue the apostolate is to have our autonomy, that is, our own jurisdiction. It must be very clear for everybody....the argument to say, “Well you did put this element only in the second part of your conditions with Rome. Why?” Because we have already (got?) it. So it is not necessary that we emphasize (it). Rome, in the project, has already granted that, that is, that we are not under the bishops. That we have our own jurisdiction. That the faithful depend on us. It’s already granted. That’s why we don’t emphasize it so much. We already have it……So just to say, well, but you put in (the) not indispensable (set of conditions). And we already have it; we are not going to insist on it. We have it. But it’s clear that taken in itself I would say it’s number one.”

    An Analysis of the Record of Events
    The numbered points below correspond to those above.

    1) If His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay remained faithful to the memory of Archbishop Lefebvre, he would today be saying the following:
    “We must absolutely convince our faithful that is no more than a maneuver, 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 40 years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.”

    Instead, what he has demonstrated in the past year is a departure from this line of the saintly founder of the society of priests that has handed down Tradition to a generation of Catholics in the aftermath of the Conciliar Revolution. After all, have there been any significant positive changes in Rome and among the Bishops in their attitude towards Tradition? One can easily argue that the situation is actually worse, especially in the wake of Assisi III, where the Holy Father committed, objectively speaking, a public mortal sin against the First Commandment. Where was the outcry from the Bishops who are supposed to defend the Faith? Even more pathetic, where was the outcry from the SSPX leadership?

    2) Note how in 2001 His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay undermines the adequacy of a Personal Prelature as the canonical structure for the Society of St. Pius X, mainly in that this structure is not completely free from the influence and control of the Diocesan Bishop. Would this freedom not be essential for the growth and preservation of Tradition given the crisis in the Church? It seems that His Excellency believed so back in 2001.

    3) The position of His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay that the Society of St. Pius X needed to be free from the control of the Diocesan Bishops, if it was to be canonical regularized, was still alive and well in 2009. Here his position seems to have strengthened since 2001. The canonical structure would not only need to be free of the control of the Diocesan Bishops, but it would also need to be directly under the authority of the Pope. Otherwise, it would spell the Society’s death! Note also that His Excellency indicates that even this unique canonical structure would be considered “once the doctrinal issues have been clarified”.

    4) In 2012 (or perhaps even earlier), we learn that Rome has proposed a personal prelature to the Society of St. Pius X. It is interesting to note that in the so called “leaning towards Tradition” era of Pope Benedict XVI, the canonical structure proposed for the Society is the one that incorporates influence from the Diocesan Bishops and not the freedom from these same Bishops as in the apostolic administration proposed to the Society under the papacy of John Paul II in 2001. The credit rating has been downgraded! His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais admits that the canonical structure of a personal prelature does not provide a sufficient guarantee in the defence of the Faith.

    5) In this interview, His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay tries to explain the nature of a personal prelature and that despite its weaknesses, at least in respect to its application to Opus Dei, the situation of the Society of St. Pius X would be different. His Excellency states that Rome had been informed that requiring permission from the Diocesan Bishops to found a work would be problematic for the Society and that “Rome was still working on it”.

    Note how in this interview the attitude of His Excellency has changed. He is not firm in his demand of a canonical structure that would provide freedom from the Diocesan Bishops. The idea of an apostolic administration or some similar structure is no longer the emphasis. He now seems willing to work within or at least with the diocesan authorities. Some will defend this change in attitude by affirming that at this point in time (June 8, 2012) His Excellency was under the impression that Rome was willing to accept the Society of St. Pius X without its needing to accept Vatican II and the New Rite of Mass. Even if this was Rome’s real stance, would Rome be able to demand the same stance from the Diocesan Bishops and consequently permit the Society’s work to establish itself or grow within their dioceses? One can very much doubt it. Also note that Bishop Fellay’s stated conception of what Rome was offering is significantly different than that of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. At that time, many of us were left wondering who was right and who was wrong.

    6) The 2012 SSPX General Chapter Statement announces that the necessary conditions for a canonical regularization have been determined. However, the Statement itself does not outline these conditions.

    7) In a letter leaked out to the public shortly after the General Chapter Statement, the SSPX faithful learn that the exemption of the houses of the Society of St. Pius X from the control of the Diocesan Bishops is listed only as a “desirable” condition! What a shock! The SSPX leadership went from demanding complete freedom from the Diocesan Bishops (and even this being only possible after the resolution of the doctrinal differences) to simply desiring to be free from the Diocesan Bishops (and this even though the doctrinal differences were said to be insurmountable after almost two years of discussions after which each side admitted were a failure in their attempts to convince the other side)! Talk about a formidable collapse in as little as three years!

    8) In this October 2012 conference, Fr. Rostand tried to defend the Society of St. Pius X leadership’s openness to permitting its work to be controlled by the Diocesan Bishops by declaring it to be a matter of prudence:
    “Will a recognition of the Society make the Society grow and influence the Church more to the point that even to have to ask permission to the other bishops will become over time not a problem; it’s a question of prudence.”

    Firstly, this author asks Fr. Rostand, “Please, Father, tell us what has changed in Rome and/or among the Diocesan Bishops in a few short years for the SSPX leadership to consider this question to become one of prudence from one of just plain common sense?” By the time of the 2012 General Chapter, His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay had already known (i.e., as early as June 30, 2012 to prior to the commencement of the General Chapter) that the Pope himself expressly demanded acceptance to Vatican II and the New Rite of Mass as a pre-condition for canonical regularization. Hence, it was back to square one by the time of the General Chapter, which nonetheless proceeded to conclude that an exemption of the houses of the Society from the control of the Diocesan Bishops was a mere desirable. And if one defends this decision of the General Chapter by stating that the three essential conditions determined at the same Chapter provide the framework in which this desirable condition can only be considered as non-essential, then this author argues that the Society leadership had previously maintained the necessity of being free from the Diocesan Bishops even while it demanded other much stronger essential conditions (e.g., no practical agreement prior to a doctrinal agreement as evidenced by the 2006 SSPX General Chapter Declaration and by Bishop Fellay himself in the February 2009 Remnant interview) than those essential conditions determined at the 2012 General Chapter. Furthermore, as this author mentioned above, there is no guarantee that Rome would be able to get the Diocesan Bishops to agree with whatever it decides (e.g., conceding to the three essential conditions of the 2012 SSPX General Chapter and not overturning this decision at a later date). Therefore, no matter how one slices it, the General Chapter cannot justify changing this formerly essential condition (i.e., exemption of the houses of the Society from the control of the Diocesan Bishops) to one of mere wishful thinking…..Something has gone rotten in the state of Denmark!

    Secondly, Fr. Rostand, this author certainly agrees with your claim that the state of necessity would still continue to objectively exist even after the canonical regularization of the Society, given the current state of the Church.
    However, this author cannot help but conclude that you are contradicting yourself from a subjective point of view. If you answer in the affirmative to your own question, then you would be admitting that the current situation in the Church is such that you believe the gains will outweigh the losses. For every one Bishop that would say “no” to the work of the Society, there would be at least two Bishops that would say “yes”, for example. How then could you simultaneously claim the existence of the state of necessity when this existence, by its very nature, demands that the losses outweigh the gains? You could not.

    9) In this December 2012 conference, His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay asserts, as in former times, that it would be crazy for the Society of St. Pius X to place itself under the authority of the Diocesan Bishops like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King. With this assertion, one gets the impression that Bishop Fellay is contradicting what Fr. Rostand said in his October 2012 conference. However, this is not the case as we shall see.

    Bishop Fellay continues his conference by stating that the Society requires its own autonomy, that is, jurisdiction for itself and over the faithful who depend on the Society. His Excellency then relates the issue of this autonomy to the desirable condition of the houses of the Society being exempt from the control of the Diocesan Bishops. He claims that since Rome had already granted the Society`s autonomy (which must have been before the 2012 General Chapter) from the Diocesan Bishops, the General Chapter decided to place the exemption condition only as a desirable. When one listens to this part of the conference via recorded audio, the passion by which it is delivered to the audience gives the impression that the Society obtained from Rome everything it wanted from a canonical standpoint, even perhaps the structure of an apostolic administration universal in scope. This leaves the audience with a feeling of relief. However, if one takes a closer look at the transcript of this conference and places it in the context of what has actually happened in the past year or so, a different story emerges.

    Firstly, why would the General Chapter place the exemption condition only as a desirable even if Rome had granted it complete freedom from the Diocesan Bishops prior to the commencement of the same General Chapter? Knowing that Rome has had difficulty keeping its promises and that it had previously given Bishop Fellay mixed messages, would not the safest thing be to place the exemption condition as one of the necessary conditions? One could argue that doing this would have created tension on Rome’s side due to suspicion that the Society does not trust it. Well, even if this argument could be legitimately defended, the counter-argument could be that the Society should not then have mentioned the exemption condition at all because by placing it as a desirable, Rome would reasonably conclude that the exemption condition is no longer important. Any reasonable person would conclude the same. Bishop Fellay’s explanation on this point just does not make sense.

    Secondly, we know that Bishop Fellay was still speaking about a personal prelature at this point in time as Rome had tabled no other canonical structure. The question is, then, how could the canonical nature of a personal prelature evolve into something substantially different and still be called a personal prelature? The answer is that it did not evolve; rather, we shall see that Bishop Fellay was not entirely clear and accurate in his statements. Whether this was intentional or not on his part is not for this author to judge. In regards to Bishop Fellay’s clarity, let us lay out the following points regarding the canonical nature of a personal prelature (taken from Wikipedia’s page called “Personal Prelature”):

         1. A personal prelature is a canonical structure conceived during the Second Vatican Council and later enacted into law
             by Pope Paul VI (this is enough to make one weary of it).
         2. A personal prelature is described by Canons 294 to 297 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
         3. A personal prelature is an ordinary jurisdictional structure of the Catholic Church.
         4. A personal prelature is not linked to a territory, but over persons wherever they happen to be.
         5. A personal prelature is not a particular church as is a diocese.
         6. A personal prelature includes clergy and lay members which carry out specific pastoral activities.
         7. Lay members being under the jurisdiction of the prelate does not impede their being also under the authority of the
             Diocesan Bishop.

    The key point here is that a personal prelature may include lay members. However, these lay members work with the personal prelature towards the specific pastoral end for which the personal prelature was established.

    Canon 296: Lay persons can dedicate themselves to the apostolic works of a personal prelature by agreements entered into with the prelature. The statutes, however, are to determine suitably the manner of this organic cooperation and the principal duties and rights connected to it.

    Canon 297: The statutes likewise are to define the relations of the personal prelature with the local ordinaries in whose particular churches the prelature itself exercises or desires to exercise its pastoral or missionary works, with the previous consent of the diocesan bishop.

    We can get further understanding about a personal prelature in this regard by looking at the only personal prelature that exists to date, Opus Dei. On its web page, we read:
       "Both the personal prelatures and the dioceses are communities of the faithful of an hierarchical nature. The dioceses are particular Churches and include all the faithful in a specific territory. The personal prelatures live and act within one or various dioceses, with which they cooperate by fulfilling their specific ecclesial purpose, in a complementary relationship."

    On its web page, we read:

       "John Paul II, when speaking about the Prelature of Opus Dei, stressed: "First of all, I wish to emphasize that the membership of the lay faithful in their own particular Churches and in the Prelature, into which they are incorporated, enables the special mission of the Prelature to converge with the evangelizing efforts of each particular Church, as envisaged by the Second Vatican Council in desiring the figure of personal prelatures"

    Finally on its web page, we read:
       "One must also take into account that this prelature, unlike what might happen in the future in others, does not carry out certain functions of ordinary pastoral care (baptisms, confirmations, marriages, funerals, etc.)."

    After reading all this, it is clear that Bishop Fellay was correct in that the personal prelature offered by Rome does allow for the Society’s own autonomy and even jurisdiction over the faithful. However, what is not entirely clear is whether this jurisdiction over the faithful incorporates ordinary pastoral care, which would be the most important aspect. It is true that Bishop Fellay has claimed on previous occasions that the faithful would not see any difference regarding their pastoral care if a canonical regularization was to occur. However, it is reasonable to believe that Rome would not grant the Society jurisdiction over the faithful in all pastoral matters within every diocese the Society was located because this degree of authority over the faithful would be more akin to a universal apostolicadministration, that is, a canonical structure which currently does not even exist in law. Furthermore, what is notclear is what would be the Society’s special pastoral activities and goals and how would these harmoniously converge with those of the dioceses in which the Society would exist.

    In regards to Bishop Fellay’s accuracy, he relates his statements on autonomy and jurisdiction over the faithful to the exemption condition of the General Chapter. However, this exemption condition does not directly deal with these matters. Instead, the exemption condition concerns whether the Society’s work would even be permitted to exist with a diocese. A personal prelature can be autonomous in the sense that it does not directly report to the Diocesan Bishop. In fact, it directly reports to the Congregation for Bishops in Rome. A personal prelature can also have jurisdiction over the faithful as described above. However, if a Diocesan Bishop forbids the personal prelature’s existence within his diocese in the first place, how can it possibly be of help to those faithful in that diocese starving for Catholic Tradition?

    The points above demonstrate that Bishop Fellay’s statements in his December 2012 conference are not as sensible and reassuring as they were made out to be. This author most welcomes clarifications and further details.

    Many priests and faithful alike were upset to see the dramatic change in the Society of St. Pius X leadership’s position in regards to its relation with the Diocesan Bishops, as officially declared at the 2012 SSPX General Chapter. In order to alleviate their concerns, the Society leadership has been working hard over the last several months in trying to justify its newly found position. Unfortunately, many of the same priests and faithful have been lulled back to sleep by the comforting words offered by Bishop Fellay and other Society superiors appointed by his own hand. Regardless, it does not change the fact that at the time of this writing (first week of February 2013), there has been no retraction on the part of the Society’s leadership of a severe slackening on a principle that, if it was to be executed by means of a canonical regularization, would gravely endanger the Faith of hundreds of thousands of Catholics and prevent the same Faith from reaching millions more.

    It is the hope of this author that this paper has sufficiently demonstrated to the reader that there has indeed been a dramatic change in the wrong direction. Consequently, we cannot continue to blindly trust the current SSPX leadership to guide the large majority of Traditional Catholics into 2013 and beyond; rather, with charity and without judging the interior of those who have defended this perilous stance, it is time for more priests and faithful to help build up again the fortress of Catholic Tradition before the enemy takes up permanent residence. For the Reign of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts!

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8273/-691
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #78 on: July 19, 2013, 03:48:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Source

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

    by Fr. Francois Chazal


    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


    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8273/-691
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #79 on: July 31, 2013, 10:52:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • delete please
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8273/-691
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #80 on: August 03, 2013, 02:18:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    Source  (TheRecusant)

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


    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8273/-691
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #81 on: August 03, 2013, 02:24:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I just posted this, above, and then the post was not there. I left
    this thread and came back, and the post was not there.  So
    I posted it again, and then the first post was there after all.  

    There is something amiss with the platform that causes this
    double posting problem to happen.  It was nothing I did that
    was different, and I've made over 4,000 posts here like this
    so I know what I'm talking about - it's not my imagination.  

    It is an INTERMITTENT problem, which has happened to me
    about 3 or 4 times previously, before this time.

    The CI system did not display my first post until I posted it
    a second time, then suddenly the first post was displayed
    along with the second one, a double post.  

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8273/-691
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #82 on: August 22, 2013, 08:06:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .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...”; “ 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

    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

    {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.
    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

    {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
    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

    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}

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8273/-691
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #83 on: August 22, 2013, 07:00:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    The letter from Fr. Violette concerning Fr. Paul Aulagnier isn't
    literally a Resistance Letter, but it reads just like one, provided
    the names are changed.  

    Here are a few posts concerning it, and a link to the thread
    where you can read the letter itself:


    Quote from: denniswhiting
    Christian Order, May 2012 has an article "Rome and the SSPX" which is worth reading. Also an Editorial mentioning Fr Paul Aulagnier, who was expelled from the SSPX in 2003 for promoting what Bp Fellay is now doing. Fr Aulagnier is described as "the first priest ordained for the Society and the priest closest to Archbishop Lefebvre." Even if we do not agree, I think it is important that we look more closely about what good traditional Catholics outside the Society are saying about us.

    Quote from: Unbrandable
    They condemn themselves by their own words!

    Quote from: parentsfortruth
    "Well written. Just change the names and this could be a resistance letter." --Mr. PFT

    Quote from: Unbrandable
    In his sermon of August 4th, 2013, Father Girouard comments on Father Violette's letter.

    Here is the link below:

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline MaterDominici

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 5227
    • Reputation: +3916/-94
    • Gender: Female
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #84 on: September 22, 2013, 12:47:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Open Appeal to the Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X, By Fr. David Hewko


    September 21, 2013
    Feast of St. Matthew


    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!


    Immaculate Heart of Mary, hasten Thine hour of Victory!

    Sincerely in Christ the King,

    Fr. David Hewko
    "I think that Catholicism, that's as sane as people can get."  - Jordan Peterson

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #85 on: October 05, 2013, 10:45:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Reflections About the Roman Proposal
    Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta

    "To move towards a practical agreement would be to deny our word and our commitments to our priests, our faithful, and Rome in front of everyone.  

    This would have hugely negative consequences as intra and ad extra.  

    There is no change in the doctrinal point of view from Rome that would justify ours.

    On the contrary, the discussions have shown that they will not accept anything in our criticisms.

    It would be absurd for us to go in the direction of a practical agreement after the result of the discussions and findings...

    Such an approach would show a serious diplomatic weakness on the part of the Fraternity, and indeed more than diplomatic.

    It would be a lack of consistency, honesty, and firmness, which would have effects like loss of credibility and [the] moral authority we enjoy.

    The mere fact of going down this path will lead us to mistrust and division.

    Many superiors and priests have a problem of conscience and will oppose it.

    Authority and the very principle of authority will be questioned and undermined...

    Accordingly, this is not the time to change the decision of the Chapter of 2006 (no practical agreement without resolving the doctrinal issues), and it is neither right nor prudent to embark on preparing minds otherwise, before we ourselves have the conviction, consensus, and the resolution to change...

    For the good of the Society and Tradition, this 'Pandora's Box' must be closed as quickly as possible, to avoid the discredit and demolition of authority, the disputes, dissensions and divisions, perhaps with no return."

    -Quoted in Fr. Rioult's "The Impossible Reconciliation," (English language edition), p. 32.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #86 on: October 06, 2013, 08:40:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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."

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8273/-691
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #87 on: October 31, 2013, 06:10:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .


    Sermon of September 8th, 2013

    Aldergrove, BC.


    By Rev. Fr. P. Girouard, Old SSPX


    So we will not have really a sermon as such. Today will be more some announcements, prolonged announcements, and commentaries, because something happened this week. What happened was that maybe 10 days ago, or so, I got an e-mail from Father Gerspacher saying that... (Father Gerspacher is the Prior of Christ the King in Langley, as you know); ...and he said that they had collected some mail. So those who have a problem hearing, you can come closer.

    I see in the back that they are doing like this. (Father cups his hand behind his ear) No? No. Okay.

    So, telling me that there was mail that arrived for me, through these last six-months, and that I should come and collect the mail; which was a little bit strange, because I had made an automatic change with Canada Post, but there was maybe a week or ten days before it took place, and so yes, I understood maybe some old mail, some mail from March must still be there. And so I answered and I said: "Well I will see then what I can do, when I will be back to Langley". Because the great long weekend was last week. And I normally do my business on Monday in Langley, and so I could not do it because everything was closed last Monday, so I had to go on Tuesday. And Tuesday was the Feast of Saint Pius X.


    And I phoned the Priory on Tuesday, and said: "Well that's when I'm doing my errands, today, and I could stop by and pick up my mail." And Father Gerspacher was not there, but Father Rusak was there, He was very nice and said: "Sure Father, come." And so I went there and, you know, he was very nice and me too. (I can be nice, you know...). And we chatted a little bit, and so forth and so on; and there was a nice picture of Benedict XVI in his office with the blessing, a blessing of some sort on the picture. And then I saw on the wall this picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which I was looking for everywhere in the storage room that I have, and could not find it. And finally the fact is, I guess, the people in charge of my moving didn't pick it up. And so I said: "Well this is my picture..." Well he said: "You should take it." And I did. It's actually a gift for my first Mass I said after my ordination in Kansas City, given from the Kansas City faithful. And he said: "But before you leave, I have another piece of mail for you, and you have to sign for it." And it was a letter from Toronto, from Father Wegner.


    And so this is actually my first Canonical Monition. The seal of the Society and that logo here and stuff, so I will read it to you. I was wondering when this would come. I thought they forgot about me or something. Apparently they didn't. So: “St. Césaire. Topic: The First Canonical Monition to the Reverend Patrick Girouard. Dear Father Girouard (I am still dear to them!) on March 13, 2013 I phoned you in order to announce your transfer from Langley to St. Césaire, giving you a delay of 15 days, in order to allow you reasonable time to make all the necessary arrangements. (Okay so March 13th he phoned me and gave me 15 days, so I had until March 28. That's true. He gave me until March 28th on that day. What he fails to mention in the letter, is that the next day he sent me an e-mail, and he cut it short by 4 days. So he said: "Well I made a mistake, it should not be the 28th it should be the 24th that you have to be in St. Césaire." Now in this letter, here, he doesn't mention that. And... But even if it would have been fifteen days, you know, it's very difficult to pack all of your things and move, with your car and everything, for 4,500 km (2,812 miles) in so short a time, and through the mountains in winter and everything, so it was a bit unrealistic.)


    As of today you have verbally refused your assignment and you have opened your own chapel, 'St. Joseph Defender of the Church' in Aldergrove, and you have started your own website. ( I hope they are looking at the website!) Having in mind that the members of the Society are obliged to reside in a house of the Institute, to observe the common life, and not to absent themselves without the permission of their Superiors. (And then all the numbers of Canon Law and all that). Having in mind that your public actions and declarations have caused a great scandal among the faithful, and that they constitute both a grave neglect of your obligations as member of the Society, and a stubborn disobedience to a legitimate order. (Yes, I am stubborn, it's true, in my disobedience, but the order was not legitimate. Anyways...) All offenses punishable with dismissal from the Society according to the law of the Church (Canons, blah, blah, blah), and according to the particular law of our Institute, (statute number blah blah), which considers as well as a supplementary offence the publication of a disagreement with the authority. (So in 2006 they made that rule that if you make a public disagreement with the authority this should not happen – like: You are disobedient).


    Consequently, you place me in the sad obligation of issuing, with the consent of the Superior General (that means he has heard of me by now...) and his counsel, and after consultation with my own counsel (which I never knew existed before!), a first Canonical Monition, according to Canon (blah blah) commanding you, under penalty of dismissal from the Society of St. Pius X, to return to the obedience to your legitimate superiors by taking your post in St. Césaire without further delay. If you fail to comply within 15 days of receipt of this first Canonical Monition, I will issue a second Canonical Monition. If you fail to comply again, after 15 days the Superior General will institute proceedings leading to your dismissal from our Society for stubborn disobedience to legitimate orders in a grave matter, and for grave scandal, resulting from culpable behavior. You have the right to defend yourself, including a representation by a canonical counselor of your choice. (We don't have a canonical counselor in Canada, and so I don't know...). You have the right as well to present your defense directly to the Superior General in person or in writing. All your communications and responses will be given due consideration.


    Given at Toronto, August 16, 2013. Father Freddy Mery, Notary; and Father Jurgen Wegner, Society of St. Pius X.”


    So this is official, with the nice imprinted and engraved seal. So I will have it laminated and put on the wall of my room and I will kiss it every day! Okay? Because this is a certificate! A certificate proving that I have not changed, and that I am against the changes of the Society. They are condemning me because I have refused the grave scandal of Bishop Fellay: Of the April 15th Declaration of last year, when he said that the New Mass was legitimately promulgated. We know that something cannot be legitimately promulgated unless it is legitimate in itself. So when Bishop Fellay writes that the New Mass has been legitimately promulgated, that implies that the New Mass is legitimate. First big mistake! First big lie!


    And then he says that he recognizes the New Code of Canon Law. New Code of Canon Law that we know Archbishop Lefebvre said was very bad! Because it has instituted all the reforms, and all the new mentality, and all the principles of Vatican II, into law. Vatican II is a series of docuмents and declarations and so forth and so on. But the New Code of Canon Law takes all of these new principles: of religious liberty, ecuмenism, collegiality, and the big mistake of the "subsistit in". As you know, instead of saying, like we used to say: That the Church established by Christ, the Church of Christ, IS the Catholic Church; Vatican II, and the New Code of Canon Law, say that it only SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church. And so there are other churches that are members of the Church of Christ. That is one of the big mistakes of Vatican II. Now all of this is in the New Code of Canon Law.


    So the Code of Canon Law defines and tells what the life of the members of the Catholic Church will be in practice, and an example of one of the very bad canons and laws of this New Code of Canon Law is canon 844. Which derives itself from that new definition of the Church: That the Church of Christ only "subsists in” the Catholic Church. It is not any more identified completely with the Catholic Church. In other words, there's others that can be part of a broader Church. Now, a result of this into law is that canon, that says that now Catholics can receive sacraments from non-Catholics, and we can give them to non-Catholics as well; which was always forbidden before. Under pain of grave sin. That's only one example.


    Another example is about the Priesthood. I told you before, that the Archbishop of Winnipeg says that there is no difference, any difference whatsoever, between the clergy and the laity. That we all have been baptized, and that we all participate in that Royal Priesthood of Baptism. And I told you that therefore the ordinations made by this bishop are, at the least, doubtful, because it is doubtful to know whether he would have the intention of giving some powers into which he does not believe. If you don't believe in the special powers of the priesthood, in the priestly character of the ordination, how can you want to give it? So, now that principle of Bishop Weisgerber in Winnipeg,* where does he take it from? He takes it from Vatican II, and he takes it from the New Code of Canon Law. It's not as explicit as what he thinks, but what he thinks is a logical consequence of those principles of Vatican II. That they call the Church now the "People of God" and the emphasis is put on baptism. And so that new Code of Canon Law is very bad, and yet Bishop Fellay says he accepts that New Code.


    Another thing he wrote to Rome in April (2012), in the same docuмent, was that the Council Vatican II renders explicit elements of Tradition that were only contained implicitly before. In other words, Vatican II came and revealed to us some elements of the Revelation, of Tradition, that we were not aware of before Vatican II. He doesn't say which elements they are, and so you are free to think about anything: Maybe it's that new "People of God" thing; maybe is that "subsistit in" error. But we know it cannot be true! We know this Council is bad. We know that those who made this Council, all the modernist priests, and I gave you so many quotes last year, like Father Congar, and Father Ratzinger, even when he was just a Father, they all said that Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church. Vatican II applies the principles of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. It puts these principles, these Anti-Christian principles, into the Catholic Church with Vatican II. And Bishop Fellay says Vatican II explains, renders explicit, and renders obvious, elements of Tradition, which were hidden. This is our Superior General!


    And then [he] and 39 other members, a few weeks after that, a couple of months after that, they signed the Declaration of the General Chapter -- which opened the door to an agreement with Rome, without asking for the conversion of Rome anymore. It was always, since 1988, after Archbishop Lefebvre realized, in his own words (you can find that in the French magazine 'Fideliter' of the Fall of 1988 issue 69 and issue 70), Archbishop Lefebvre himself said: “If we would have gone along with what I had signed in May, it was Operation ѕυιcιdє." He realized, after the signature, that he had gone too far! And he said: The condition now before we start any negotiations - let alone sign an agreement - before to start to negotiate, he said: Conversion of Rome! And in practice he said: The Pope will have to prove to me that he agrees with all the docuмents of Leo XIII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Pius XII and all that. We cannot discuss with them unless they go back to that traditional doctrine. And the words he used, he said: "It would be a dialogue of the deaf”. A dialogue of two people who can't hear each other. Because we want to uphold Tradition, we want to uphold the Kingdom of Christ in society, and they want to uphold democracy, and they want to uphold the liberty for all religions.


    But now Bishop Fellay agrees to sign, not only discuss, but to sign, even if Rome doesn't change. He agrees to put ourselves under the rule of these modernists. We just have to continue, but he doesn't understand. I don't know why, nobody knows why, but he has that kind of a fever for an agreement with Rome. And the General Chapter agrees with him. And these docuмents have not changed. These docuмents are still official, and the letter of last June, of the three Bishops, only reinforces the same thing. When you read it the first time it sounds pretty good. When you read it the second time you find out flaws, and the third time you find out even more. So now they are not even talking anymore about the necessity of an agreement. They agree that Rome could just say: "Okay you're fine! We don't need to sign anything. We'll just declare that you're okay." So it could be done, just like that! (Father snaps his fingers).


    And it is an illusion to think that they will fight. They say: Yes we have that condition, that we asked the permission to fight you. What does Rome care? They don't care about it! They can give it two hundred times that permission! Because they know that once we are inside, once we have all these nice... Personal Prelature, and all these nice things that they will give to us, we will not dare to do anything that could cause them to remove it from us. Because once we accept these things in principle, once we accept to go back, in the eyes of the world, we will be approving all the rest that they do. If you accept to enter a house, you know, where bad things are happening, and you are yourself, suppose, a policeman or something and you accept to live there. Even if you sign a letter to say there are bad things happening in this house! “I don't agree with these things happening in this house!” It doesn't matter: You live there! Therefore your practical action contradicts whatever word you say or letter you sign. And so they want to be recognized, they want to have this structure, and they will fear to lose it.


    And, therefore, they will tone down everything wrong that Rome and the Pope do, and they will extoll, and they will praise to high heaven, everything, the little things good that they can do. In other words, they will adopt the same attitude that the Fraternity of St. Peter has adopted, and all the other communities Ecclesia Dei: Tone down the bad things, lift up and extoll the good things that happen in Rome. Because they want to justify their own compromise with Rome. They want to show to their faithful: "You know, finally, Rome is not that bad. We can work with them. We can change them from the inside." But they will be silenced. And if we look at the Society, they already have changed!


    The Society is now doing exactly the same process of saying something good about the Pope and toning down the bad things. So, for instance, last January, Pope Benedict XVI went to New York, and on January 1st he made a big declaration. There was couple of good things. He said he was against abortion, and he said he was for the family. That's good. I don't disagree with that. But then he said he was for religious liberty, and religious liberty is that every religion should be placed under common law. On the same level. They should all receive the same liberties. They should all be equal. Now this is an error that goes straight away against the Encyclical, "Quas Primas" of Pius XI which defines that Christ must reign, not only in the individual, but also in society. That it is the duty of society to promote the reign of Christ the King. And that governments have the duty to help Christ reign in Society, with their laws. That is the doctrine of the Church. The principle of religious liberty goes straight away against that doctrine. It is a heresy!


    And we have Pope Benedict XVI reaffirming in detail, in that conference, of January 1st this year, that same religious liberty, what it is, and that it is good, and that it is the goal of the Church! Now you go to DICI, the official website of the Society, and they talk about that sermon of the Pope. But what they say is: The Pope made a good sermon! He says he was against abortion. He says he was for the family. Good for the Pope! Nothing about what he said on religious liberty. Nothing! And so you see then, that comes from DICI. That comes from our own Society of St. Pius X's official website.


    Same thing also: If you want to know really what's going on with Pope Francis, you cannot go to DICI anymore. You will not learn a thing. You have to go to other websites. For instance, you will never find a picture on DICI, or a video on DICI, where the Pope carries the beach ball when he came back from Brazil, from the World Youth Day... The Pope carrying the beach ball, and putting the beach ball on the main altar of St. Mary Major. You will never see that on DICI. You will never see Bishop Fellay, you know, enraged about all this. And he should be enraged! You don't do that! A cathedral is not a beach! And you've seen also these... I sent you the links to some videos about the bishops; 300 bishops dancing, with their cassocks on, being filmed and dancing you know, the day before the mass, and during mass, even with their miters on, and even with the chasuble on. During the Mass of the Pope (on July 28th)! I won't imitate them, because I don't want to start doing the same mistake that they do. But you will not see that on DICI.


    You will not see either, in The Angelus or on DICI, the pictures of the people who distributed communion during the Pope's Mass, in Rio, Brazil. Pictures I sent to you just a couple of weeks ago, in August. I am telling you these things! The Resistance is telling you these things! But not the Society. So you could see these people, basically teenagers, young women mostly, in tight outfits, in pants, and leotards (you call them) and with a t-shirt of World Youth Day, and then one of them had a big plastic bowl full of hosts, which were supposed to be consecrated. I hope it was invalid. But it's supposed to be consecrated. A big bowl like this, and she came and then they have plastic cups, like coffee cups, you know, and they would scoop the hosts in their plastic cups, and they would go give communion to the people. At the Mass of the Pope of the Catholic Church, my dear friends!


    And Bishop Fellay says: Things are changing! They are becoming more traditional. Youth don't like Vatican II. They don't know Vatican II anymore. They don't like it. They like the traditional Mass! Well, go and have a look at the three million people, on the beach, at the Mass of the Pope. At that big hoola boola orgy. Okay? We cannot call that a Mass: Three and half million people, dressed like... Ahh! And singing Rock and Roll and what not!


    Where is Bishop Fellay? I am trying to hear him! Maybe I can? (Father cups his hands behind his ears) Can I hear Bishop Fellay? Talking against this? Unfortunately not. Maybe I need to have a little implant in my ear. Have you heard him? Did you read anything against these things? No? Well, me neither! Now we have a new Society! That's what it means. The chiefs, the Superiors, have changed the Society!


    And I have refused, and I am stubborn in my refusal and, yes, I am stubborn in my disobedience to follow that change. And one day, if I am saved, that will be because of that stubborn disobedience. Because I have spoken out. Because I have told you the truth. And if you are saved, that will be because of the same reason. Because you stood up for your convictions, and because you gave an example to all the world of Tradition, that it is possible to stand up, and it is possible to DO something, and it is possible to have a parish of the Resistance! And why do we call it Resistance? In fact we should say: A parish of the Society! Of the real SSPX! Of the old SSPX that has not changed!


    So, right now, they are threatening to expel me from the New SSPX! It doesn't scare me! Because I have never belonged to that New SSPX. From day one, I refused that New SSPX! I remain in my old SSPX. And so this is why, well, this is a bit of news, and it is good to recapitulate a bit what happened, and let us pray that I get the next one, and I get the final one as soon as possible; that I can have a nice wall with all these nice docuмents that will tell me: Well! That's good! You are not part of the New SSPX!


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


    * NOTA BENE: I will soon publish a docuмent showing where, in the Vatican II docuмents, Archbishop Weisgerber found the source of his error mentioned above.

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #88 on: December 11, 2013, 09:42:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Branding and Crusade (10 Dec 2013)


    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


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #89 on: December 11, 2013, 09:47:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Recusant Responds to Fr. Le Roux's November, 2013 Letter to Friends and Benefactors:

    Open Letter to Fr. Yves Le Roux

     Regarding your 11-10-13 letter: "Subversion or Tradition?"

    An Anonymous letter from the Catholics at

    Dear Fr. le Roux,

    We read carefully your November 10, 2013 letter “Subversion or Tradition?”. We appreciate your condemnation of revolution and upholding the principle of the proper exercise of authority (as distinguished from the abuse of authority).

    We appreciate the fact that you carefully distinguish opposition to liberalism, from rebellion against authority as such. You correctly say: “when the authority in charge ceases to be faithful to its role of guardian of the common good, it falls to the defenders of Tradition to remind authority of its role and to do this even publicly”.

    By this principle, you correctly defend Archbishop Lefebvre (and all who oppose the conciliar revolution) when he/they publicly warned the faithful against liberalism and against the use of religious authority to promote liberalism.

    Based on the correct understanding of authority, the Vatican was clearly wrong to object to Archbishop Lefebvre publicly resisting Vatican statements and actions, because the truth is/was on his side. Likewise, you can have no objection to anyone acting similarly, in the case of liberalism creeping into the SSPX.

    You lament the “distrust of authority” in “the ranks of defenders of the tradition of the Church”. But based on your own principle, this is not the crux of the problem. Just as the dispute between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, correctly understood, was who speaks the truth, likewise, the correct focus of the dispute between the current SSPX leadership and those resisting, is who speaks the truth, not whether your authority is trusted.

    Fr. Rostand has a similarly wrong focus regarding the crisis in the Church (and in the SSPX). He says that it is a “given that the crisis came from the collapse of Church authority”. June 2013 Regina Coeli Report. The truth is that the crisis is primarily and fundamentally an attack on the truth through abuse of authority.

    So when you attack those who resist the current SSPX’s liberalism, you resort to name-calling. You call them “subversive” (for the same reason that the Vatican would have called Archbishop Lefebvre “subversive”). You say that the current SSPX’s liberalism is “non-existent and never proven”. Why don’t you address the the countless specific examples given by those resisting the current SSPX liberalism? For example, there is an open letter to your subordinate, Fr. Daniel Themann, which is available on, on, and We challenge you to specifically identify a single error in this 41-page open letter. We don’t think you can. Focus explicitly on the specific points made! The dispute concerns the truth, not the lack of trust for Bishop Fellay’s authority!

    You assert that persons resisting the current SSPX liberalism only give unsupported “opinions”. Notice that all of the liberalism analyzed in the Open Letter to Fr. Daniel Themann, came from cited SSPX sources. Those who expose SSPX liberalism need only the material which the current SSPX posts on its own websites!

    So rather than complain about lack of trust for authority (as the Vatican complained, in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre), focus on the truth of the specific arguments and evidence raised by those resisting the current SSPX’s liberalism. See, e.g., the Open Letter to Fr. Daniel Themann. Resisting the current liberalism is (as you say in your 11-10-13 letter) “far from being a knee-jerk reaction to authority, [but instead] is a service to and defense of authority. The opposition is only apparent, due to dramatic circuмstances when those who have received authority from God are themselves influenced by revolutionary principles.”

    We, also, want the road “of quiet dependence … [and] humble submission to the will of God” (to quote your 11-10-13 letter), and this is why we resist the liberalism in the current SSPX!

    In Him Who is Truth and hates liberalism,