.It's been a hot summer and it's getting hotter. Sorry for the delay,
but this article below is from the August Recusant. It's almost time
for the September issue and I'm still reading the August issue.
These things take a lot of concentration to read, and my hat's off
the Editor, who must be capable of turning out copy faster than
lightening. There are more equally impressive articles in the August
issue but this one catches my fancy because it contains so much
apt analysis of the SARD, some of which I had noticed earlier and
some of which I had not.
{As much as I'd like to render just the article, I cannot help but to
put in a word or two edgewise, so they'll be in braces and in blue.
This article begins on page 19 of issue #9, August 2013.}
What’s wrong with Bishop Fellay’s
25th Anniversary Declaration?
What indeed. The answer, alas, is that there is quite a lot wrong with
it, though the task of demonstrating exactly what is wrong is not an
easy one. I hope therefore that I will be forgiven if I borrow heavily
from the excellent analysis done by Fr. Pfeiffer in various talks
available on the internet.
On a first reading, the text appears to be disarmingly sound: ‘staunch’
to use a word beloved of one English priest. It has lots of the right
vocabulary, with particular words and phrases standing out and
lingering in the mind of the reader:
“...duty to oppose errors publicly...”; “...errors...in the texts
themselves...”; “...cult of man...”; “...false concept of living Tradition...”;
etc. However, the merit of a text such as this stands or falls on the
whole meaning, implied as well as explicit, which is expressed in whole
sentences and paragraphs, not in mere phrases. We must therefore
carefully re-read the whole thing, looking at what it actually chooses
to say and at what this means.
{One thing that echoes in my mind as I read this, and I can't help but
wonder why it isn't mentioned, is this: Seeing what this docuмent
implies as its true purpose, if you were to have that in mind, why
would you choose to use these terms to achieve it? All the traddy-
sounding phrases are objectively OUT OF PLACE and would not be
the first choice of any writer with this intention, with one lone
exception, and that is, to give the reader the IMPRESSION that the
docuмent is "staunch" or somehow upright and honorable. But
seeing the overall effect of the piece, it is clearly not upright, nor
honorable and therefore the traddy terms are merely there for a
lure, and a deception for the unwary: in a word, they are misused
as a "snare of the devil to entrap the innocent, as he prowls about
the world like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour." It seems
to me that Ed. might have gone that far, but he controls himself
better than I do. My hat's off to you, Ed.}
On looking closer, it does seem that the text has been prepared with
a very thick layer of “Traditional sounding” rhetoric designed to put the
reader's critical faculties to sleep and obscure the various weaknesses
and loopholes also present. Those readers who have done the
penance of studying the deception practiced at Vatican II will recognise
immediately what is happening here. Texts at Vatican II were prepared
in precisely this way: lots of traditional-sounding language for most
of the docuмent, and then, buried within it a deliberate and fatal flaw,
a loophole which allows the whole rest of the docuмent to be undone.
As one Traditional Catholic gentleman (himself a lawyer, if my memory
serves) once observed about the texts of Vatican II: when reading a
contract, a lawyer will pay closest attention not to what the contract
provides for his client, but in what it permits the other party. A chain is
only as strong as its weakest link, and a legal docuмent is only as
good as its weakest loophole. For example, the docuмent on the
liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) has many wonderful, Traditional
sounding provisions: that Latin should be retained, Gregorian chant
be given pride of place, etc. And yet somewhere, mixed in with the
rest, it also contains one little part allowing changes and ‘updating’ to
take place. The rest is history.
{That one little part allowing changes and 'updating' was then the
basis for Paul VI's 30-some study groups in the Consilium comprising
members numbering in the hundreds, and one of which groups
was the one headed by a particular cardinal in charge of revising
all of the sacraments - starting with episcopal consecrations, mind
you, for no really sound reason, but change for the sake of change.
It is reminiscent of the presidential campaigns Bill Clinton and Barack
Obama.}
So let us try not to be too dazzled by the ‘hard-line’ vocabulary. Let
us look instead at what the text actually says. Paragraph 1 begins by
expressing “filial gratitude” towards Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de
Castro Mayer. This is fine as far as it goes. It is easy to be theoretically
‘grateful’ to people who are dead.
The voice of the Archbishop lives on in his writings and sermons, which
is why we note with interest that nowhere does this 25th anniversary
text quote from Archbishop Lefebvre’s sermon at the consecrations.
Does the gratitude professed in the first paragraph not extend to
allowing Archbishop Lefebvre to explain his reasons for performing the
consecrations in his own words? Or Bishop de Castro Mayer, for that
matter? The signatories are so “eager to express their gratitude” to
Archbishop Lefebvre that they forgot to include him, and all-but left
him out, except for a few harmless references, some soft-sounding
quotes which suit the new agenda of diplomacy towards Rome.
{Please note: this is typical of the Menzingen-denizen approach
of late, to downplay everything "staunch" and militant about what
ABL ever said or wrote, and only allow commemoration of the
soft, easy, pious and spiritual things he left behind. In this way they
attempt to re-make ABL into a figure of their own image, now that
he's no longer here to defend himself, and those who would stand
up to defend him are accused of being "disobedient."}
Archbishop Lefebvre talking in his letter to the Bishops elect about
‘remaining attached to the See of Peter’ is included (in paragraph 2 ),
but Archbishop Lefebvre talking about how Rome is leading everyone
down the road of apostasy? Or Archbishop Lefebvre expressing doubts
over the new sacraments and the intentions of the Novus Ordo clergy?
Perhaps we’re not so grateful for those little bits. Interestingly enough,
the same two historic sermons (and Bp. de Castro Mayer’s was a very
short, succinct sermon) appear to be absent from all the official SSPX
websites as well. Paragraph 3 concerns the errors of the Council. It
mentions that it is not a question of interpretation (hermeneutic of
continuity or that of rupture), which appears very good. Here is the
relevant part: “Following Archbishop Lefebvre, we affirm that the
cause of the grave errors which are in the process of demolishing the
Church does not reside in a bad interpretation of the conciliar texts ...
but truly in the texts themselves, by virtue of the unheard of choice
made by Vatican II. This choice is manifest in its docuмents and in its
spirit; ...”
Look carefully at the subject of the sentence: what exactly is it that
‘resides in the texts themselves’? Not errors, but the cause of errors.
What is this cause? We are not told. However, as Fr. Pfeiffer says, only
God causes Himself; otherwise, a cause and the thing it causes are
always distinct, they are not one and the same, like rain and the black
cloud from which it came. The point can perhaps be best illustrated by
taking, as a concrete example, one of the most notorious teachings of
Vatican II, religious liberty: that man by his nature has an inaliable right
to profess and practise error. Can one claim that this teaching is a ‘cause
of error’? Is it not rather an error itself? So what is meant by a cause
of error; what causes errors? Pride, laxity, worldliness, imprecision,
taking God’s grace for granted, lack of studiousness ... who knows; how
far back need one go? Is this text being deliberately imprecise in
employing such unusual terms? What must be considered is that this is
a very pointed and precise phrase.
The normal thing is to speak of ‘the errors of the Council’ - that is a
phrase which we are all used to and which trips off the tongue easily.
Why suddenly change and speak of ‘the cause of errors’? We believe
that it is a deliberate exercise in deception. It sounds sufficiently
Traditional that to us it appears to be a restatement of Archbishop
Lefebvre’s position. Future generations, further removed from the
Archbishop and the SSPX he founded, and as a consequence less
‘hard-line,’ will be able to interpret this in a more Rome-friendly,
conciliar-friendly sense. After all, it does not tell us what this “cause”
is. It only tells us that it was “by virtue of an unheard of choice,” again
another unusual and quite deliberate expression. When did Archbishop
Lefebvre ever lament that Vatican II had made “an unheard of choice”?
What was this choice? We are not told. It is so “unheard of” that we’ve
still never even heard of it!
{The more I think about this section the more sinister it seems. This
is a thing that has power to grow under your skin, like Morgellon's
disease. This Internet rumour of "unheard-of choice" is so unheard-of
even after finding exposure in +Fellay's little SARD, it's STILL quite
unheard-of! My goodness, it's really got a lot of stealth power,
whatever it is. Maybe it's a fantasm of some demon, and that's why
we haven't been able to identify it. Hmmmm???}
What is happening is that although this text sounds sufficiently
Traditional to pass through the scrutiny of its contemporaries, yet it
is sufficiently ambiguous and novel that it leaves the door open to
future interpretation by more liberal minds, in much the same way
as some of the ‘time bombs’ in Vatican II.
The rest of the paragraph then goes on to talk about how the true
religion cannot be reconciled with the cult of man, and to criticise
some words of Paul VI. In itself there is nothing wrong with this, but
following on from the talk of the causes of errors and ‘an unheard of
choice,’ it leaves the impression that the two are somehow connected,
that the one explains the other. Whereas, on re-reading the paragraph,
the reader will notice that there is no explicit connection between the
two. Yes, the cult of man is radically opposed to the Catholic Faith -
what does that have to do with Vatican II? We are not told, we are
left to assume. This way of speaking and thinking is most certainly not,
as the opening words of the paragraph claim, “following Archbishop
Lefebvre”.
{Actually, by putting two important topics in subsequent sentences,
but topics which have no explained relationship to each other, the
overall effect is to nullify the reality of BOTH of them, so as to, as it
were, remove them from the list of controversies by merely bringing
them up. For if anyone asks about the one, then the Menzingen-
denizen can refer to the other, and if about the other, the one, and
in this way, no answer is made intelligible, but many words are spoken.}
In summary: that the texts of the Council “contain the cause of error”
can only mean that that the texts of the Council do not contain error.
(So when Vatican II tells us that we have a right to choose to be
Mormons or Bhuddists, this is not an error.) It looks traditional, sound
and orthodox, but its meaning is most definitely not.
Paragraph 4 seems very much concerned with the magisterium.
Magisterium refers to the authority of the Church, and thus it is helpful
to look at this paragraph together with paragraph 8. On the one hand,
it is true that Vatican II has effectively undermined authority in the
Church. On the other hand, that is not the main problem with the
Council. The problem is doctrinal, it is one of false teaching. Problems
with authority necessarily come in the wake of that, since authority is
at the service of the Faith, and not vice versa.
Archbishop Lefebvre was disobedient and strong in the Faith; Paul VI,
although utterly heterodox was a man who ruled the Church with a
rod of iron. A delinquent father undermines and loses his authority
over his family, but the problem is his delinquency; his loss of
authority is only a by product of that delinquency. Despite
appearances, the Social Kingship of Christ is not mentioned in
paragraph 5, although “The reign of Christ” may well be the same
thing. Or it may not be: perhaps we are once again being allowed to
make our own assumptions, assumptions which will not necessarily
be made by future generations who read this same text. As Fr.
Hewko says, a modernist can want “the reign of Christ” in his heart
but that is not necessarily the same as the Social Kingship of Christ.
We are told that from the time of the Council onwards, the “reign of
Christ” was “no longer the preoccupation” and sometimes was “even
combated.” (Even combated? Just imagine that!) Any Catholic
following the nefarious goings on in the conciliar Church knows that
Christ’s Social Kingship is not just ignored or “even combated”, it is
consistently and constantly denied and contradicted! Archbishop
Lefebvre wrote a book entitled: “They Have Uncrowned Him.”
Not, “They Are No Longer Preoccupied With His Crown”! One implies
a willful and positively malevolent act; a positive action consonant
with diabolical disorientation, Rome losing the faith, and all the
other ominous prophecies. The other implies a neglect or absent
mindedness, irresponsible perhaps, but hardly of the same order of
magnitude; a sin of omission at best. A similar distinction comes to
mind every time one hears an SSPX worthy talking about “helping
the authorities in Rome to rediscover their own Tradition” or
something similar, as if the authorities in Rome had accidentally
mislaid Tradition these last fifty or so years and had not been
waging an out-and-out total war of extermination against it! Lest we
forget exactly what is at stake, it should suffice to recall one or two
of the actual effects of the wicked teaching of Vatican II. Reading this
text, one might forget that in South America, hundreds of thousands
if not millions of souls leave the Church every year to join ‘evangelical’
Protestant sects, as a direct result of Rome having ordered those
countries to abandon their Catholic constitutions and fall into line with
the teaching of Vatican II by accepting and enshrining religious liberty.
And let us not forget the appalling betrayal of General Franco and
many heroic Spaniards who, having literally fought, risked their lives
and in many cases shed their blood during three long years of civil
war in order to establish a Catholic constitution in Spain, were then
rewarded for their loyalty to Rome by Rome ordering them to undo
what they had established and open their constitution to all religions.
Archbishop Lefebvre did not famously say
to Cardinal Ratzinger:
“Eminence, if only you were more preoccupied with the
Christianisation of society! We are preoccupied with the reign of
Christ whereas you are not, and you even sometimes combat it.”
He said:
“Eminence, you are working for the de-Chrsitianisation of society
whereas we are working for the Christianisation of it.”
Incidentally, various people are reporting difficulties in obtaining ‘They
Have Uncrowned Him’ -of course, that might just be pure coincidence,
and not at all because it does not fit the new idea that Vatican II’s
religious liberty “is in fact a very, very limited one. Very limited. ”
Paragraph 6 in a similar manner appears at first glance to deal with
Religious Liberty, but ducks out at the last moment. This paragraph
tells us the Religious Liberty “leads to” demanding that God renounce
His reign. The problem here can be summed up easily: it does not
“lead to” it - it is it!
{Ed. gives credit to Fr. Pfeiffer for some of this material, but it has
come to my attention that since this Recusant came out, Fr. has
made the point in his sermons that this phrase "that God renounce
His reign" is rather gutless. How can God "renounce His reign?"
Perhaps if the devil had his way, this would be his demand. And
what exactly is this curious "reign" anyway: is it the Social Kingship
of Christ, or is it some vague second thought in the heart of some
heretic who doesn't really want to think about God very much?}
This is akin to saying ‘the teaching “Jesus Christ is not God” leads
to heresy’. What nonsense. Once again, what can be seen here is
a refusal to deal with the problem of the Council. Is the error in the
text, is it the Council itself which contains error, or rather is error
something which the Council merely leads to? (Perhaps because
you make an ‘unheard of choice’!?) As elsewhere, paragraph 6
appears to imply the former whilst actually saying the latter.
Paragraph 6 also tells us that the Church is being guided by human
prudence. It may seem at first a relatively minor point, but we should
recall St. Thomas’ teaching that in the end we will be guided by the
good spirit or the bad spirit, either by Christ or the devil. Especially
since we are talking about the Church, with a supernatural mission.
When the anti-Christ emerges, will he follow ‘human prudence’? This
author thinks it fair to say that it is something far above human
intelligence, namely a diabolical ‘prudence’ which is guiding the Church.
The crisis in the Church is not due to bumbling, incompetent men
following their own flawed human intelligence. The massive loss of
faith and loss of souls is the work a diabolical conspiracy, ultimately
the work of the devil.
Paragraph 7 tells us that due to ecuмenism and interreligious
dialogue, “the truth about the one true Church is silenced.” Once
again, this is misleading. The truth about the one true Church is not
merely silenced: it is denied and contradicted.
{It seems to me that what has been silenced is the voice of a
lot of otherwise good priests who now are terrorized into not
standing up and crying "FOUL" when idiocy like this SARD* is
cranked out like one of Teilhard de Chardin's "clandestines."}
Similarly, ecuмenism has not merely “killed the missionary spirit,”
it has killed the missions, and today is still killing millions and millions
of souls! Teaching the truth only to your friends, not preaching the
truth to outsiders, not being welcoming of newcomers to your
Mass centre, these are things which merely kill the missionary
spirit. The missionary spirit appears to be dying or dead in large
parts of the SSPX, but even we would stop short of accusing those
parts of the SSPX of being ecuмenical! Just as paragraph 6
pointedly does not say that religious liberty is an error, paragraph 7
likewise pointedly avoids saying anything similar about ecuмenism.
It tries to sound like it is against it without actually saying anything
of real substance against it.
As mentioned above, Paragraph 8 deals with authority, an interesting
subject given Bishop Fellay’s own preoccupation of late, and on closer
examination it is very revealing. We are told that: “The weakening of
faith in Our Lord’s divinity favours a dissolution of the unity of authority
in the Church.”
Leaving aside yet another example of weak and equivocal language
(‘favours’?), let us examine what this means. What exactly is the
main problem being lamented in this statement? The dissolution of the
unity of authority. The secondary thing which is mentioned as a problem
only insofar as it ‘favours’ this dissolution of authority is Faith (‘faith’) in
Our Lord’s divinity. Implication: unity of authority is more important
than Faith in Our Lord’ s divinity.
“The destruction of authority,” we are told, “represents the ruin of
Christian institutions: families, seminaries, religious institutes.”
So once again, it is not a loss of Faith which has caused the destruction
of Christendom which we witness all around us. The withered remnants
of the Catholic Church, closed convents, barely-any-longer-Catholic
schools, increasingly anti-Christ laws being passed by the governments
of once-Catholic nations, the almost complete apostasy of at least two
generations: these are all things which we thought were the result of
Vatican II spreading its errors throughout the Church like deadly poison.
But no, according to this docuмent, it is as a result of a destruction of
authority. ‘If only there were enough authority, then everything
would be fine.’ We mentioned the preoccupation with authority
earlier on when passing over paragraph 4.
{It's nice to see an editor who doesn't forget to take up a topic
later when he said he would postpone it earlier. I usually forget all
about it when I do that!! HAHAHAHA}
Perhaps this is the right time to remind the reader of the words of the
scandalous General Chapter Declaration of 2012, which begins by
stating that, at the conclusion of its meeting, the General Chapter
“stands at the tomb of Archbishop Lefebvre, united behind the
Superior General Bishop Fellay.” It has been the contention of some
that this amounts to official recognition that the new principle of unity
for the SSPX, the thing which unifies it, from now on is the Superior
General. Previously it was the Faith, but the SSPX is no longer united
in doctrine. The idea of unity in truth is conspicuously absent in this
text.
{And please don't forget that the word enscribed on ABL's tomb,
TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI, should evoke some inkling of tradition
in the hearts of the capitulants who stood there, but alas, they are
quite content instead to "Do as thou wilt, is the whole of the law,"
as Alstair Crowley wrote in his abominable screed.}
Paragraph 9 attempts to speak about the new Mass, but once
again cannot quite summon the courage to attack it directly. We are
told that the New Mass “diminishes”, “curtails”, “obscures” and
“undermines”, all of which appear to be sins of omission. Cannot
worse be said? Once again, one notices what it avoids saying.
Incidentally, one notices that the paragraph makes a point of
beginning not merely with “The New Mass...” but with “The New Mass,
promulgated in 1969...” as its subject. Perhaps it was thought that
this would satisfy the faithful that Bishop Fellay no longer believes the
New Mass was legitimately promulgated [Doctrinal Declaration, April
2012]. Apart from the problem of a Traditionalist Bishop who can
change his mind from one month to the next about a question as
important as the legitimacy of the New Mass, it is a fact that
“promulgated in 1969” does not contradict “legitimately promulgated
by Pope Paul VI.” The two statements are not mutually exclusive, and
therefore the one cannot be taken to represent a correction of the
other. It looks diplomatic, but its value is nil. Besides which, there is
no indication that Bishop Fellay has in fact changed his mind since he
composed the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. He has never yet
admitted that he made a mistake in admitting that the Novus Ordo
was “legitimately promulgated”, nor even that he had ever admitted
it. He usually tries to dodge questions about it and on the rare
occasions where he cannot avoid being asked, he retreats into his
standard defence of ‘I was misunderstood’, ‘I didn’t mean to say that’
etc.) Suffice it to say that this is as big a problem as ever it was.
Worse: it is a problem which now involves Bishops Tissier and de
Galarreta also.
Paragraph 10 begins thusly: “Fifty years on, the causes persist and
still engender the same effects.” Which causes, exactly? The “causes”
in question are what the first nine paragraphs of this declaration have
so skilfully avoided identifying, all the while equivocating and
downplaying “the effects”.
{Anyone who contends that the mention of these mysterious
"causes" was some kind of a fluke that should somehow be
overlooked, cannot anymore so blithely ignore them because
here they are AGAIN. These same unidentified "causes" have
been persisting for 50 years, already! You'd think that someone
could have bothered to say what they are when they've had
half a century now to speak up about them, but NO! Not a
word, until The Great One comes down the pike muttering "the
causes" as if everyone should immediately know what he's
talking about. This is beyond the pale!! In consistent form,
the Liberal doesn't want to be specific because then he will
be accountable. His comfort zone is vagueness, so that later
on he can claim to have been "misunderstood," and can more
readily deny that's what he meant. He likes, in other words, to
keep his options open. THE BUCK, MOST ASSUREDLY, DOES
NOT STOP HERE!! Perhaps Incredulous could give us a
graphic image with that written on HEBF's desk!?!?}
It continues: “Hence today the consecrations retain their full
justification.” Notice the sleight of hand here: the Archbishop’s
justification for the consecrations, in his own words, is nowhere to
be found. It is not even alluded to, much less quoted. So how is
the reader supposed to know what this retained “justification” is?
Presumably we are supposed to take Bishop Fellay’s version, as
presented in the preceding nine paragraphs, as being the reason
why Archbishop Lefebvre performed the consecrations in 1988.
{Once again, right on par with the same-old, same-old. This
is more of the same, the re-forming of the image of ABL, the
making over of his memory into something he was not, the
RE-BRANDING of the FOUNDER as well as the Re-Branding
of the SSPX, in the style of 1984, "We have always been at
war with Eastasia!" Down the memory hole with the real ABL
and the new ABL miraculously arises like the Phoenix bird from
his own ashes.}
A very brief quote from Archbishop Lefebvre’s Spiritual Journey,
clearly [having] been lifted from a longer sentence, is offered as a
justification for stating that the SSPX, “at the service of the Church
... asks with insistence for the Roman authorities to regain the
treasure of doctrinal, moral and liturgical tradition.” Surely this sort
of language speaks for itself. Did St. Augustine, St. Patrick, St. Isaac
Jogues or any one of the legions of heroic missionaries ever “ask
with insistence” that the pagans discover the treasure of the Catholic
Faith? Or rather, the treasure of the “doctrinal, moral and liturgical
tradition” of Rome? Did St. John Fisher “ask with insistence” that Henry
VIII rediscover the treasure of his moral tradition?! Does the Church no
longer preach? Did Our Lord and his Apostles never command? How is
Rome likely to view a Society of St. Pius X which used to demand that
Rome convert and abandon the errors of the Council but which now
employs such timid, deferential language? “Following Providence”
is the subject of paragraph 11, although we are never told exactly what
this means, nor are we given any kind of example to illustrate it. What it
amounts to is a pious platitude: it sounds nice and holy and it means
virtually nothing. Three of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop
Lefebvre in 1988, as signatories of this declaration and on behalf of the
SSPX, say that “we mean ... to follow providence ... and not anticipate
it”. What we can gather is that they at least mean well (or at any rate,
they say they do)! Isn’t that nice! More than that is unclear. For
example, what are they actually going to do in the future? Who knows!
Perhaps whatever they feel like doing.
Whatever this ‘following of Providence’ actually amounts to, it will be,
we are told, “either when Rome returns to Tradition and the Faith of
all time” or “when she [Rome] explicitly recognises our right to profess
integrally the Faith and to reject the errors which oppose it, with the
right and the duty for us to oppose publicly the errors and the
proponents of these errors, whoever they may be” - never mind the
fact that the correction of errors and the denunciation of the
purveyors of error is precisely what the SSPX has now ceased doing,
as the rest of the declaration makes abundantly clear. Oh the tragic
irony. So, the SSPX will “follow Providence” (whatever that means)
either when Rome returns to Tradition and the Faith of all time, or
before Rome returns to Tradition and the Faith. That ought to be clear!
{Any thinking individual reading this would be pulling his hair
out with frustration, but somehow the Accordistas keep on
claiming that they defend this nonsense -- defend the
indefensible! That ought to be their motto: The Fellayites'
Defense of the Indefensible! - and, of course, the British
version: The Fellayites' Defence of the Indefencible!}
Paragraph 12 concludes the statement with another hand picked,
suitably innocuous quote from Archbishop Lefebvre about remaining
faithful to the Mass and the glory of Christ in heaven (it is doubtful
whether the worst modernist in Rome would have a problem with
that!), and a prayer to the Trinity “by the intercession of the
Immaculate Heart of Mary”.
The latter is notable in one sense as being the only time that Our Lady
ever gets a mention in the whole of this rather long docuмent. Nothing
about Fatima, La Salette, Quito... one might be forgiven for thinking
that Our Lady has little to no role to play in bringing Our Lord’s triumph
out of this era of apostasy.
{When Our Lord told Sister Lucia that His intention was to do things
so as to place devotion to His mother's Immaculate Heart alongside
devotion to His Own Sacred Heart, we ought to recognize that He
is not making way for anyone to think that Our Lady has "little-to-no
role to play in bringing Our Lord's triumph out of this era of apostasy!
Perhaps one who thinks so may be "forgiven" but that won't make
the course of history any less painful when so many refuse to give
Our Lady the recognition that God Himself demands we give to her!}
What is the standing and significance of this declaration? It is another
official, ‘signed, sealed and delivered’ statement of the position
of the SSPX. It takes its place along side the General Chapter
statement of 2012 with its six useless ‘conditions’ of surrender,
and along side the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. It is the
studied opinion of this author that the June 27th 2013 anniversary
declaration {the Silver Anniversary Re-Declaration} is no less
alarming and dangerous than its predecessors, in fact in many ways
more so, since it ‘looks Traditional’, whereas at least the April 2012
{AFD} had the virtue of being a straight-forward ‘warts and all’
representation of where Menzingen now stands. It did what it said
on the tin. This declaration does not: the tin is labelled “Tradition”
but it contains the same sour contents which are the staple fare of
Modernists.
What will Rome make of it? Who knows, but as has been said before,
in one sense it hardly matters. The danger of a deal was that it would
lead to the Society liberalising and dropping its war footing against the
new conciliar religion. In fact, even without an official deal the Society
has now been liberalising for some time already, a process which
continues apace, and the war footing against the new conciliar religion
is truly a thing of the past. When a deal finally happens, it will be a
deal made by a Society which already accepts everything that the
Romans would have reasonably wished for.
‘Accept us as we are’ does have the drawback of making the matter
dependent on how we are. And ‘how we are’ will continue to worsen
with the passage of time.
{Think of that, the next time someone asks "How are you?"}
Keep working and praying! Stay vigilant!
{*SARD = Silver Anniversary Re-Declaration}
Topic: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings (Read 193846 times)