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

Author Topic: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings  (Read 97202 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14672
  • Reputation: +9678/-3110
  • Gender: Male
Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« on: January 01, 2013, 06:43:54 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Open Letter to Fr. Thouvenot, Secretary General of SSPX

    St George’s House, Wimbledon.
    27th June 2012.

    Dear Father,

    On the eve of the 20th anniversary of my priestly ordination, whilst giving thanks to Almighty God and Our Blessed Lady for such a great grace and mercy shown to me, I feel compelled to make known my thoughts on the current sufferings which have come to afflict our dear Society.

    Events in the Society over the last three months have led me first to sadness and anguish, and finally to despondency and anger.  The terrible divisions which now undermine our Society are not the fruit of rebellion and disobedience, but clearly are the result of a seismic change of principle on the part of our Superiors in the relation to Rome.  Abandoning the security and prudence of the position adopted by the Society at the last meeting of the General Chapter (2006), namely of refusing any practical agreement with the Roman authorities without there being any doctrinal resolution of the errors of the Second Vatican Council, has proved to be a disaster.  Consequently, the Society which was always united and strong is now fractured and weakened – brother is turning against brother.  No convincing argument has been presented as a justification for such a fundamental shift in position – the Holy Father has not altered in any way whatsoever his insistence upon the hermeneutic of continuity in relation to Tradition and the teachings of the last Council.  And yet, we are simply meant to accept the contrary.

    This approach could not but produce the profound malaise that now affects our Society.  Additionally, the misuse of secrecy on such a grand scale by our current Superiors, accompanied by privileging a small group of trusted supports of the new policy towards Rome, has served to exacerbate this painful situation even further.

    Hence, it is abundantly clear to me that those who truly bear responsibility for the current storm are not those who have attempted to preserve our Society’s firmness and unambiguous profession of the Catholic Faith in relation to the Conciliar authorities but those who chose to abandon the wisdom of insisting upon a real conversion on the part of Modernist Rome before envisaging a practical agreement.

    In light of this, the Superior General's decision to exclude one of his brother bishops (chosen, as himself, by His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre) from the Chapter Meeting in July together with this refusal to ordain candidates from religious communities who have always shared with us the same battle for Tradition “until their loyalty can be ensured” are profoundly disturbing and unjust.  To simply have recourse to ever-increasing sanctions against those who oppose the novelty of the new policy – alluded to by Bishop Fellay for the first time in the March edition of Cor Unum – will only serve to create ever more division and do even more harm to the Society.  On the contrary, it is my profound conviction that only a return to our former position of insisting upon a real doctrinal conversion on the part of Rome before any practical agreement, will be able to restore once again peace and unity to our priestly Society, ever loyal to the example and spirit of our beloved founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

    In Christo sacerdote et Maria Immaculata.

    Fr Matthew Clifton.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #1 on: January 01, 2013, 06:46:23 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Letter of the Three Bishops:

    Reverend Superior General, Reverend First Assistant, Reverend Second Assistant,
    For several months, as many people know, the General Council of the FSSPX is seriously considering Roman proposals for a practical agreement, after the doctrinal discussions of 2009 to 2011 proved that a doctrinal agreement is impossible with current Rome. By this letter the three bishops of the FSSPX who do not form part of the General Council wish to let him know, with all due respect, of the unanimity of their formal opposition to any such agreement.
    Of course, on the two sides of current division between the Counciliar Church and the FSSPX much wish that the Catholic unity be restored. Honor to those on both sides. But since reality governs everything, and to the reality all these sincere desires must yield, namely that since Vatican II the official authorities of the Church have deviated from the Catholic truth, and today they are shown to be quite given to always remaining faithful to the Counciliar doctrines and practices. The Roman discussions, the “doctrinal preamble” and Assisi III are bright examples of this.
    The problems arising to the Catholics by the Second Vatican Council are profound. In a conference, which seems like the last doctrinal will of Mgr Lefebvre, which was given to priests of the Society at Ecône a half year before his death, after having briefly summarized the history of the liberal Catholicism resulting from the French Revolution, he recalled how the Popes have always fought this attempt at a reconciliation between the Church and the modern world, and he declared that the combat of Society of St. Pius X against the Vatican II was exactly the same combat. He concluded:
    “The more one analyzes the docuмents of the Vatican II and their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, and the more one realizes that they are neither superficial errors nor a few particular errors such as ecuмenism, religious freedom, collegial structure, but rather a total perversion of the spirit, a whole new philosophy founded upon Subjectivism… It is very serious! A total perversion! … That is really alarming.”
    But, is the thinking of Benedict XVI is better in this respect than that of John Paul II? It is enough to read the study made by one of us three, The Faith in Peril from Reason, to realize that the thought of the current Pope is also impregnated of subjectivism. It is all the subjective imagination of the man in the place of the objective reality of God. It is all the Catholic religion subjected to the modern world. How can one believe that a practical agreement can arrange such a problem?
    But, some will say to us, Benedict XVI is really well disposed towards the Society and its teaching. As a subjectivist this can easily be the case, because liberals subjectivists can tolerate even the truth, but not if one refuses to tolerate error. He would accept us within the framework of relativistic and dialectical pluralism, with the proviso that we would remain in “full communion,” in relation to the authority and to other “ecclesiastical entities .” For this reason the Roman authorities can tolerate that the Society continue to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not permit that it condemn Counciliar teachings. That is why an even purely practical agreement would necessarily silence little by little the Society, a full critique of the Council or 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. Ultimately, what will guarantee that we will remain protected from the Roman curia and the bishops? Pope Benoit XVI?
    One denies it in vain, this slip is inevitable. Doesn't one see already in the Fraternity symptoms of a lessening in its confession of the Faith? Today, alas, the contrary has become “abnormal”. Just before the consecration of the bishops in 1988 when many good people insisted to Mgr Lefebvre so that he reach a practical agreement with Rome that would open a large field of apostolate, he said his thoughts to the four new bishops: “A large field of apostolate perhaps, but in ambiguity, and while following two directions opposed at the same time, and this would finish by us rotting.” How to obey and continue to preach all the truth? How to reach an agreement without Society “having rotted” on the contrary?
    And when one year later, Rome seemed to make true gestures of benevolence towards Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was always wary. He feared that they are only “maneuvers to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a 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.” According to Archbishop Lefebvre the characteristic of the Society is, more than to just denounce the errors by their name, but rather to effectively and publicly oppose the Roman authorities which has spread them. How will one be able to make an agreement and make this public resistance to the authorities, including the Pope? And after having fought during more than forty years, will the Society now have to be put into the hands of the modernists and liberals whose pertinacity we have just come to observe?
    Your Excellency, Fathers, take care! You want to lead the Society to a point where it will no longer be able to turn back, to a profound division of no return and, if you end up to such an agreement, it will be with powerful destroying influences who will not keep it. If up until now the bishops of the Society have protected it, it is precisely because Mgr Lefebvre refused a practical agreement. Since the situation has not changed substantially, since the condition prescribed by the Chapter of 2006 was by no means carried out (a doctrinal change in Rome which would permit a practical agreement), at least listen to your Founder. It was right 25 years ago. It is right still today. On his behalf, we entreat you: do not engage the Society in a purely practical agreement.
    With our most cordial and fraternal greetings,
    In Christo and Maria,
    Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta
    Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
    Mgr. Richard Williamson

    Here is Bishop Fellay's response:

    Menzingen 14 April 2012

    To their Excellencies Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and de Galarreta.

    Your Excellencies,

    To your collective letter addressed to the members of the General Council we have given our full attention. We thank you for your concern and for your charity.

    Allow us in turn with the same concern for charity and justice to make the following observations.

    Firstly, the letter gives a good account of the gravity of the crisis shaking the Church and analyses with precision the nature of the errors flying all around. However, the description suffers from two faults with regard to the reality of the Church: it is lacking both in supernatural spirit and in realism.

    It lacks supernatural spirit. Reading your letter one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church with its seat in Rome is truly the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured for sure from head to foot, but a Church which nevertheless still has for its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One has the impression that you are so scandalised that you no longer accept that that could still be true. It Benedict XVI still the legitimate pope for you? If he is, can Jesus Christ still speak through his mouth? If the pope expresses a legitimate desire concerning ourselves which is a good desire and gives no command contrary to the commandments of God, has one the right to pay no attention and to simply dismiss his desire? If not, on what principle do you base your acting in this way? Do you not think that, if Our Lord gives a command, He will also give us the means to continue our work? Well, the Pope has let us know that his concern to settle our affair for the good of the Church was at the very heart of his pontificate, and that he also knew that it would be easier both for him and for ourselves to leave things as they presently stand. Hence it is a firm and just desire to which he is giving expression. Given the attitude that you put forward there is no further place for Gideons or for Davids or for anyone counting on the help of the Lord. You blame us for being naïve or fearful, but it is your vision of the Church that is too human and even fatalistic; you see dangers, plots, difficulties, you now longer see the help of grace and the Holy Ghost. If one is ready to grant that divine providence conducts the affairs of men, while leaving them their liberty, then one must also accept that the gestures in our favour of the last few years come from Providence. Now, these gestures indicate a line - not always a straight line - but a line clearly in favour of Tradition. Why should this line suddenly come to an end when we are doing all we can to remain faithful and when our efforts are being accompanied by no few prayers on our part? Would the Good Lord drop us at the most decisive moment? That makes no sense. Especially if we are not trying to impose on Him any will of our own but we are trying to discern amidst events what God wants and we are ready to act as He wishes.

    At the same time your attitude lacks realism both as to the depth and the breadth of the errors.

    Depth: within the Society, we are in the process of making the Council's errors into super-heresies, as though it is becoming absolute evil, worse than anything, in the same way that Liberals have dogmatised this pastoral council. The evils are already dramatic enough so that one not need to exaggerate them any further. (Cf. Roberto de Mattei, A History never written, p. 22; Msgr. Gherardini, A Debate to be begun, p. 53, etc.) No more distinctions are being made. Whereas Archbishop Lefebvre more than once made the necessary distinctions concerning Liberals. This failure to distinguish leads one or the other of you three to an "absolute hardening". This is serious because such a caricature no longer corresponds to reality and logically it will in the future finish up in a true schism. And it may well be that this fact is one of the arguments pushing me to delay no longer in responding to the pressure from Rome.

    Breadth: on the one hand the present authorities are blamed for all the errors and evils to be found in the Church leaving out the fact that they are trying at least partly to free themselves from the worst of them (the pope's condemning of the "hermeneutic of rupture" denounces very real errors). On the other hand it is claimed that everybody is firmly rooted in this pertinacity ("all modernists", "all rotten"). Now that is obviously false. A great majority may still be carried away by the movement, but not everybody.

    So that as for the most crucial question of all, that of whether we can survive in the case of the Society being recognised by Rome, we do not arrive at the same conclusion as you do.

    Let it be noted in passing that we did not look for a practical agreement. That is false. All we have done is not refuse a priori, as you ask us to do, to consider the Popes offer. For the common good of the Society, we would far prefer the present solution of the intermediary status quo but it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer.

    In itself, the proposed solution of a personal Prelature is not a trap. That is clear firstly from the fact that the present situation in April of 2012 is very different from that of 1988. To claim that nothing has changed is a historic error. The same evils are making the Church suffer, the consequences are even more serious and obvious than ever; but at the same time one may observe a change of attitude in the Church, helped by the gestures and acts of Benedict XVI towards Tradition. This new movement which started about ten years ago is growing stronger. It includes a good number (still a minority) of young priests, seminarians and even a small number now of young bishops who are clearly to be distinguished from their predecessors, who tell us of their sympathy and support, but who are still somewhat stifled by the dominant line in the hierarchy in favour of Vatican II. This hierarchy is loosing speed. That is an objective fact and shows that it is no longer an illusion to think of a fight arising within the Church, even if we are well aware of how long and difficult it will be. I have been able to observe in Rome that even if the glories of Vatican II are still in the mouths of many, and are pushed down our throats, is nevertheless not in all the heads. Fewer and fewer Romans believe in Vatican II.

    This concrete situation, together with the canonical solution being proposed, is very different from that of 1988 and when we compare the arguments given by Archbishop Lefebvre at that time we draw the conclusion that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not loose that sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder.

    Church history shows that the curing of evils afflicting it normally happens gradually and slowly. And when one problem is over, there is another that begins... oportet haereses esse. It is not realistic to require that everything be settled to arrive at what you call a practical agreement. When one watches how events are unfolding it is highly likely that the end of this crisis will take tens of years yet. But to refuse to work in the vineyard because there are still many weeds that risk stifling and obstructing the vine runs up against a notable lesson from the Bible: it 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.

    You cannot know how much your attitude over the last few months - quite different for each of you - has been hard for us. It has prevented the Superior General from sharing with you these great concerns, which he would gladly have brought you in to, had he not found himself faced with such a strong and passionate lack of understanding. How much he would have loved to be able to count on you, on your advice to undergo this so delicate moment in our history. It is a great trial, perhaps the greatest of all 18 years of his being superior. Our venerable founder gave to the Society bishops a task and precise duties. He made clear that the principle of unity in our Society is the Superior General. But for a certain time now, you have been trying - each one of you in his own way - to impose on him your point of view, even in the form of threats, and even in public. This dialectic between the truth and the faith on the one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood. He might at least have hoped that you were trying to understand the arguments driving him to act as he has acted these last few years in accordance with the will of divine Providence.

    We are praying hard for each of you that we may find ourselves all together once again in this fight which is far from over, for the greater glory of God and for love of dear Society.

    May Our risen Lord and Our Lady deign to protect and bless you,

    +Bernard Fellay

    Niklaus Pfluger+

    Alain-Marc Nély+

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #2 on: January 01, 2013, 06:48:11 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

    Dom Thomas Aquinas
    September 3, Feast of St. Pius X

    In this dramatic moment in the life of the Holy Church, moment in which the Faith is most gravely threatened, an episcopal voice rises and confirms the faithful in the faith of their Baptism. Whose is this voice but of the bishop persecuted, slandered, accused of rebellion, etc., etc., etc.? And why is he persecuted, slandered, accused? Precisely because he defends the Faith and this crime has no forgiveness in the modern world. The modern world accepts everything; it even accepts the Tradition, as long as the Tradition accepts the modern world. The modern world is a highly concentrated solvent. It accepts everything it can dissolve, except the indissoluble Catholic Faith, except the integral, pure and immaculate Catholic doctrine, and this is what is at stake in this dramatic moment for the Tradition. Are we going to divide the Faith as Solomon proposed the two women vying for a child? The modernist Rome says: "Yes, let's divide the Faith, let's do a bargain. Why not?" Bishop Williamson says: " No, non possumus", and we are with him: "Non possumus!". Like Saint Peter we say to the Pharisees: "We cannot stop preaching in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! Judge yourselves whether it is better to obey God than men." The child must live, as in the judgment of Solomon. In the present case, it is not the child who should live, but the mother, Our Mother the Holy Church. To divide Her by giving a piece to the modernists and a piece the traditionalists? Never!

    For all these reasons we say and proclaim: "Honor and glory to Bishop Williamson and to all the priests who defend the faith without compromise with the enemies of the Catholic Faith." Some may be scandalized by the mere fact of speaking about enemies in this terrible battle. If this is your case, dear reader, remember that the Church here on earth is called militant, because it militates against three cruel enemies, as states the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which are the devil, the world and the flesh. Also remember the prayer: "By the sign of the Holy Cross, deliver us, from our enemies, O Lord our God." Remember also what says St. Pius X, who we celebrate today. The enemies of the Church are currently in the veins of the same Church.

    These enemies are in Rome, unfortunately, this Rome who wants to make a deal with the Tradition, i.e., the Rome modernist which wants to make a deal with the eternal Rome. To what end? Even if it is not known the intention of the heart of Benedict XVI, it is not difficult to know how all this will end if this agreement (whose bitter fruits are already being felt, even before completion) takes place. The fruit, which already can be seen, is the silence of the Tradition, but as St. Gregory the Great said: "The Church would rather die than be silent." Then She, the real mother, won't shut up, will not do this shameful agreement, but will continue to speak, preach and work for the salvation of their children. This is what the brave priests are doing, this is what is doing Bp. Williamson. For this reason we say: "Honor and glory to Bp. Williamson, successor of the apostles and confessor of the Faith"

    Honor and glory to the Bishop who administered 99 confirmations in eight days and directed his apostolic word 15 times to different audiences, which together represent more than 300 people in this vast Brazil, evangelized by the Portuguese and now by a Bishop of the former "island of saints".

    Our monastery of Santa Cruz and the faithful of Rio, Salvador, Vitoria, Campo Grande (where a connection delay prevented the departure of Bp. Williamson), Maringá and Nova Friburgo thank the solicitude of a true Archbishop Lefebvre's son, faithful to his teachings , who came in to confirm, not only with the sacrament, but also with his deep understanding of revealed doctrine, of the modern errors and of medicine for today's illness, among which stands out with a special glow the Holy Rosary, which Bp. Williamson recommends to pray complete every day. May the Virgin Mary obtain us the grace to watch and pray to avoid falling into the temptation of agreements and to defeat the infernal serpent that wants to destroy the Tradition.

    English version seen here:

    Spanish can be seen here:

    And Portuguese here:

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #3 on: January 01, 2013, 06:52:38 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Letter of Arsenius, OSB (Published by Dominicans of Avrille)

    Considering ...
    (Sel de la Terre, No. 81, Summer 2012)

    by Arsenius

    1) That Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to Dom Gerard when he wanted to make an agreement with the modernist authorities in Rome. An agreement about which Dom Gerard said that Rome gave everything and asked nothing;

    2) That the same Archbishop Lefebvre said after the consecrations that from that time, he would sign an agreement with Rome only if the Roman authorities agreed with several Church docuмents condemning modern errors;

    3) That, in addition, Archbishop Lefebvre had repented of having signed a memorandum of understanding with the Vatican for permission to consecrate bishops, because he concluded that the intentions of the Roman authorities were not good;

    4) That, later, Archbishop Lefebvre told the future Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, that he could not agree with him, and that we, the traditionalists, we were trying to Christianize the world while he, the Cardinal, and the other progressivists were working to de-Christianize the world;

    5) That the Fraternity of St. Peter, who had received from Rome the right to celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively, was subsequently forced to accept the fact that its members can also celebrate the New Mass;

    6) That Archbishop Lefebvre said that he did not agree that we should place ourselves under the authority of those who do not profess the faith in its integrity;

    7) That in time of war, to take care to follow the positive laws (for example, traffic laws) may be unwise and, in some cases, can lead to ѕυιcιdє;

    8) That experience shows that very few know how to go back when the Roman authorities do not keep their promises (see the case of the Fraternity of St. Peter);

    9) That being "reconciled" with Rome produces the result of no longer considering the Roman authorities (progressives) as enemies against whom we must fight;

    10) That Archbishop Lefebvre said that progressives are similar to those infected with a contagious disease, and should therefore be avoided so as not to become sick like them.

    11) That in all parts of the world the faithful are in a "state of necessity", which gives them the right to appeal to priests who hold to integrally Catholic doctrine, and also to receive the sacraments and assist at the mass according to traditional rites, and that priests have a duty of charity to go to help these faithful, even without the permission of the local bishop.

    We judge ...

    1) That if Archbishop Lefebvre was still alive, he would make no agreement with the Roman authorities, even if they offered it to us, and even if they asked nothing from us, unless the authorities first condemned the modern errors that have crept into the bosom of the Church, and which have been condemned by previous Popes;

    2) That even today Archbishop Lefebvre still could not agree with Benedict XVI, because he still has the same thinking that he had as a cardinal;

    3) That we cannot trust the promises made by men who withdraw the guarantees that they had previously given in favor of tradition;

    4) That, as Archbishop Lefebvre himself had judged, we must not put ourselves under obedience to those who do not profess the faith in its integrity;

    5) That in the midst of this terrible war in which we find ourselves (between the Holy Church and modernism, between truth and error, between light and darkness), to seek the regularization of our situation is a reckless act and suicidal: it is giving ourselves to the enemy;

    6) That it would be, in a way, tempting God, by putting ourselves in a situation that probably:

    a) will lead us to concede important points when the progressive Roman authorities ask it of us;

    b) will stop us from treating certain authorities as enemies to fight against;

    c) will leave us to be "contaminated" by progressivism;

    7) That it would be a mistake to limit our field of action to those places for which we would given permission by the Roman authorities or by the diocesan bishops, and not be able to go to the faithful who call us, because in such a place, we might not have official permission to exercise the priestly ministry, because it would not considered to be a grave and general "state of necessity."

    Objection ...

    One could object that Archbishop Lefebvre knew very well everything we have said and yet, on several occasions he expressed a desire that the Society’s situation be regularized before the Roman authorities.

    We answer ...

    ... that even if this were true, nonetheless, from May 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre no longer expressed that desire and, on the contrary, since that time he took the position that all agreements with the Roman authorities should be preceded by a profession of faith by Rome regarding the great anti-liberal docuмents of the Magisterium, such as Pascendi, Quanta cura, etc.. He held that new position until his death.

    The motive that led to this change was the fact that he could clearly see that neo-modernist Rome has no intention of protecting or supporting Catholic Tradition.


    Legal union with Rome? Yes, but in the integrity of the Catholic faith, outside which there is no salvation, and with the freedom to fulfill our duties towards God and neighbor.

    No ordinations in France for Truly Traditional seminarians, Summer 2012

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #4 on: January 01, 2013, 06:57:28 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

    November 8, 2012
    Feast of the 4 Holy Crowned Martyrs

    When Catholics during the Protestant Revolution were told: “Accept the Oath of Supremacy or death!” most Catholics took the Oath. But the Lord God was pleased to raise up an army of martyrs and a saint-pope who condemned the rising errors at the Council of Trent.

    When Catholics during the French Revolution were told: “Peace at the price of a little incense to the ‘gods’ of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity!” Although most compromised, yet God raised up thousands of martyrs and a faithful Resistance from the Vendee. Then, a Cardinal Pie of Poitiers to combat the Revolution’s “peaceful implementations” of the Napoleonic era. Within a century, faithful Catholics rallied behind the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, who condemned Liberal Catholicism.

    When Catholics were told: “Better Red than dead!” refusing to cooperate in what Pius XI called an “intrinsically evil” economic, political and atheistic system, many did nothing, but millions of Catholics filled the Martyrs’ bleachers in Heaven, and heroic resistance was offered on the part of bishops, priests and laity throughout Russia, Ukraine, Poland, China, Vietnam, Hungary, Spain, etc., etc. In Hungary, the so-called “Peace Priests” were promised their Latin Mass, their churches, incense and vestments as long as they remained silent on the “touchy” issue of Communism. Cardinal Mindzenty, one of the few not to bow down, firmly refused and was imprisoned for 14 years.

    When Catholics in Mexico were obliged to conform to the anti-Catholic laws of the Freemasonic government under Calles, many only watched from afar, but there rose up the Cristero Resistance who valiantly resisted them, shouting their: “Viva Cristo Rey!” in opposition to the Federalista’s: “Viva Satanas!”

    When Catholics were told: “Obey, and submit to the Vatican II Reforms!” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and many priests preferred to appear “disobedient” rather than betray the Faith of Tradition. Unfortunately, most clergy and laity falsely “obeyed” and went along with the enforced directives of Vatican II.

    It so tragically happens that, now, 42 years after its founding, the “life-boat” of the Society of St. Pius X is being coaxed with sweets and promises into the “harbor” of Modernist Rome filled with “sunken boats” of numerous traditional communities, once publicly opposing the errors of Vatican II.

    The SSPX always resisted openly and valiantly, with the grace of God, up until July 14, 2012, when the new direction towards a practical agreement became a “determined” and “approved” endeavor. This change of principle brought about a whole new orientation in the SSPX policy toward Rome and an official departure from the uncompromising stand of Archbishop Lefebvre, expressed in the Declaration of 1974 and the Statements of 1983 and 2006. Before, it was always: “No practical agreement until there’s a doctrinal agreement;” now, it’s “practical agreement without first the doctrinal agreement.” Dare we say: “Go along to get along? Agree to disagree?” (A small error in the principles leads to disastrous conclusions).
    Archbishop Lefebvre was our holy Founder. He not only had the grace of state of a Superior General, but also the grace of state as a Founder of a religious organization, to which he sought to impart his (1) spirit; (2) his principles; and (3) his experience. These were the fruit of many years of leadership in a wide variety of pastures. He was a theologian of high repute (cf. the testimony and praise of Canon Berto, the Archbishop’s episcopal theologian during Vatican II).

    He was a bishop and later, archbishop (with several bishops subject to him). He was the papal representative for all of French-speaking Africa. He was the Superior General of the largest Missionary Religious Order in the Church. He was a frequent visitor to the Popes in Rome. He was on the Preparatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council. He was a key member of “Coetus Internationalis Patrum” during the Council. He made many interventions during the Council (cf. I Accuse the Council! by Archbishop Lefebvre).He was not afraid to challenge and rebuke both the Council and the Popes of the Council afterwards. He was the man of the Church chosen by Divine Providence to launch the SSPX despite tremendous pressure from inside and outside the Church. His role of saving the Church and Priesthood was prophesied by the Virgin Mary in Ecuador, nearly 350 years ago! From such a man there is much to learn.
    Fr. Ludovic Barrielle (so highly revered by the Archbishop) commented in 1982: “I am writing this to serve as a lesson for everyone. The day that the SSPX abandons the spirit and rules of its Founder, it will be lost. Furthermore, all our brothers who, in the future, allow themselves to judge and condemn the Founder and his principles, will show no hesitation in eventually taking away from the Society the Traditional Teaching of the Church and the Mass instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    Would it not be accurate to say that Archbishop Lefebvre’s spirit, principles, and experience are summarized in the following response as well as warning, made to his sons? When asked about reopening dialogue with Rome in 1988 (after he admitted that signing the May Protocol was a big mistake), he replied: “We do not have the same outlook on reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition.

    We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more!

    “I will place the discussion AT THE DOCTRINAL LEVEL: ‘Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the Popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in the light of the doctrines of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible! It is useless! Thus the positions will be clear.” (Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 223, Interview of Fideliter Nov-Dec 1988). [N.B. See more related quotes opposing an agreement, at the end. They far outnumber the few expressing slight hope for some agreement, before 1988.]

    Our dear Founder clearly saw “three surrenders” by making a merely practical agreement with Modernist Rome, regardless of the number of conditions, which are: (1) surrender to Rome’s ultimate power of veto on the major decisions of the Society; (2) surrender of the power of veto over any future elected Superior General; and (3) surrender of the power of veto over the names of candidates proposed as future bishops. With these influential powers handed over to the enemies of Jesus Christ, “they will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Dec. 13, 1984 Address to Priests of the French District). And further: “That is why what can look like a concession, is in reality, merely a maneuver.” And more: “We must absolutely convince our faithful that it 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 twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order to, now, put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors!” (Archbishop Lefebvre Interview, Fideliter, July-August 1989). “I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible!

    Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions; you are working to de-Christianize society, the human person, and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together!’ Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends, Rome is in apostasy! I am not speaking empty words! That is the truth! Rome is in apostasy! One can no longer have any confidence in these people! They have left the Church! They have left the Church! They have left the Church! It is certain! Certain! Certain! (Marcel Lefebvre, by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, p. 548. The above is an accurate translation from YouTube audio of the actual voice of Archbishop Lefebvre).

    But the objection can be heard: “That’s exaggerated, Father, there’s no agreement yet, and there won’t be one under this pontificate, all is back to normal!”

    Such are the words. But why so many actions to the contrary? Why, then, was the General Chapter Declaration of 2012 not amended to conform to all the previous SSPX Declarations?

    Why were the “6 Conditions” left to remain flimsy and uncorrected? (In other words, why is the “For Sale” sign still out on the front lawn?) Why do the expulsions, silencing, refusal of Holy Communions, threats and punishments not desist for those openly opposing a false agreement?

    Why the expulsion of Bishop Williamson who openly adhered to the non-compromising line of Archbishop Lefebvre? Why the sigh-of-relief expressed by an SSPX spokesman upon the expulsion of Bishop Williamson: “The decision will certainly facilitate the talks [with Rome]?” (Fr. Andreas Steiner to the German News Agency DPA).

    Why, upon the 50th Anniversary of “the greatest disaster in the history of the Church” (Archbishop Lefebvre) Vatican II, the overwhelming silence on the official websites (cf. and DICI) of our Founder’s condemnation of the errors of the Council, unless it be to avoid such “polemical hindrances” towards an agreement? Why the recent “Ecclesia Dei” press release about negotiations still continuing? Why such a minimum reaction, in comparison with that of Archbishop Lefebvre, to the trampling of the First Commandment at Assisi III? Why were the ambiguous interviews of CNS, DICI and YouTube (granted, “cut and paste” but) not promptly corrected and still, as yet, not clarified? (For example: “…We see that, in the discussions, many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are, in fact, not from the Council, but the common understanding of it [….]. Many people understand wrongly the Council [….] the Council presents a religious freedom that is a freedom that is very, very limited.” (Bishop Fellay, CNS Interview, May 11, 2012, 1:06 until 1:23). What happened to the “I accuse the Council,” pronounced by Archbishop Lefebvre?

    Your Excellency, please return to your former preaching of the “Truth in charity!” When you once openly warned the priests of Campos, Brazil not to make a practical agreement with Modernist Rome. You once traced the fall of Campos under Bishop Rifan, and a similar pattern is now engulfing our dear Society! You once said: “For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point (i.e. Rome’s conversion to Tradition) and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos.” (Bishop Fellay’s Letter to Friends and Benefactors #63, Jan. 6, 2003).

    You once told us: “I think Rome’s friendliness towards us is because of its ecuмenical mentality.

    It is certainly not because Rome is now saying to us, ‘Of course, you are right, let’s go.’ No, that’s not the way Rome thinks about us. The idea they have is another one. The idea is an ecuмenical one. It is the idea of pluricity, pluriformity!” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors #65, Dec, 8, 2003). This ecuмenical mentality has only increased with Pope Benedict XVI (e.g. the scandals of Assisi III, visits to the Mosque, ѕуηαgσgυєs, admittance of Anglicans without renouncing their errors, etc.).

    As for Rome “changing towards Tradition,” we can recall similar conditions promised to the Le Barroux Monastery to freely preach against Modernism, and have the True Mass, but under the agreement, they collapsed to compromise, accepting the New Mass within 5 years after! As recent as March 2012, the Good Shepherd Institute has been seriously pressured by Rome to teach Vatican II in their seminary and adopt the New Catechism. The Redemptorists in Scotland were officially put under the diocesan bishop as of August 15, 2012. Our dear Founder explained the reason why up to nine traditional communities yielded to compromise the Faith, because “IT IS NOT THE SUBJECTS WHO FORM THE SUPERIORS, BUT THE SUPERIORS WHO FORM THE SUBJECTS.” (Archbishop Lefebvre 1989 Interview One Year After the Consecrations). (“Let him who thinks he stands,…”).

    Seeing the sorrowful direction of our dear SSPX now only confirms more and more that it really is determined to enter into an agreement with the Conciliar Church without a doctrinal resolution and, as the 6 Conditions prove, willingly enter an agreement that will, by that very fact, subject the SSPX to Modernist Rome. “We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization” (General Chapter Statement of SSPX, July 14, 2012). It is not rumors, it is there, “in stone.”

    How is it possible for a priest of the SSPX to be true to his anti-Modernist Oath and, therefore, obliged to preach against Modernism, against Rome’s being infected with Modernism, and the insanity of making a merely practical, impossible agreement with Modernist Rome, and yet consequently, be continually silenced?

    Recent events show such priests are subject to punishments by silence, punitive transfers or expulsion. How is it possible for a priest to preach the Truth “in season and out of season” in such an atmosphere?
    So, I desire with all my heart to maintain the anti-Modernist Oath I made before the Most Blessed Sacrament and intend to keep it, by keeping the same sense and meaning of the doctrine of the Church of all time.

    Furthermore, I cannot speak for other priests, but I cannot abandon the clear, unambiguous stand of our Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre (who would doubtlessly fiercely oppose this new direction since July 2012) and choose to appear “disobedient” while, in fact, truly obeying the directives of our Founder.

    To our young Catholic people, “be strong, let the Word of God abide in you, and you will overcome the wicked one” (I John 2:14). The Archbishop once said: “Some people call me ‘dissident’ and a ‘rebel,’ and if that means against the Vatican II Council and the Liberal Reforms, then yes, I am ‘dissident’ and a ‘rebel.’” So, I humbly add, that, if, to oppose this direction towards subjecting Catholic Tradition to Modernists who do not hold the integral Catholic Faith (and thereby endangering the eternal salvation of countless souls!) then yes, following Archbishop Lefebvre, I too am “dissident” and a “rebel.”

    On the contrary, the truth appears to be that the “rebellion” has been committed by SSPX members who favor an agreement and thereby rebel against the principles and tradition of the Society. In good conscience, I cannot follow in that direction.

    So, therefore, after several months of much prayer and reflection, it seems clearly the Will of God that I help in the Resistance to the dismantling of Archbishop Lefebvre’s work, by assisting the priests who want to maintain his principles. The present address is: Our Lady of Mount Carmel, 1730 N. Stillwell Rd., Boston, Kentucky 40107. (Warning: Be slow to believe cyberrumors such as “this is a repetition of ‘the 9’ in 1983.” Stay with the actual docuмents, letters and facts. See especially the well-docuмented work, Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє? by Stephen Fox).

    Doubtless, I seem bold in expressing myself in this manner! But it is with ardent love that I compose these lines, love of God’s glory, love of Jesus Christ the King, love of Mary, of the souls, of the Society of St. Pius X, of the Church, of the Holy Father, the Pope! Just as the SSPX had always continued the Archbishop’s work, until Rome returns to Tradition; so the SSPX priests of the Resistance will continue his work, with God’s grace, “without bitterness or resentment,” until the leaders of the SSPX return to our Founder’s principles.

    Your Excellency, I would be happy to see you when you pass by.
    May your Excellency deign to accept my gratitude and the assurance of my most respectful devotion in Our Lord,
    Fr. David Hewko

    “The greatest service we can render the Catholic Church, the Successor of Peter, the salvation of souls and our own, is to say ‘NO’ to the reformed Liberal Church because we believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Son-of-God-made-Man, Who is neither liberal nor reformable!”
    ---Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Sept. 3, 1975, Letter to Friends and Benefactors #9)
    “It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church, for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” ---Archbishop Lefebvre (Spiritual Journey, p. 13)
    *Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre “A Bishop Speaks from Beyond the Grave” (2 pamphlets)

    *Declaration of 1974

    *Declaration of 1983

    *General Chapter Statement of 2006

    *Letters of Dom Tomas Aquinas, OSB, Santa Cruz Monastery, Brazil
    Two Currents

    Honor and Glory to Bishop Williamson
    Letter in Response to Fr. Bouchacourt
    Arsenius (published by the Dominicans of Avrille)
    Two Imaginary Conversations
    *Bishop Williamson’s Open Letter and Eleison Comments #276
    *Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє? by Stephen Fox
    *Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre: “The Episcopal Consecrations,” 1988мents/Archbish...onsecration.htm
    * An Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre: “One Year After the Consecrations,” 1989
    *Archbishop Lefebvre’s Address to His Priests, Econe, Switzerland: “Two Years after the Consecrations:
    We Must Not Waver, We May Not Compromise,” September 6, 1990
    *Letter of 3 Bishops to Bishop Fellay
    By Archbishop Lefebvre
    I Accuse the Council! (oddly out of print at Angelus Press)
    A Bishop Speaks
    Against the Heresies
    The Mass of All Time
    They Have Uncrowned Him
    *Marcel Lefebvre, by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
    *The Works of Fr. Denis Fahey
    *The Apparition of Our Lady of Good Fortune, Quito, Ecuador (1634)

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #5 on: January 01, 2013, 07:03:35 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Several Open Letters from Fr Chazal (taken from

    I ACCUSE THE COUNSEL  by Fr. Francois Chazal

    Note from translator: I have edited the text that appears on the SSPX Korea website, for punctuation and clarity. All bolding and all brackets are my own additions.

    "On Bastille day, July 14th, the General Chapter of the SSPX elicits a declaration, for public consumption, which is at times sentimental but does not look too bad at first sight. But it is much weaker than the 1974 declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre, which I do recommend you to read now to see the erosion for yourself.

    The venom of this declaration is in its tail, that is, in the mention of some necessary conditions for the SSPX to have a canonical recognition from the new rome. Later distributed in an internal letter on July 18th, these six lamentable conditions, thankfully got leaked, and merit your special consideration.

    3 SINE QUA NON (or necessary) CONDITIONS:

    The liberty to keep, transmit and teach the good doctrine of the constant Magisterium of the Church and the immutable Truth of divine Tradition; the liberty to defend, correct, reproach, even publicly, those guilty of errors or novelties of modernism, liberalism, of the council of Vatican II and their consequences; to use exclusively the 1962 liturgy; to keep the sacramental practice we do have nowadays (including: orders, confirmation, marriage); the guarantee of at least one bishop.

    Sounds nice at first. But this claim of liberty for ourselves to teach condemn or keep things is not the fight of Archbishop Lefebvre. He clearly expressed that the first sine qua non condition would be the return of Rome to Tradition. We are faced with the Dom Gerard, FSSP and Campos syndrome. Dom Gerard said in July 1988 “No hindrance shall be put to our antimodernist predication.” Then we saw what happened to that liberty one hopes to get from the enemies of the truth… they were deceived, time and over, who can deny it? Therefore the most grievous sin of this first group [of conditions] is implicit. It is an official sin of OMISSION of a request we have always made for 40 years: that the new rome stops crucifying the Church. This smacks of liberalism that always says “live and let live;” “disagree but don’t be too judgmental and controversial;” “free Church in free State;” “liberty to one’s opinion and liberty to disagree with other without condemning them,” etc.

    Secondly, those guilty persons referred to in [the conditions], who are they?... simple and easy lay or priestly targets, or bishops, cardinals and Popes? In 1974 and after, the Archbishop consistently nailed the new rome, the pope especially. He talked about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ reigning in Rome. Look at DICI; see a change of stance: we are careful of not disagreeing too badly with the Pope.

    Thirdly one is perfectly entitled, in a liberal democracy, to defend correct and reproach the others, just as some French bishop said recently: “Let them come; let them join us, and disagree with Vatican II, for we disagree also with the twenty other councils!” The Catholic truth will be reproached in its turn, or simply diluted, as the Archbishop feared in 1988, by the mere mixing of our faithful with bad Catholics.

    Then how can a single bishop ensure the future of Tradition (600 SSPX and possibly 400 other priests)? Who will choose him; the Pope, the Commission or the SSPX? Shall we be guaranteed he is no liberal?

    3 WISHABLE CONDITIONS (“conditions souhaitables,” a very weak word in French):

    Proper ecclesiastical tribunals in first instance; exemption of the houses of the SSPX from the diocesan bishops; Pontifical Commission in Rome for Tradition in the dependency of the Pope, with the majority of its members and its presidency for Tradition.

    Archbishop Lefebvre ordered the SSPX to avail itself of tribunals in order to dodge the malpractice of novus ordo ones, and now we are left to just wish to keep only the smaller type of them, implicitly handing over, already, the dealing of serious matters to the new rome. And which code is all this leading us to use: the heavily tainted new one of 1983, or the code of 1917?

    Any faithful should jump with horror at the prospect of this: the SSPX is no longer an operation survival, putting the faithful entirely out of reach of the local modernist dioceses, but it merely wishes to be exempt from them. Do we just wish St Nicolas du Chardonnet, St Mary’s, Kansas, OLVC , Manila and our other houses, to be exempt from the influence of the modernist bishops, or do we exclude them from directing us until the crisis of the Church is over?

    Since the new rome consistently throws the Ecclesia Dei groups back under the dioceses, how can we, in advance and by ourselves, admit that dreadful possibility and put it on a marble plate, as it is. We had believed, so far, that fighting against the new line imposed by the management of the SSPX had for object the avoiding of placing the SSPX under the fornicating new rome. Now this fight also aims to rescue the SSPX from the clutches of the novus ordo dioceses!

    A Pontifical Commission under the Pope is a pleonasm [The use of more words than are necessary to convey meaning], because anything pontifical is under a pope. Secondly nothing is précised about the majority and presidency of this commission, because the reigning pope can claim to be for Tradition himself, or can appoint members of Ecclesia Dei groups, nay even conservative novus ordo people, who fancy themselves as traditional. SSPX should have been the precise term. But when we ask from the new rome to be placed in the dependency of it we know already where the ambiguity of the term “for Tradition” is going to lean. And since we only wish this, if the Pope insists, the majority and presidency of this papal pontifical commission in dependency of the Pope…can be populated with modernists. Heaven forbid us willing this wishy-washy wish-wash."

    I Excuse the Council
    Three months of unretracted 2012 statements of His Lordship Bishop Bernard Fellay

    -April 14th : “We must not make of the Council a super heresy” (April 14thMenzingen letter)

    - April 15th: “the entire Tradition of the catholic faith must be the sole criteria and guide of the understanding of the teachings of the Council of Vatican II, which, in its turn, enlightens some aspects of the life and the doctrine of the Church that were implicitly present in her but not yet formulated. The affirmations of the Council of Vatican II and of the posterior Pontifical Magisterium concerning the relationship between the Catholic Church and non-catholic Christian confessions must be understood in the light of the entire Tradition.” (Extract of a Menzingendoctrinal declaration quoted publicly by FrPfluger in St Joseph des Carmes on June 05th)

    - May 11th: “Many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council, but from the common understanding of it. (…) The Council is presenting a religious liberty which is in fact a very, very limited one. A very limited one. It would mean our talks with Rome, they clearly said that to mean that there would be a right to error or right to choose each religion, is false.”(Bishop Fellay, CNS interview in Menzingen)

    - June 08th:“As for the Council, when they asked me the question, “Does Vatican II belong to Tradition?”, I answered, “I would like to hope that that is the case.”” (Bishop Fellay, DICI, Interview)

    -July 14th: Insinuation that the Council of Vatican II is only tainted with error, but not to be discarded altogether on account of heresy, explicit or latent. (Declaration of the General Chapter in Econe) It is quite weaker than the Declaration of 1974.

    It must be said that these quotes are only five, and intermingled sometimes with quotes condemning somewhat the Council of Vatican II. But many similar quotes, for and against Vatican II, can also be found in the past.
    So which Bishop Fellay is the real Bishop Fellay?

    It is the one that indicates regularly that there can be an understanding of Vatican II in the light of tradition, that the SSPX goes along with 95% of the text of Vatican II (DICI, may 18th 2001), that allows the watering down of the Angelus (compare with the current editions of Fideliter), ordered to Fr Kenneth Novak to expunge the “”website and whose mouthpiece is DICI, a website that is becoming more and more similar with other Ecclesia Dei websites.

    It is the Bishop Fellay that is constantly pushing for the placing of the entire work of Archbishop Lefebvre under the new and modernist rome without placing the condemnation itself of Vatican II as a sine qua non condition as the Archbishop did after June 1988, but just as a personal liberty to reproach or study the errors of the Council.


    Written by Fr F.Chazal, no rights reserved as long as you don’t touch the text. Both I accuse and I excuse texts suppose the understanding of a clear distinction between the authority of Benedict XVIth and novus ordo bishops, which we recognize, and its actual exercise from which we must stay away, for reasons of Faith, as long as the crisis endures.


    Bohol 18 May,

    OLVC, Manila 20 May,

    Seoul, 27 May 2012.

    My dear faithful,

    Part I

    The Fornicating New Rome

    Last week I woke up reconciled with the new Rome - I thought for 12 years that it would never come to this, but while I was napping, the Vatican II of the SSPX got on its way and now it is the windows of the Society that open themselves to the New Rome, through the lever of false obedience.
    But the New Rome is to be destroyed; she is Carthage to us. We have nothing to do with it; We have no canonical structure to do with it, we have to practical agreement to do with it, we have no point of doctrinal convergence to do with it. If Our Lady said “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist”, Rome will indeed lose the faith and become the seat of antichrist, despite all the beautiful diplomatic fixes we can think of, with the help of the Pontifical & Cardinal Regalia, Palaces, Sacred monuments, purple cassocks and fringed cinctures, smooth roman talk and skilled efforts of reconciliation, permission to say masses, trappings of tradition and peanuts of cardinal Hojos.
    The new Rome remains death, not for us who have not joined it, but for millions and millions of souls who, for now 50 years could have gone to heaven by staying Catholic or by entering the Catholic Church.
    And since what is proposed to us; to be directly under the Pope; (nothing new by the way, since it was always proposed to all those who ended up recycled to modernism); Let us look carefully at the one to whom we wish to entrust ourselves, Pope Benedict XVI, mysteriously and validly reigning over the official church.
    Pope Benedict XVI, previously Cardinal Ratzinger, is our most consistent, rational, methodical, organized and effective enemy. He has studied our case for decades; he has almost trapped Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.While sharing the same heretical theology as the other heretic leaders, he has groomed a perfectly conservative & reassuring image. The man has never thrown anyone into prison; he has never fought us with any weapon but his pen (and sweet melodic voice), and has been most successful.“The power of the horses are in their mouth” (Apoc. IX,19).
    “But father, how can you condemn such a man, the very head of the visible church, like that, a priori and with such vehemence?”“Why such a hardening?”
    A priori condemnation is bad, but if condemnation comes after a huge mountain of evidence, past & present, such condemnation needs to be strong. Wolf is wolf. If wolf is, wolf thinks as wolf, acts as wolf, and kills as a wolf.
     Think as a wolf: After his bad seminary training, Fr. Ratzinger became an adviser of Karl Rahner, maybe the worse “peritus” of Vatican II and revealed his core thinking in the book so traditionally entitled “Principles of Catholic Theology” which I read. His established thinking is that there is no established and stable concept in anything religious BUT ONE MAY NOT GO TOO FAR INTO MUTATING DOGMATIC CONCEPTS. People’s minds work at different speed; we need an adaptable and multispeed modernism.Pascendi denounced modernism in 2D; Benedict XVI is modernism in 3D.
    This great skill of his seduced many of his modernist confreres, and so it came to pass that Cardinal Ratzinger became the architect of the New Catechism, the Declaration on justification, the Declaration of Balamand, the whole Assisi project… Almost all the disastrous pronouncements of Pope John Paul II can be retraced to him, and can we say that he has changed his mind today? Absolutely not, for when he read his own recent decree of “Beatification” of John Paul II, he stated at length that the main sign of John Paul II sanctity is the council and its strenuous application to the church throughout his pontificate.
     That is why it is so important to look if Benedict XVI acts as a wolf now, not yesterday but now; for the big temptation is to believe that things have changed and that Benedict XVI is really leaning towards us, in such a wise as to became almost one of us… How beautiful and hopydopyful, isn’t it?
    But no; 4 times no at least: as to Hinduism, Islam, Judaism& Protestantism.

    Hinduism: When I was in Bombay around 2006, I got to read what Benedict XVI had to say about inculturation in India. He praised it, but with reservations.Isn’t that nice and traditional, reservations about inculturation? Well, except for the fact that he reproached the Indian bishops to insert only the Hindu elements into Catholic worship, instead of putting enough of the Buddhist culture; and this is very sad because the Buddhist religion originated from India and Buddhism  is a great religion…
    Note well: No Indian plumes & feathers, no kumkum on the forehead, but a more consistent and intellectual approach.

    Islam: There again, Benedict XVI didn’t kiss the Koran, that goes too much against his Bavarian categories of the sensibility. But when he went the Mosque of Istanbul, he took off his shoes, went to the Mirhab, folded his hands in the Moslem position, turned towards Mecca and prayed with the other Moslems surrounding him. The whole thing lasted a few minutes, never to be repeated again; but there again, one can see the same consistency of practice. Benedict XVI is a little like the tape of a surveillance camera; quite boring to watch except on a few horrific frames.
    Judaism: The lack of assiduity for Paganism & Islam in Benedict XVI,isclearly compensated by his fervor and admiration for the Jєωιѕн religion. Almost every year, the Pope goes to the ѕуηαgσgυє and makes long speeches whose main idea is “The Old Covenant is still valid and not revoked”.
    How can one be more clearly opposed to the Catholic faith? To the Epistles of St. Paul? This is so grave that the Ecuмenism of Benedict XVI seems to suggest that one religion is above the others, namely Judaism.And the choice for Judaism is judicious, because Judaism is the worse false religion, in that it denies so perfectly and vehemently the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
    Protestantism: The above is not to suggest that Benedict XVI does not understand the profound spirituality of Martin Luther. But there again, Benedict will go beyond John-Paul. He will enter the protestant temple in full Pontifical Regalia, (not just in white cassock) and participate in the first part (remember, Benedict XVI is a conservative, only half way bad) in a protestant service. His praise for Luther is more detailed and profound; spiritually and theologically motivated: how could it be otherwise; he is a German Pope.
    Let us not forget that he is the First Pope to have breached the Catholic Doctrine on Artificial Contraception or to invite Atheists at the prayer meeting of Assisi, or to meet a female Bishop in Bishopess’ attire, or to give communion to a protestant (Brother Roger of Taize) etc..
    The recent interview called “The Salt of the Earth” shows a completely confused mind, incapable of stable concepts & dogmas, a mind without Faith say bishop Tissier De Mallerais (whose book could not be published for some time by Clovis for technical reasons; and is not going to be translated by the Angelus out of respect for the sensitivities of the American District). Benedict XVI still sees renewal in the face of destruction. He has made the prowess to write a book on Jesus without mentioning, even once, his divinity. He is completely obstinate in his thinking, therefore any doctrinal discussion with his experts were bound to fail.
    Kills as a wolf. If one is so obstinate in his ideas, there is no reason why he should change his actions. Benedict XVI, as far as we know, does not say the True Mass. He did say a mass facing the Orient in the Sistine Chapel but explained immediately that it was because the place doesn’t have an altar facing the people and that the text he recited was the text of the new mass, that mass that sends so many people to Hell.
    Nevertheless, Cardinal Ratzinger said the true mass in the past, but that was to set up the Fraternity of St. Peter (That great antechamber for priests before being recycled back into the local diocese) or in Fongombaultin order to lead the meetings to discuss the “Reform of the Reform”.

    Per se Benedict XVI does not believe in the True Mass; for him it is a museum piece. Just recently I read in the Wall Street Journal, in the plane, about his visit in Cuba. Very surprisingly, Fidel Castro asked him when he met why did the Church had to change the liturgy. Benedict snapped back immediately: “For renewal”.This is the typical answer of a diehard progressivist.
    His obstinacy in error leads him to support all those neo Christian and protestant tainted charismatic contraptions, because these create the false idea of restoration of things, like the Opus Dei, and rehashes whatever is left of the piety of the people back into the sewer of all heresies. Benedict XVI is a genius.
    If you want to know who a leader is, you also have to look at whom he appoints, for to govern is to delegate. The three topmost positions in the church are that of Secretary of State, Congregation for the Faith, and Congregation for Bishops.
    Cardinal Bertone is Secretary of State and a clear delinquent. Unlike Benedict XVI, he is an open modernist, like his famous predecessors Cardinal Villot and Cardinal Casaroli. He has the bad temper of Villot and the maneuvering spirit of Casaroli and he sees to it that their legacy be maintained, namely that all civil governments remain separated from the Church in Catholic countries and encouraged to be run according to Masonic principles. The Ten Commandments of the Secretariate of State are the rights of man based on the dignity of the human person. Hence world peace requires that no serious steps should be taken to stop the persecution of Catholics in antichristian countries and that the efforts of those who still want to remain Catholic over there be discreetly thrown into disarray, like in China, in Russia, and in the Muslim world.
    Cardinal Bertone got our good friend, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, excommunicated. He is mainly known to us for the burial of the message of Fatima, even if he was not he who engineered it in 2000.Such a task belonged then to the Master: Cardinal Ratzinger.
    Next in line is Cardinal Levada, a close friend and successor of Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He does not seem to be doing much but a vital dossier has been placed on his desk: The dealing with the SSPX . . . .  But look how good he is tearing us to pieces.
    Cardinal Levada’s past is not well known to us and that’s a pity. When he was bishop of San Francisco he had parishes for gαys and lesbians; so told me our faithful of the Bay Area. It is also well known that he tried to get the late Fr. Heidt back into the diocese, sitting in majesty in his office; flanked by canonical experts & theologians ready to fire. Fr. Heidt was unfazed: “Ok, I’m in, take me back, but on one condition” – “which is?”– “ I don’t want to see any gαy priest even near me in my parish and in my parish activities” – “I’m sowyfoatha, I can only say no” – “same here” replied the old warrior and he left the room. Fr. Heidt is right; what are we doing with those people?
    Only a few people know much about Cardinal Ouellet the Prefect for the Congregation for Bishops. Like the other two above mentioned Congregations, his Congregation is busy in maintaining the Church in her desolate state at every local level or diocese. Indeed it would be a big disaster for the novusordo, if out of 4000 bishops or so, just one would turn out to be entirely traditional. Not only that, but the Congregation looks to it that there is no bishop saying the correct mass, coming from the rank of the Ecclesia Deigroups.And if one can be found in Campos, he has to try to govern his followers under the leadership of another Bishop, that is, the official Bishop of Campos.
    Souls are sent to hell by the failure of the local clergy to teach their flock the faith and lead people to do penance for their sins.There is no better way to do that than by giving them consistently bad Bishops, some less bad and less aware of what they are doing than others, I agree, but all of them bad without exception.
    One could go through all other lesser congregations and see the same pattern of organized liquidation of the Catholic Church, but I will retain only one for the sake of brevity: the Ecclesia Dei commission. While the new Rome wishes to embraces us so tenderly with one arm (Cardinal Levada), with the other arm (MgrPozzo), within the same month, it is strangling to death the Institute of Good Shepherd. This Institute is requested to fall in line with Vatican II for its preaching, seminaries, for the occasional saying of the new mass and for an entire collaboration with the local diocese, contrary to assurances made five years earlier. How on earth are we going to believe that the new rome is not going to make the same request after five or six years… the little SSPX, it is said, thinks that it can wed the official church without losing the virginity of its Faith.
    Part II

    The Adultery from the Truth

    In the light of the above, we can now determine that to place ourselves under Benedict XVI is an adultery from the truth. Pope Benedict XVI is the best of his kind; the Mercedes Benz, Porsche and BMW of modernism. In the present concrete circuмstance, such a folly is a treasonable departure from the truth, the handing over of Tradition itself, and the preparation for the massacre of the souls of those who placed themselves under the protection of the Society for now forty years.

    Most happily, Providence has always intervened to stop the irreparable from happening, but it would be most useful and safe to know, ahead of time, what sin is entailed by an agreement with the new rome.

    FAITH: It cannot exist without confession. The SSPX was designed by its founder to be a perpetual army of the faith, fighting Carthage. It can and will take many blows, but if it steps down from its public stand against error it is to self demolish. Of Satan, Our Lord says “In veritate non stetit”“He failed to stand in the truth” (John VIII,44); the same could be said of us if we mellow. Our Lord argues with the Jєωs on the standpoint of the truth; a major theme of the whole Gospel of St John in which, very often, authority sides against the Truth. St John is no revolutionist; if authority follows the truth, then of course authority must be followed. But authority can fail with respect to the truth, and not infrequently.

    When Faith is in danger, our duty to it becomes immense, and such a duty is the object of the sacrament of Confirmation which anoints the forehead with Chrism against blushing in the fight of the Faith. St Paul says that the heart believes the Faith for its own justification, but, more importantly that the confession of the Faith has to be made for its salvation, and the salvation of erring and confused bystanders. Most of us became Traditional Catholics from the confession of the faith of other Catholics; that is about to change as soon as the new rome puts us in a position of silence about its errors.

    Short of destroying us outright, rome wants to contain us in a nice containment unit. But a containment unit is a prison, no matter how comfortable it is and well equipped. Our Faith does not simply belong to us, it belongs to the candlestick, it belongs to those in the world that shall take advantage of it, and add momentum to the pressure on rome to return to the Faith.

    HOPE: For in this dark hour, instead of a fake return, isn’t a full return of rome to the Eternal Rome what we are looking for?The Book of the Apocalypse warns against the deception of Sardis, who has the name of being alive, but is in fact dead (the Persians stormed Sardis by deception) (Apoc. III,1), against the deceptive nature of the pale horse (neither entirely black, nor entirely white; whose rider’s name is death, because the admixture of truth and error kills more souls than the blatant heresies of the black horse and the violent persecutions of the red horse (Apoc. VI,8)), and against the devouring locusts that have the appearance of Charity (Apoc. IX,7).

    Our Lady is most white, not in any grey, and she loves the tidiness of an army in battle array. She has not promised a Pope doing half of a job consecrating Russia (with Russia not converted as a result), still less a Pope who deforms her message, but a Pope who will do exactly what she requests. Such a mention of a great Pope is also in the prophecy of St Malachi and other prophecies.

    How can it be otherwise, since the whiteness that a pope wears signify the purity of his doctrine and the sanctity of his actions as Leader of the sole society capable of saving the human race. Our hope is that the Church becomes again the ark of salvation, becomes capable to beget children for Heaven. That is the Mission and the Charity of the Church.

    CHARITY: In the circuмstances of today, any agreement with the rome of today is a denial of the MISSION of the Society, which was designed precisely to rescue souls FROM the clutches of wolfy popes, cardinals, bishops and priests…worldwide, as the official church fails temporarily in its mission.Onecan’t dodge the clutches of the beast by placing oneself under its head but by staying altogether out of the range of the beast.

    Secondly, because so many SSPX priests do not agree with the proposed 180 degree turn, it is necessarily going to end up into a horrible split. We are going to look like a sect, one side of the split fighting “the other side”; making lawyers rich in figuring out which side is going to keep this or that asset of the SSPX.

    This in turn is going to discourage many of our faithful who do not have the elements to judge which side is which, and push away the newcomers of Tradition at the sight of this bitter incoming infighting.

    That is why I cannot understand at all  that cruel phrase “We cannot rule out a split”. On the contrary, it takes just a restating of our doctrinal stand and an assessment of the new rome based on reality to bring a state of unity amongst ourselves. Truth only gathers, and if the SSPX weathers this tempest, it will become unsplittable for many years to come.

    Isn’t a split what the cruel Rome of today looking for? Are not the Sedevacantists having the time of their life just watching us? ѕυιcιdє is a sin against Charity; we are not in the right to take the life of an entire Congregation, and that problem must be the sole concern of the next General Chapter.

    PRUDENCE:Archbishop Lefebvre never trusted the new rome, even when he was in negotiation with it, because he had a clear vision of their constant operation of error. But even if the romans were not capable to deceive him, he clearly stated that the experience should never be repeated after his departure, until rome returns entirely to Tradition. How can we have the pretention of being smarter than the Archbishop, who escaped the wily romans only by a whiss.And if we don’t share the same firmness of analysis of Archbishop Lefebvre, how can we claim to elucidate the practical proposals that rome is constantly dangling before us?How can we accept to take even a small risk (and the risk is actually enormous) of losing so much at the hand of proven enemies?

    The study of Barbier and Cretineau-Joly played an important role in the practical and doctrinal conduct of the Archbishop. In these two authors it is clearly stated that after its initial destructive period (the Terror, in the case of the French Revolution, and the sixties and seventies in the case of Vatican II), the Revolution elects to soften its approach to its enemies. This is called the Thermidorian phase of the Revolution, whose best illustration was the Treaty of La Jaunaye that concluded the wars of Vendee by dividing the Catholic army between those who were tired of the war and the irreducible followers of Charette who got liquidated once they were placed in a state of isolation from the others, who were less willing to fight. Throughout the XIXth century, French Catholicism kept on splitting between liberals and traditionalists, all the way down to Vatican II. All Revolutions have their phase of apparent mellowing in order to isolate those who still want to fight it, that is why it is so important for us not to confuse the false restoration, the false return of rome to Tradition with the real and total conversion of the Papacy, which will happen, but in God’s time. We should not dream to ourselves happy endings to this crisis; “Custos quid de nocte?”, says Scripture, “Watchman, what of the night?” Is the light of day coming today or is it some deceptive light?

    The agonizing question for us is what is the proportion in our ranks, of those who are tired of this war against the new rome, who think it is just a useless, damaging and prideful pretention of heroism.

    JUSTICE:“But, Father, Rome is proposing to repair the injustice done to us, Rome wants to be fair and gives us a place.” First of all we are not fighting in order to cleanse our honor, we must be instead like Suzanna who accept to undergo the unjust accusation, or like Rebecca who says “Let this malediction be upon me, my son”. Our situation is that of a son cast out of his house by his drunken father who resists the abuse of his mother. After a few days, the father accepts to reinstate the son back into the house on the condition that he stops rebuking him about his few drops of whisky and little bouts of temper against his mother. The conduct of the new rome is altogether irreprehensible, the father must stop his abuse before he can reinstate his son.

    FORTITUDE: The aim of war is the destruction of the will to fight in the mind of your opponent.A general differs from a businessman or a bureaucrat in the sense that he must be prudent like them, but also retain this prudence under fire (cf Sun Tsu, “The Art of War”). Patton said to his soldiers “Fear nothing but your general; for if he is good and you are bad, he will whip your ass; whereas if he is bad, it is the enemy that shall whip your ass!”I truly hope that no Sister is reading this paper, otherwise I’m in trouble.

    Bishop Fellay talks about threats coming from rome, but what are these terrible things? A new excommunication or suspension?We are well trained into being excommunicated and suspended because of the truth, and also one may note that for a punishment to be effective, the punisher should believe in what he inflicts. Those threats of rome are for rabbits: In the past, excommunication would mean imminent danger of eternal damnation; but the new rome believes only in universal salvation, so that the worse danger for us would be to be relegated to some layer of communion more peripheral than others, but still we would be better off than the Muslims, pagans and atheists, who are all members of the all inclusivebalthazaric church, whether they like it or not.

    (The only one of whose salvation we can and must despair is not Judas and Lucifer, but Bishop Williamson who, no one can deny, dared to commit the most horrible crime in the entire history of humanity.)Therefore, no, Bishop Fellay will always be fine.

    TEMPERANCE: It is not known enough that one of the acts of the virtue of temperance is to reject pride, flattery. In this, today’s roman authorities are spectacular experts. They give us permission to say mass anywhere in Rome, have our visiting priests stay in roman palaces, including the Holy Office, just behind St Peter’s basilica. They constantly tell us, just like Cardinal Gagnon in 1988, that our work is very valuable, and all the more valuable since the Church of today is rocked by so many problems, and that we must bundle effectively the conservative forces within the church to fight the progressivists (just like conservative fight liberals in liberal democracies, worldwide, failing so pitifully). Their food is gorgeous, the ballet of purple cassocks, birettas, fringes and laces is back, like in the good old days, and there is at all time a gilded door, wide open, inviting us to join in that ballet.If the lentils are good, Iwon’t deny it, but let them eat them themselves and I will keep the Faith of my inheritance.

    Therefore, as far as I can enjoy that faculty in my priestly power, I curse this sevenfold sin against the seven virtues and the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost. A sin that starts by an indirect but very real assault on the virtue of Faith, and that is followed, in all logic, by the fall of the six other dominoes.

    Part III

    The Thwarted& Tempting Treason

    (Situation as of May 25, but in need of periodic reassessment)

    We had it coming, for at least 12 years, but the faithful and many priests were given no warning of this huge change of direction, which makes the U-turn to Rome enter into the genus of deception in action or treason.

    For the moment the treason is thwarted, thanks to God, thanks to the resistence of many and the opposition of some modernists and French Bishops…but it is still trying to outflank. Therefore we are in need, like on a battleship, of a good fire control to readjust the landing of the shells on the new position of the enemy… and then, but only then will the enemy’s ship go to the bottom!

    Now, before I allow you to read this letter any further, I request you, my dear reader, to sign this preamble: “I, the undersigned dear reader, hereby declare that Bishop Bernard Fellayhasn’t signed anything yet with the new rome, even if he suffers from a powerful desire to do so, and therefore that he is for the moment, until the last split second separating his ink from the paper, entirely excluded from the category of treason and remains our beloved and respected Superior General or the Society of Saint Pius the Tenth. Date: Anytime between now and Bishop Fellay signs. Signed: Dear Reader.

    With this docuмent I am safe to proceed, because I know that some of you may accuse me of making my superior a traitor, further down this sermon.


    That will very soon become out of date

    The incoming General Chapter is like an incoming Vatican II: instead of being dogmatic as it should  have been, Vatican II was a pastoral council, and the incoming SSPX Chapter, instead of being a doctrinal Chapter, to address the emergency at hand, is now wrongly named administrative Chapter. Not that administrative details should be overlooked, but their place is at the end, just as actions follow ideas in the Epistles of St Paul.

    Any General Chapter convenes to address issues facing a Congregation. Now, the SSPX faces its most serious issue since its inception: it is splitting doctrinally. (Read the letters of the 3 vs 1 bishops).Therefore, anyone with a sound mind would put current affairs in the backburner and place the one doctrinal problem alone on the center of the table. In these circuмstances, the very name of Administrative Chapter, (correct if may be in ordinary time), sounds cruel, like the willful covering of a serious danger. That chapter can only be named DOCTRINAL Chapter.

    But even if this could be granted, the Devil will continue to outflank, and for the Devil, the next solution, is to cancel, or even better, postpone the General Chapter, according to the four steps of governance when a serious crisis is happening

    Nothing is happening, then

    Something might be happening but we cannot yet determine exactly what it is, then

    Something is happening, but there is nothing we can do about it, then

    It happened; therefore, let’s study the next serious crisis.


    But lets go back and study how our stance got eroded in the course of years.


    What is very worrying at the onset is this newfound culture of secrecy that was not practiced by the Archbishop when he came to Rome. Upon his return he would candidly expose everything he did to his seminarians, and the substance of his dealings would be public news within 48 hours.

    Now, in his reply to the three Bishops, Bishop Fellay states that he cannot and will not open himself, even to them BishopS (no small-fries seminarians). Read carefully the paragraph starting “You cannot know how much”, and you can clearly see that the trust is gone.

    It ain’t funny to be a SSPX Bishop these days, and I am not referring to the one who almost got expelled last September and who gets threatened every morning; I am referring to the Lamb and the Dove.

    For the small priestly fries, in our internal bulletin, came the scary good news that “now the time has come to be recognized by the official church”, or that we are just waiting for a canonical structure from rome once rome has signed our doctrinal statement.Then, inevitably, passengers start to scream, because the plane has switched off the gasses and is losing altitude rapidly; then the pilot puts on the gasses again, saying “I was just joking, nothing is signed, YET.”

    All this uncertainty is a new cross for us, and breeds a general state of unease.


    We tied ourselves, and the promise was frequently restated, that a practical agreement should not take place without an agreement of doctrine between us and rome. Now, the doctrinal discussions have just failed; Benedict XVI just came out of Assisi III, and we want a canonical solution with the new rome?

    The signing of a practical agreement with the official church is a matter or primal importance for a religious congregation. That is why, again, it was promised to us that before taking such a momentous decision, the general council of the Society would convene first a General Chapter. Now, we hear of a signing in the month of May or June; how is that possible?

    No due consideration is given to the fate of the other congregations (Dominicans, Capuchins, Benedictines, Carmelites, etc.) and all the independent priests that work alongside with us, should we sign. Their future is at stake and their position in the new church would be even riskier than ours and no one gives a dime?

    Did we study how rome is going to countenance our convalidating, that is, our doubting the novusordo Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders? How are they going to deal with our marriages? But the Pope can’t hold it any longer and we must elect all form of precipitation!

    Did Archbishop Lefebvre say that the new code of canon law is worse than the new mass, or did he not? If we agree to a canonical agreement and put ourselves in the jumpsuit of a canonical structure, under what canon law do we entrust ourselves?


    What is the deep meaning of a practical agreement with rome anyways? It is when the Pope will only say the True Mass, because, in order to say mass in the first place, the priest makes use of his practical intellect, where, says St Thomas, the Sacramental Character of Holy Order is impressed indelibly. Now, that is a practical agreement that I can sign; no ambiguity, and an effective agreement or return of Rome to Tradition.

    A doctrinal agreement would be the same; that is, not a condemnation of some interpretation of Vatican II, but the condemnation of the entire text of the Council, with all its time bombs, with all its half-truths, with all its blatant errors (religious liberty, for instance), with all its traditional sounding pages alternating with modernist ones, with all its omissions (of the condemnation of Communism, of the definition of Our Lady Mediatrix and Coredemptrix), with all its new notion of the Church, its ecuмenism and manifold errors, and in the end with all its consequences. One cannot separate, many of our studies and congresses clearly showed it, the traditional part of the Council from the erroneous one. One cannot separate the very text of the Council from its consequences. One cannot separate a good and bad interpretation of the Council. For so long, we thought we were all agreed about this, and now we are supposed to change entirely that most vital stance of the Archbishop!

    A doctrinal agreement needs to be a common and complete rejection of the entire text itself, in one piece, of Vatican II; and that truth and error cannot be disentangled from a Council that draws its dangerousness from its ambiguity. Remember Pascendi!


    The Rosary Crusades are good instruments to measure our gullibleness and the gullibility of our faithful; they give an automatic blessing to what we already plan to do in advance and a perfect warning to the official church that we are coming to buy something from them. But there are limits: Did we seriously believe in 2007, when we came to Rome, bouquet in hand, that romewas going to give to the entire Church something extremely good (but with necessary imperfections as usual), straight from the hands of Our Lady, instead of a mere repeat of the conditions of the 1984 MotuProprio, namely : - accept Vatican II

     - don’t attack the new mass?

    Answer: Absolutely yes; and not only that, but with this new distinction between ordinary and extraordinary, the True Mass is put technically in a lower level than the mass of Luther.

    Why all this gullibility? Because, this time, it is not like the other time; concrete circuмstances have changed and this repackaging of the 1984 MotuProprio was absolutely sensational. With such a glittery presentation, who cares if it is diamond or plastic?

    Exit bachelorette #1; enter the dainty 2009 Rosary Crusade #2:

    This time it is the solemn high holy reparation of the injustice done to us, the removal of the excommunication, but! Wait a second, if rome merely lifts the excommunication, it means it was valid in 1988 and the Archbishop died in his sins. How can Our Lady go for that?

    The 2007 and 2009 rosary crusades are a mockery of Our Lady…but surprisingly, the third one doesn’t sound bad. ButI may be wrong, becoming a flaker myself. And are we going to get goofed again this time? Heaven knows…

    Gullibility is such that it looks for occasions to believe. In December 2010 we joined this wonderful Pope in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament for the defense of life, for the defense of the natural order created by God. Bad timing! Benedict XVI made himself famous at the same time by releasing the opinion that the use of condom for a male prostitute involved in sodomy “could be the beginning of a moralizing process”. The liberal press immediately got the message; the door is open for the Church authorizing the use of condoms; Fr Ortiz even told me that in the Carribean, novusordo priests were distributing condoms. After such a lesson, we are still looking for gullibling opportunities!


    The big argument is that semi Ariansdidn’tconvert overnight and sinners take time to overcome their bad habit, and if you treat Benedict harshly he is not going to listen, he is not going to change etc. First, the semi Arians were in no position of strength, they were not the local bishops of the diocese of St Basil and St Gregory; it is basic diplomacy: you rarely obtain anything if you concede something in a position of weakness. And secondly, did St Basil start to believe in the hermeneutic of continuity of the semis as we are doing now? Didn’t he correct actively the erroneous concepts of the semis (something FrIscara is not proposing us to imitate in St Basil), while postponing the use of difficult expression for a brief time?

    The problem is that if you eat supper with the Devil (and our devil is in a position of strength), you need a very long spoon. Bishop Williamson should be the one to be put in charge of the relations with the new rome… and in charge of communication with the media! (cries of terrified horror in the congregation)

    The solution of this crisis is like an exorcism performed on the authorities demolishing today’s Church.So many people have joined tradition over the course of years, by us staying above the water, and now we think we are going to catch fishes by dialogue and brave, traditional sword thrusts in the water!?


    I always thought that the SSPX understood the question of religious liberty; it doesn’t seem to be the case if one read the interview of FrSchmidberger in the angelus and the interview of Bishop Fellay on Catholic News Network (?).

    The many lectures publications, symposiums and interviews against Vatican II don’t seem to sink in our minds any more. They don’t guarantee us from becoming lillylivered against new errors, from becoming implacable placators in our turn, fighting against whistleblowers in our midst, and from becoming popularity seekers before the media.

    I remember asking Bishop Fellay in Cebu, before Assisi III, if he could make some big statement and gesture, like the Archbishop did for Assisi I. All I got was an angry NO, on account of our work of dealing with rome now.

    One can understand why Menzingen wants to postpone the General Chapter… there are so many doctrinal questions that need to be assessed and redressed.

    I remember praying in 1994, for the election of Bishop Fellay. Next time I will not give any names to God but pray for a General who shall lead us into the battle, vigorously and wisely.

    But compromisers can firm up sometimes, so Iwon’tgive up just as yet on Bishop Fellay. Pius IX started a liberal and quickly became a rock of truth after his election; Archbishop Lefebvre believed in religious liberty when he was young. We are now completely at the mercy of God, who can punish us if we don’t watch what we pray for.


    Just as we are nice to Benedict XVI, good priests and bishops resisting reconciliation are facing growing threats, a perfect repeat of Vatican II: “If you don’tagree with the official stance of the Society, leave the society”. Well, the duty of a priest of the Society is not necessarily to uphold the position of the society, especially if it has just changed all of a sudden one good morning of May 2012. The duty of a priest of the Society is to protect the Catholic Faith, as long as the official church is overrun by modernism.

    Another threat: “Your dialectic between Faith and authority is contrary to the Priesthood” But this exactly what Caiphas told Peter, this is the contrary to that vital quote of Galatians I, 8&9; “If even I or an angel of God…” This is exactly the manner of speech of Pope Paul VI to the Archbishop.

    Another threat: “You don’t have the grace of state to see the greater picture, you are stepping out of line and spreading confusion” The best way to start confusion in the SSPX is to tamper with its DNA; then of course a cancer is beginning to spread.


    We can still believe, in may 2012, that Our Lady still loves the Society, for as a clear secret plan (deliberate or not, it doesn’t matter) and many things were set in place to bring about an official reunion of the official SSPX and the official church; in just a few days, the whole ship got torpedoed.

    For it is Britain, and Britain gloriously alone that put an inglorious end to treason, by leaking letters on the internet.Indeed, in this hour, even the frogs will be forever in the debt of these British gentlemen at their finest. In one swift Nelsonian move, all the fawl dispositions of our enemies got exposed and their lies confounded by their own mouths.

    The most important thing that these letters do is to break the law of silence. Yes, we knew that something was brewing, and we were slowly talked into it, be we did not expect that it was in such an advanced stage. For our faithful, who for the most were completely unsuspecting, the brutal reality of a split in the Society appeared, thereby compelling them to reach for their rosaries and request the crisis to be averted.

    The twin letters of Bishops give such perfect account of the opposite doctrinal positions in the SSPX, that hardly any one of us could give a better summary. Even if the Menzingen letter is written after, the letter of the three remains the answer to it; in such a wise as one could put the facing arguments in two opposite columns.

    The Menzingen letter of one bishop sounds as it is written by three and the letter of the three bishops reads as it is written by one.The first part of the Menzingen letter read just like Dom Gerard in 1988, the second part, about depth and breadth seems to be written by somebody else who buys the notion that the hermeneutic of continuity of Benedict XVI is not all that bad, and the last third reads like our internal bulletin and directives that urge us to march triumphantly, we little oysters, into the canonical plate of the Walrus and Carpenter. Its tone is clearly the same tone as Bishop Fellay.

    But the resistance of the three proved too strong to overcome, for the moment. Our Lady is indeed a most beautiful queen, and adding to her charm, three little animals came in succession: a cat, a lamb and a dove.

    Seoul 10 June,
    My dear faithful,

    Part I
    Nightmare Scenarios

    ·        To wake up reconciled with the new rome is to wake up in a nightmare instead of out of it. We shall stop being a valid entity unless we apply ourselves to the virtue of prudence, porro videns, the virtue that looks ahead, but not too far ahead; the virtue that looks at what might be happening after one month and five days from now.
    ·        Our Lady is going to intervene because the situation is desperate, as she said in Quito, but until then, the outlook remains pretty bad, and it is up to us to look for temporary solutions, however clumsy, because we are frail human beings. Our Lady chooses the time to intervene, but, in the meantime, we are not forbidden to consider the possibilities, that are now so near. I don’t agree with those who tell us we are not yet there. One month means we are there, prudence requests, while hoping for the best outcome of the General Council (GC), that we apply ourselves ahead a little.
    ·        But before I start, I would like to make a retractation of a previous erroneous statement in the WAR ON docuмent that runs as follows: “the next solution, is to cancel, or even better, postpone the General Chapter”. That statement is false, Menzingen is proceeding as scheduled. (But.. wait.. oh gosh! I might have to retract this retractation… so please, stand by until 07/01)
    Still waiting for serious objections to the WAR ON docuмent to correct other possible mistakes, after eating some punishment, threats and several forms of theft (with, cherry on the cake, my first canonical monition from Fr Couture (who, I guess, wants me out before the GC, so that all that crazy war talk will not mar the administrative debates)); all I want to say is “Non, rrrrien de rrrrien, je ne regrrette rrrrien” I don’t regret anything (Edith Piaf).

    The first next thing for us is to keep our eyes open between now and the GC, on some three animals; the chameleon, the spider and the crocodile:
    The most unassuring thing we have been witnessing so far is this constant shift of orientation; not just the proposed 180 degree return to Rome; but the fact that to know the position of Menzingen concerning roman proposals, we need to check it constantly in real time. The titanic April 14th letter clearly stated an intent to proceed and accept a roman offer that we cannot refuse, then the Pentecost sermon says that we are just looking without saying yes or no, and a few days later, June 07, we edge closer to the yes again. But, OK, let’s just say it’s an open decision making with points and counterpoints, thee shots and three vacant slots rolling in the cylinder of a Russian roulette; its cylinder rolling for ever… until that fateful July 15th, when the trigger shall be pulled… maybe… or maybe not: we must “follow the dictates of Providence”.
    But Bishop Fellay is very brave, and will not countenance bullying, as any good leader, so I would guess, reading from the June 7th interview, that his purpose to have a deal with Rome is hardening, despite the difficulties, uncertainties, and despite the remaining opposition of the three other Bishops and the mounting refusal of the SSPX rank and file. Everything is now made to fit into the box of reconciliation, sweetly and strongly. Swiss are like that; they love peace and reconciliation, but at the same time, one bullies them at his own risk.
    Ahead or wrapping its victim into its thread, the spider needs to sting it, to put it to sleep.
    The spider needs to sting that “all this is just rumors, the whole SSPX is united behind Menzingen because it has the graces of state and a loftier vision and a constant and clear knowledge of the concrete circuмstances. Cows are munching peacefully, everything is in such harmony in this blessed time of the Society. On the contrary, people (like yours truly) are causing great damage and scandal, are truly possessed by a spirit of agitation, subversion and revolution and don’t understand in the least the concept of authority, putting relentlessly the notion of the Faith in order to excuse their rebellion on what they disapprove of Menzingen. Refusing to keep the debate in its proper place, just between them and their superiors, they dare to call on all the faithful and even on all those who are not of our persuasion, especially the sedevacantists, to condemn their superiors in a most violent, unfair and irregular way.
    Look, nothing has happened, nothing is signed, wait for the outcome of the GC, calm down, take some vacation, pray, be holy, realize that you are in a time of desolation and trust in God.
    All those visits of members of the General Council and other SSPX experts don’t really mean anything. We are not tying ourselves canonically even if we are clearly beginning to see in what structure the SSPX is going to operate once we are recognized by the official church. Do not state your opposition now but after the deal with rome has been signed. Only then, when it will be so hard for you to move, will you have full and entire liberty to express that after being put to sleep and wrapped so tight, you are waiting, in the storage corner or the spider’s den, to be eaten after the Institute of Good Shepherd and the poor little Redemptorists. Then it will be time to speak out and the spider will have a more exciting meal.
    Last but not least the crocodile, and I have seen one recently in Davao, weighing one ton but capable to apply two tons of pressure with its jaw. The new rome is just the same, it is a powerful machinery of destruction of souls (cf. WAR ON Part one), but look, in its eyes there is a hole that contains extra eye protecting membranes. These look just like tears, just like this lonely Benedict XVIth so gently working at his desk for the good of the Church while the media are piling scandals against him, while he is being betrayed by the infidelity and the ineptitude of the whole Roman Curia, while he is tired and wants to retire… and we are one of the few of his remaining sons… and we are not going to listen to his appeal to come and help him make things better for the Church when he shows such great signs of benevolence towards us.
    That is cruelty; brave oysters should stand and fight against the sadness and loneliness of the Walrus and Carpenter, do something to help them, always for the gooood of the Church. The Walrus wants it himself; (in the past indeed, he used to devour little oysters without inviting them politely) there is nothing more beautiful that to put ourselves forward bravely if a good and supernatural reason is provided for us to die.

    Unfortunately, for the rashness of cutting the chameleon in two, squashing the spider and shooting the crocodile, some of us, and God forbid if the agreement is signed, many more in the future are getting threatened, admonished and expelled. Carefree as they were until that beginning of May, their life is taking an entirely new turn, with another, sevenfold nightmarish situation facing them.
    1.      Discouragement,
    Once you get thrown out, let me describe to you how it feels in the outer space of the galaxy: pretty cold, and pretty hot. I guess that was the feeling of those who got thrown out or left too early, Father Gotte, Fr Cardoso, Fr Meramo, Fr Abramhowicz and the others whose name I don’t recount and those other priests who are on the spring board like me. They are facing impossible odds, no visibility, no prudential protection, no insurances, little support from only a few people etc. They could be tempted to become very pessimistic. Vae soli; woe to the loner, for he has nobody to pick him up if he falls (into discouragement).
    2.      Slicing
    The second disaster is that those priests standing up against compromise get removed piece by piece, that is why as I am in my first monition, just in between of being in and being out (bureaucratically and invalidly), the best thing is to look at those on both side of the river and ask them to communicate and avoid
    3.      Isolation
    Isolation is a killer for a priest, because a priest lives only with other priests, he is not an anachorete, he has defects that need daily correcting through community life, he is a human being with ups and downs, he needs friendship like anyone else and friendship of people of his kind and then, especially, he needs one or several bishops. I would otherwise have kept mum had I not known how silenced or at time persecuted, but especially, had I not known how much our Three faithful Bishops disagree with the proposed sell out.
    4.      Doctrinal confusion
    Priestly crumbs, continuing to preach with whatever public voice is left to them will end up giving a different outlook on the situation, and depending on their state of mind sink differently into pessimism, exaggeration, or flip back and over in the novus ordo, like some sedevacantists of yore have done. Let alone piecing it together, their thought will be hard to get a hold of in the first place, and their little flock will also speak cacophonically. This is probably, of the seven, the worse part of the worse scenario, the triumph of that devilish spirit of confusion, leading next to:
    5.      Bitter zeal and sedevacantist trail
    First of all I would like to thank my sedevacantist fellow Catholics for helping me to spread my message, but I’m afraid they are going to rue the day. Because us joining them would be a complete betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre on our part. Our main claim is that we are not changing, so we are not going to turn ourselves into sedevacantists for the sake of maintaining the stance of the Archbishop, and we are going to dissuade any priests and faithful to follow that lamentable path. The solution of the crisis remains the same: the conversion of the papacy, that is why we put Menzingen and the sedevacantists on the same plane because both exclude the complete conversion of the Pope, each in his own disastrous way.
    The healing of the church will come only from the top, and just as we exclude the theory of progressive conversion of Peter, we affirm, that once Peter is converted, it will take him some time to confirm the Church back into the truth of the Faith. But indeed Peter is the only instrument that can make such a miracle happen. That’s my take of St Malachi foretelling a Pope who will lead the Church through many tribulations.
    6.      Infightings
    Once the truth is secure in the authorities’ head, the next thing is obedience, that coordination of actions of individual subject for the effecting of the common good and the preventing of division. The breaching of obedience is the constant reproach I have been hearing all these weeks, and I am sensible to it to the extent that once I am thrown out, I am not anymore a Samurai, but a Ronin, that is a leaderless Samurai. The Japanese solution is then to die honorably, which is very nice, but not a catholic and reasonable solution. “If we do not hang together, says Franklin, we shall all be hung separately”. Therefore I urge all of us expendable, General Issues or the SSPX, not to delay into finding a Bishop or a priest to lead and piece us together. It is vital.
    7.      Abandonment of the faithful
    The saddest thing will be to see all these disoriented sheep looking for pastors, seeking refuge in the sacraments and catholic doctrine, and not finding it any more. Can we abandon those people who are facing the whole current of the modern world, and leave them without an organization of chapels, schools, priories, newspapers, pilgrimages, retreats, homes of the aged, nuns, scouts, youth groups, doctrinal congresses etc. How can we countenance their state of shepherdlessness?

    ·        Methinks that in front of such a pile of Pandora’s boxes, the best and simplest is just to remain (“in time of desolation, don’t change your course of action”) as we are, SSPX priests and faithful. It would be a catastrophe to launch a new contraption, because, unlike the Mater Ecclesiae, SSP, Institute of Christ the King, Campos, Society of St John, etc. we are not departing from our Founder, while it is the official SSPX which is the departing side, just like before the SSPX crisis, it was not the SSPX that was departing from the Catholic Church, but the conciliar church that was departing from Catholicism. One (possibly the recent rewriter of Galatians) could rewrite the 1974 declaration along this line.
    ·        Not only that, but it shall be us who shall rename the soft side of the SSPX; something to the tune of “reconciliar SSPX”, just like we still face a “conciliar church”.
    ·        Day by day, joining the new rome becomes more a folly, for if Benedict XVI cannot control the Roman Curia, which is just under his nose, how is he going to refrain the local Bishops from suppressing us. Secondly, if Benedict actually retires, what kind of democratic papacy are we going to place ourselves under, since the redefinition of the “Petrine Ministry” has been in the ropes for a long time.
    The argument that 550 priests will stand their ground better than the weaker fraternities and institutes of the past doesn’t stand either, because those 550 oysters will have to face the opposition of 400 000 novus ordo priests. And then, big question, is Bishop Fellay really going to march forward with 550 priests or not, because even one month ahead, in the middle of June the resistance is already getting public and viral. Once his purpose to reconcile is made, the more he waits to sign, the better the chances for him to go to Rome empty handed, or even naked.

    Part II
    Proposed Course of Action

    Something needs to exist to receive all these priestly crumbs, those shattered, directionless, and uncoordinated warriors, but not something heavy and bureaucratized, but something endowed with that minimum of organization and visible authority for operating. Its first leaders get short mandates, until, much later, a college of leaders forms a General Chapter of some sort to nominate a more permanent figure to rally around be he be pwiest or Bishop.
    The internal link called “Cor Unum” will have to be issued very soon, no matter how small the group

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #6 on: January 01, 2013, 07:08:57 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The following was read and distributed to parishoners at St. Athanasius Church in Vienna, VA, on Sunday, December 16th:

    November 9, 2012

    Dear Father Rostand,

    Thank you for your letter of October 12 in which you offer to meet to discuss the situation within the Society of St. Pius X. While this is a very kind offer on your part and I appreciate it very much, I don't think such a meeting will serve any meaningful purpose, since the problems stem from the Society's top leadership, and you are not in a position to change that.

    It is true that I have been a strong supporter of the Society for many years. This support was based on the fact that my mission as a priest, and the Society's mission were one and the same, to help souls hold onto the Catholic faith during this time when it appears to have been abandoned by post Vatican II Rome.

    Now I have to be more cautious and reserved in that support. I am alarmed that the Superior General would say that 95% of Vatican II is acceptable. I am astounded that the Society's leadership would respond to three of the Society's bishops by suggesting that they are making the errors of Vatican II into a "super-heresy." I am disappointed that the Society's response to Assisi III was so weak and anemic. I am saddened by the Society's unjust disciplining of priests who are following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, and I am outraged at the treatment of Bishop Williamson -- not just his recent expulsion, but the shabby treatment he has gotten over the past few years.

    Prior to this year, when asked about the Society by an inquiring parishoner, I always gave the Society a green light. Given the Society's recent actions, I do not yet give the Society a red light, but I do give a yellow light of caution. The red light will come if and when the Society allows herself to be absorbed into the Conciliar Church that Archbishop Lefebvre so vigorously resisted.

    It is with great sadness that I write these words. There are many good, zealous, faithful priests within the Society's ranks. Many of them I know personally and admire. Many souls depend on them. It is out of love for the Society that I fear for her future. I fear that she is on a suicidal path. The leadership may think that a deal is off the table, but I fear that is not the thinking of Rome.

    I pray for the Society to return to the mission given her by Archbishop Lefebvre without compromise or hedging. When she does, she will have my unreserved support.

    May God bless you and Our Lady watch over you.

    Fraternally yours,

    Rev. Ronald J. Ringrose

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #7 on: January 01, 2013, 07:13:17 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The New ‘Hermeneutics’ of Bishop Fellay - Part I

    A Soft SSPX Walking toward Its ѕυιcιdє

    Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz
    This recent open letter by Fr. Ortiz from Colombia, sent to TIA by a reader, reflects well that the dissatisfaction inside SSPX continues, notwithstanding a temporary interruption in the negotiations between Rome and the leadership of that priestly organization. Today we transcribe the first part of Fr. Ortiz' docuмent to inform our readers about the present state of affairs. Shortly the second part will be available on this page.
    Given the length of the original docuмent, we divided it into two parts. The main title and subtitles are ours. The Editor

    Despite some seemingly reassuring recent discourses, the Society of St Pius X continues to go through the most serious internal crisis, in its complexity and in its seriousness, which it has never known.

    This crisis is particularly grave because it derives from serious failings on the part of Bishop Fellay and his two Assistants, in the doctrinal field as well as in the domain of prudence. This is the main cause of the concern of members of the Society.

    Some are tempted to believe that because so far there has not been a practical agreement with Rome the danger is over... But let us not conclude so quickly!

    Leaning toward compromise & causing an internal crisis

    Despite the appearances, the superiors of the Society have not retracted their new concept concerning the role of Tradition in the Church and in particular the relationship with the conciliar church. In addition, they are far from having taking any personal responsibility for this internal crisis caused by their imprudent actions.

    Fr. Ortiz: Fellay did not retract and is the architect of the internal crisis

    Fr. Ortiz: Fellay did not retract and is the architect of the internal crisis
    It is worthwhile to look closely at two aspects of this internal crisis in order not to underestimate the negative effects that continue to be produced in the Society and in the ranks of Tradition.

    The first aspect concerns the main role which the Society plays in the resistance to the Conciliar Church and the preservation of Catholic Tradition. If the Society falls, the last bastion of Tradition will fall.

    The second aspect concerns the grave change made by Menzingen as to the principal role of the Society in the forefront of responding to this crisis of the Church: This new role is clearly in opposition to the one given by Arch. Lefebvre.

    However, this change is very subtle and can be difficult to see for some because while they are claiming that they do not want to give up the doctrinal combat, these superiors have made the canonical recognition the essential priority of the Society. Some doctrinal aspects are still in their agenda, but they are placed on the second level. Thus, everything must be "redefined" according to this new priority.

    This change betrays in them the same "legalism" which has afflicted all the traditional communities that have rallied to Rome since 1988. Like them, they feel "guilty" because they have been “excluded” by the Official Church and they dream of being "reconciled" at all costs.

    We know the "hermeneutics of continuity" of Benedict XVI by which he has conceived a new interpretation of tradition that would integrate the Conciliar Church into the Tradition of the Church.

    The authorities of Menzingen, in order to justify their change of position, also have conceived a new "hermeneutics" or "reinterpretation" of the main role of the Society, by which they want to integrate their tradition into the Conciliar Church.

    The soft positions of today's SSPX

    This “hermeneutic” demands that the SSPX authorities make a distorted “re-thinking” of what Archbishop Lefebvre understood as being a priority for the Society; for example, they only quote words he spoke before the break with Rome in 1988, or his more conciliatory words concerning the official authorities of the Church.

    Walking away from the Catholic doctrine to pocket a canonical recognition

    Walking away from the Catholic doctrine to pocket a canonical recognition
    Thus, what was formerly vigorously rejected in the Conciliar Church is now "rethought" with a view toward accepting, if not totally, at least "partially" or "under certain conditions”, conciliar ideas.

    It should be noted that the authorities of the Society betray this new attitude more by what they do not say in regard to the conciliar authorities, by omission, rather than by direct speech.

    Except for a few more firm phrases here and there (to reassure the "harder" line among us), we can see a long-lasting "positive" attitude towards the teachings and the actions of the conciliar authorities, and in particular of Benedict XVI.

    A recent example of this “softening “is certainly the boycott by Menzingen of some books deemed "too hard," books written by Bishop Tissier and by Fr. Calderón on the Conciliar Church. Another example would be the recent Symposium of The Angelus, in the United States District, which chose as this year's theme "The Papacy" when we are commemorating the 50th anniversary of the disastrous opening of Vatican II!

    The right to denounce a voluntary ѕυιcιdє

    Some then might ask, for what purpose and by what right should this new direction in the Society be denounced?

    I know the Society and its purpose, having been a member priest for 28 years. I deeply love the Society in which I took a commitment for life. I have personally known the Founder, who ordained me, and whose writings and words I have always continued to study. It is because of my love for the Society and by filial piety towards Arch. Lefebvre that I think it is my duty to speak out publicly.

    It appears clear to me that for several years there has been a fundamental change, mainly among Bishop Fellay and his two Assistants, concerning the main role of the Society of Saint Pius X in these times of crisis in the Church: to fully preserve the Catholic Tradition by fighting against the enemies of the Church both inside and outside.

    The main goal of the Society of Saint Pius X in this crisis of the Church cannot be changed since that goal was clearly established by its Founder in many of his writings, sermons, lectures and actions, especially after 1988. Consequently, to change this purpose on important points would be to depart gravely from its Founder, and thus to expose the Society to commit ѕυιcιdє, by falling into the hands of the modernist Rome, which the Society always fought since its foundation.

    Experience shows us that all those who strayed from the line drawn by Arch. Lefebvre eventually finished by betraying the combat for Tradition.

    This change in the Society cannot be justified, because in recent years we have not seen in the Conciliar Church any important doctrinal or practical change in the sense of a real return to Tradition by the condemnation of the conciliar errors and reforms.

    To be continued

    Posted December 12, 2012

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #8 on: January 01, 2013, 07:16:39 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Williamson's Open Letter to Bishop Fellay on the Expulsion:

                                    OPEN  LETTER  TO  BISHOP FELLAY
                                              ON  AN  “EXCLUSION”

                                                                                                          London, 19 October, 2012

    Your Excellency,

    Thank you for your letter of October 4 in which, on behalf of the General Council and General Chapter, you let me know of your “recognisance”, “declaration” and “decision” that I no longer belong to the Society of St Pius X. The reasons given for your decision to exclude your servant are, you tell me, the following: he has continued to publish the “Eleison Comments”; he has attacked the authorities of the Society; he has exercised an independent apostolate; he has given support to rebellious colleagues; he has been formally, obstinately and pertinaciously disobedient; he has separated himself from the Society; he no longer submits to any authority.

    May not all these reasons be summed up in disobedience?  No doubt in the course of the last 12 years your servant has said and done things which before God were inappropriate and excessive, but I think it would be enough to point them out one by one for him to make the apology called for in all truth and justice. But we are no doubt agreed that the essential problem is not to be found in these details, that it can be summed up in one word: disobedience.

    Then let us at once point out how many more or less disagreeable orders of the Superior General have been unfailingly obeyed by your servant. In 2003 he left behind an important and fruitful apostolate in the United States to go to Argentina. In 2009 he left his post as Seminary Rector and left behind Argentina to moulder in a London attic for three and a half years, with no episcopal functions because they were denied him.  All that was left to him by way of ministry was virtually the weekly “Eleison Comments”, the refusal to interrupt which constitutes the large part of the “disobedience” of which he stands accused. And ever since 2009 it has been open season for the Society Superiors to discredit and insult him to their hearts’ content, and Society members all over the world have been encouraged by their example to do the same if they wished. Your servant hardly reacted, preferring silence to scandalous confrontations. One might go so far as to say that he obstinately refused to disobey. But let that go, because that is not the real problem.

    Then where is the real problem to be found?  By way of reply let the accused be allowed to give a rapid overview of the history of the Society from which he is supposedly separating himself. For indeed the central problem goes a long way back.

    Starting with the French Revolution towards the end of the 18th century, in many a formerly Christian State a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr began to establish itself, thought up by the Church’s enemies to chase God out of his own creation. To begin with, the old order in which throne upheld altar was replaced by the separation of Church and State. As a result, society was structured in a radically different way, creating serious difficulties for the Church, because the State, being henceforth implicitly godless, was bound in the end to fight the religion of God with all its might. Sure enough, the Freemasons set about replacing the true worship of God with the worship of liberty, a worship of which the neutral State in matters of religion is merely an instrument. Thus began in modern times a relentless war between the religion of God, defended by the Catholic Church, and the religion of man, liberated from God, and liberal. The two religions are as irreconcilable as God and the Devil. A choice has to be made between Catholicism and liberalism.

    But man wants to have his cake and eat it. He does not want to have to choose. He wants it both ways. So in the wake of the French Revolution Félicité de Lamennais invented liberal Catholicism, and from that moment on, the reconciling of things irreconcilable became common currency within the Church. For 120 years God in his mercy gave to his Church a series of Popes, from Gregory XVI to Pius XII, who for the most part saw clear and held firm, but an ever growing number of layfolk were inclining towards independence from God and towards the material pleasures which liberal Catholicism makes much more accessible.  The corruption spread until it infected bishops and priests, at which point God finally allowed them to choose the kind of Popes they preferred, namely Popes who would pretend to be Catholic but would in fact be liberals, whose talk might be right-wing but whose action is left-wing, who are characterized by their contradictions, ambiguity, Hegelian dialectic, in brief, by their lies. We are into the Newchurch of Vatican II.

    It was bound to be.  Only a dreamer can reconcile things in reality irreconcilable. Yet God, as St Augustine says, does not abandon souls that do not first want to abandon him, and so he comes to the aid of the small remnant of souls that is unwilling to join in the soft apostasy of Vatican II. He raises an Archbishop to resist the betrayal of the Conciliar churchmen. Respecting reality, with no desire to reconcile things irreconcilable, refusing to dream, this Archbishop speaks with a clarity, a coherence and truth that enables the sheep to recognize the voice of the divine Master. The priestly Society which he founds to form true Catholic priests begins on a small scale, but by its resolute refusal of the Conciliar errors and of their basis in liberal Catholicism, it draws to itself a remainder of true Catholics all over the world, and it constitutes the backbone of a whole movement within the Church which will go under the name of Traditionalism.

    But this movement is intolerable to the churchmen of the Newchurch who mean to replace Catholicism with liberal Catholicism. Backed by the media and State governments, they do everything they can to discredit, disgrace and ostracize the courageous Archbishop. In 1976 Paul VI suspends him “a divinis”, in 1988 John-Paul II “excommunicates” him. He is a supreme nuisance to the Conciliar Popes because his voice of truth has the effect of showing up their pack of lies and of imperilling the betrayal they mean to carry out. And despite being persecuted, despite even being “excommunicated”, he holds firm, as do the large number of the priests of his Society.

    Such faithfulness to the truth obtains from God a dozen years of internal peace and external prosperity for the Society. In 1991 the great Archbishop dies, but for another nine years his work carries on, faithful to the anti-liberal principles on which it was built. So what will the Conciliar Romans do to bring the resistance to an end?  They will exchange the stick for the carrot.

    In 2000 a major Jubilee Year pilgrimage of the Society to Rome shows forth in the basilicas and streets of Rome the power of the Society. The Romans are impressed, despite themselves. A Cardinal invites the four Society bishops to a sumptuous luncheon in his apartment. Three of them accept. Immediately after this most brotherly encounter, contacts between Rome and the Society which had grown rather cold over the last 12 years, pick up again, and with them begins a powerful process of seduction, as one might say, by means of scarlet buttons and marble halls.

    Indeed contacts warm up again so swiftly that by the end of the year many priests and laity of Tradition are already afraid of a reconciliation taking place between Catholic Tradition and the liberal Council. The reconciliation does not come about for the moment, but the language of Society headquarters in Menzingen is beginning to change, and over the 12 years to come, it will show itself ever less hostile to Rome and ever more open to the Newchurch, to its media and their world. And while at the top of the Society the way is being paved for the reconciliation of irreconcilables, so amongst the priests and laity the attitude towards the Conciliar Popes and Church, towards everything worldly and liberal, is becoming more and more favourable. After all, is the modern world that surrounds us really as bad as it is made out to be?

    This advance of liberalism within the Society, noticed by a minority of priests and laity but apparently not noticed by the great majority, became evident to many more in the spring of this year when, following on the failure in the spring of 2011 of the Doctrinal Discussions to bring the doctrines of Tradition and the Council together, the Society’s Catholic policy up till then of “No practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement” changed overnight into the liberal policy of “No doctrinal agreement, therefore a practical agreement”. And in mid-April the Superior General offered to Rome, as basis for a practical agreement, an ambiguous text, openly favourable to the “hermeneutic of continuity” which is Benedict XVI’s favourite recipe to reconcile, precisely, the Council with Tradition !  “We need a new way of thinking,” the Superior General said in May to a meeting of priests of the Society’s Austrian District. In other words, the leader of the Society founded in 1970 to resist the novelties of the Council, was proposing to reconcile it with the Council. Today the Society is conciliatory. Tomorrow it is to be fully Conciliar!

    It is difficult to believe that Archbishop Lefebvre’s foundation can have been led to bracket out the principles on which it was founded, but such is the seductive power of the fantasies of our godless world, modernist and liberal. Notwithstanding, reality does not give way to fantasies, and it forms part of reality that one cannot undo the principles of a founder without undoing his foundation. A founder has special graces that none of his successors have. As Padre Pio cried out when the Superiors of his Congregation were starting to “renew” his Congregation in accordance with the new way of thinking of the Council, just closed: “What are you doing with the Founder?”  The Society’s Superior General, General Council and General Chapter may keep Archbishop Lefebvre on hand as a mascot, but that will not help if they all share in a new way of thinking that by-passes the crucial reasons for which he founded the Society. Therefore however good their intentions, they are leading the Society to its ruin by a betrayal parallel in all respects to that of Vatican II.

    But let us be just, let us not exaggerate. Since the beginning of this slow collapse of the Society, there have always been priests and laity who saw clear and did their best to resist. In the spring of this year their resistance became more weighty and numerous, so that the General Chapter of last July did place an obstacle in the way of a false Rome-SSPX agreement. But will that obstacle hold up?  One may fear not. In front of some 40 Society priests on retreat in Écône in September, the Superior General, referring to his policy with regard to Rome, admitted: “I was wrong,” but whose fault was it ? – “The Romans deceived me.” Likewise from the whole springtime crisis he said that there had arisen “ a great distrust within the Society” which would need to be healed “by acts and not just by words”, but whose fault was it ?  Judging by his acts since September, which includes this letter of October 4, he is blaming the priests and laity who failed to put their trust in him as their leader. After the Chapter as before, it seems as though he can brook no opposition to his conciliatory and Conciliar policy.

    And that is the real reason why the Superior General has given several times the formal order to close down “Eleison Comments”. Indeed the “Comments” have repeatedly criticized the Society authorities’ conciliatory policy towards Rome, thereby attacking them implicitly. Now if in this criticism and these attacks there has sometimes been a failure to observe the respect normally due to the office or persons of the Society authorities, I readily beg forgiveness of anyone concerned, but I think that anybody actually reading the particular “Comments” implicated will recognize that the criticism and attacks usually abstracted from the persons, because the issues at stake are far more than just personal.

    And if we do come to the great problem far surpassing mere persons, let us call to mind the immense confusion presently reigning in the Church, and placing in peril the eternal salvation of souls without number. Is it not the duty of a bishop to uncover the true roots of this confusion and to denounce them in public?  How many bishops in the whole wide world see clear as Archbishop Lefebvre saw clear, and how many are teaching accordingly?  How many of them are still teaching Catholic doctrine at all?  Surely very few. Then is now the moment to be trying to silence a bishop who is doing so, if one is to judge by the number of souls that hang on to the “Comments” as they would to a lifebelt?  How in particular can another bishop be wanting to shut them down when he himself has just had to admit to his priests that he let himself be deceived for many a long year on the same great questions ?

    Likewise, if the rebellious bishop took upon himself – for the first time in nigh on four years – an independent apostolate, how can he be blamed for having accepted an invitation, coming from outside the Society, to give the sacrament of Confirmation and to preach the word of truth?  Is that not the very function of a bishop?  And if he is accused of having preached what was a word of “confusion”, there is always the same answer: what he said in Brazil was confusing only for people who follow the line confessed to be an error, as evoked above.

    So if he does seem for years to have been separating himself from the Society, the truth is that he has been distancing himself from the conciliatory Society, and not from that of the Archbishop. And if he seems insubordinate to any exercise of authority on the part of Society leaders, the truth is that that applies only to orders running counter to the purposes for which the Society was founded. In fact how many other orders are there at all, besides the order to close down the “Comments”, which he can be blamed for having disobeyed in a “formal, obstinate and pertinacious” manner?  Is there even one other such order?  Since Archbishop Lefebvre refused to obey only acts of authority of Church leaders which were of a nature to destroy the Church, his disobedience was more apparent than real. Likewise refusing to close down the “Comments” is a disobedience more apparent than real.

    For indeed history repeats itself, and the Devil keeps coming back. Just as yesterday Vatican II wished to reconcile the Catholic Church with the modern world, so today one could say that Benedict XVI and the Society’s Superior General both wish to reconcile Catholic Tradition and the Council; so again tomorrow, unless God intervenes between now and then, the leaders of the Catholic Resistance will be trying to reconcile it with Tradition henceforth Conciliar.

    In brief, your Excellency, you may now go ahead and exclude me, because the arguments above are not likely to persuade you, but the exclusion will be more apparent than real. I have been a member of the Archbishop’s Society ever since my perpetual engagement. I have been one of its priests for 36 years. I have been one of its bishops, like yourself, for nearly a quarter of a century. That is not all to be wiped out with one stroke of a pen. Member of the Archbishop’s Society I therefore remain, and I wait.

    Had you remained faithful to the Archbishop’s heritage, and had I myself been notably unfaithful, gladly I would recognize your right to exclude me. But things being as they are, I hope I shall not be lacking in the respect due to your office if I suggest that for the glory of God, for the salvation of souls, for the internal peace of the Society and for your own eternal salvation, you would do better yourself to resign as Superior General than to exclude myself. May the good Lord give you the grace, the light and the strength to perform such an outstanding act of humility and of devotion to the common good of everybody.

    And so, as I have so often finished the letters I have written to you over the years,
    Dominus tecuм, may the Lord be with you.                          
    +Richard Williamson.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #9 on: January 01, 2013, 07:22:53 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Open Letter to Bishop Fellay from Mexican Laity (2009), taken from TIA website:

    The SSPX Pews Ask Bishop Fellay :Where are you  Leading  Us?

    TIA was asked by Mr. Jaime Flores Guerrero, co-author of this  Open Letter to Bishop Bernard Fellay, to edit his translation of the letter from  its original Spanish and post it on our website. With pleasure we assist him in
    this request. The subtitles are ours. The Editor   ( From TIA)

    Open  Letter to His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of SSPX  Jaime Flores Guerrero & Marco Flores Guerrero
    On 15 December 2009, some of the faithful at a modest Mass Centre in Mexico sent the  Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, a letter  asking for some clarifications on issues that are causing serious doubts and  concerns among the traditionalist faithful in various places.
           Since we  received neither a reply nor an acknowledgment of receipt, we decided to publish  that letter, slightly adapted, as an Open Letter to ensure it reaches its  destination and to express the perplexities of all the faithful who find  themselves confounded by analogous cuмstances.

         We hope Bishop Fellay,  as Superior General of an institution that has provided us with so many  advantages, will deign to say some words to resolve our spiritual  disorientation.
         No offense is intended to him or the other superiors of  the Society, or to the SSPX itself. It is our desire to address Bishop Fellay in  the spirit that inspired Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer,  as well as many priests and lay people, when they approached the ecclesiastical  authorities, that is, as helpless sheep seeking the assistance of their  Shepherd.

    Bishop Bernard Fellay
    Superior General
    of the Society of Saint Pius X
    Most Reverend Excellency,

    In view  of the present actions and statements by the SSPX authorities regarding their  relations with the Vatican and the diverse opinions and confusion they have  produced, many of us have gone to the priests to express our doubts. We were  trying to resolve our anxieties and concerns, and preserve our confidence in the  institution founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Unfortunately, many of those
    priests are unable to answer our questions. Their responses lack conviction, and  they often merely advise us to trust the authorities of the Society. This is  why, with due respect, we address to you the following questions:

    Clashing concepts of the Church
          Your Excellency, which of the two  authorities should we trust? The one that in 2004 rejected all "nuanced"  agreements with Rome, given ts syncretistic spirit, and argued that “we must  turn our backs with horror and disgust on this conception of Church and this  form of communion”? (1) Or the authority that in 2009 joyfully announced  that conditions for talks between the Vatican and the SSPX had been met, and  then effectively entered into them?
           "Do not accept this bastard  Mass" There would be no reason to ask this question if Modernist Rome had  moved away from the syncretistic "communion" which caused that strong rejection  in the past (2). But, far from that, the Vatican authorities – including the  Pope – continue to engage in "ecuмenical" ceremonies and approve those  practices everywhere.
          Bishop de Galarreta was very clear in this regard:  Benedict XVI “is theologically identified with the Second Vatican Council. His  teaching and government are based upon the spirit of the Council. He wants to  incorporate us into an ecuмenical conception of the official Church; he is
    practicing ecuмenism with us” (3).
    Contradictory Masses
          We  respectfully insist, Your Excellency, which of the two authorities should we  trust? The one that endorsed the Brief Critical Study by Cardinals  Ottaviani and Bacci sent to Paul VI, in which they stated that the Novus Ordo  Missae, “in its ensemble and details, represents a striking departure from  Catholic theology”? (4) Or the authority that is delighted with the Motu  proprio Summorun Pontificuм, a docuмent that expressly affirms that the Roman  Missal promulgated by St. Pius V must be considered an extraordinary expression  of the lex orandi [way of praying]? And further affirms that the Missals of St. Pius V and Paul VI are both legitimate expressions of the lex orandi of the
    Church and “do not lead to any division in the Church's lex credendi [way of  believing]”?
          How can one explain that the SSPX is celebrating the Motu  proprio, which asserts that the “bastard Mass” of Paul VI (as Archbishop
    Lefebvre used to call it) and the Mass of St. Pius V both correspond to the same  lex credendi? Would you be kind enough to tell us when Paul VI's Mass stopped  departing from Catholic theology?
          Contradictory attitudes regarding the  1988 excommunication Your
            YourExcellency, once again we respectfully ask:  which one of the two authorities should we trust? The one that in 2006 said  it could not ask for the lifting of an excommunication that was null? (5)Or  the authority that in 2009 requested the lifting of that excommunication, and,
    when it was lifted, celebrated by having the Magnificat sung in all the SSPX  chapels and formally thanked Benedict XVI?
          Please, Your Excellency, we  request an answer to these questions. Do not abandon those of us who want to be  faithful to the True Church.

          In 1988 the Society felt a such a joy and  satisfaction to be excommunicated by a "system that labels itself the Conciliar  Church" that even the priests and seminarians, who were not included in the  excommunication, requested that it be extended to them. Today it is difficult to
    understand why there was such strong insistence for the excommunication to be  lifted.

    Contradictory interpretations of the excommunication  

          Speaking out of both sides of his mouth
          Your Excellency, which one  of the two authorities should we trust? The one that did not recognize the  validity of the excommunication?
    Or the authority that publicly offered  thanks for it being lifted, thereby accepting its validity and effectiveness?  (6) In addressing the faithful, the SSPX authorities have repeatedly stated  that they considered the excommunication invalid and rejected it. In the letter  the four Bishops sent to Benedict XVI thanking him, however, they recognized  that the excommunication was effective from their consecrations in 1988 until
      January 21, 2009.
          Humbly and respectfully we beseech your response. If  there should be no answer, who could blame us for being distrustful after
    witnessing all these contradictions?
          Devotion to the Blessed Mother used  to justify concessions
          Your Excellency, allow us to ask another  question: Where is the respect for the Blessed Virgin Mary the Society always  professed? The issuing of Benedict XVI’s Motu proprio Summorum  Pontificuм, in which the Holy Mass of all times was humiliated, was attributed  to her. The lifting of the invalid excommunication was also attributed to the  Mother of God (7).
    How can anyone say that those docuмents are graces  granted by the Virgin Mary? How can one explain that this statement – which many
    consider blasphemous –comes from those who direct the Society of Saint Pius X?

    The apostasy of Campos repeated in the SSPX
    One year after the  surrender [of the traditionalist priests] in Campos, Brazil, Your Excellency  warned us about it: “Little by little one gives up the fight and ends by  accepting the situation. Everything in Campos still looks traditional, no doubt, so that the people see nothing different. The shrewder ones among them, however,  note the tendency of the priests to speak more often and respectfully about news  from Rome, omitting their past warnings and ignoring the present day deviations.  To become accustomed to this situation and to cease to correct it is a great  danger.” (8)

          Bishop Rifan in Campos: A spurious marriage of  Traditionalism with Vatican II& the New Mass What should we think when
    we see the same happening inside the SSPX today?

    Today the priests are  speaking more often and more respectfully about Rome. It suffices to read the  letters of thanks filled with eulogies of Benedict XVI and to see how Your  Excellency referred to him as “an upright person with a great concern for the  Church.” Today the Society is omitting its past warnings about the  errors of the Modernist Church. Was there any official pronouncement of  the SSPX on the last encyclical of Benedict XVI? For more than one year now, the  Society has stopped commenting on the deviations of the post-conciliar Church.
    This has gone so far that it has punished the priests and faithful who have done  so. Where was the censure of all the “interreligious” acts (blatant  apostasies) in which Benedict XVI participated in 2009?
          Is the Society  becoming accustomed to this situation? Is it ceasing to correct it? One  sees that the words you wrote in 2003 referring to Campos can easily be applied  today to the SSPX.

    Final words

         Your Excellency, we have been  asked to trust the authorities of the SSPX. But how can we do so when we  learn that Fr. Celier, a priest in good standing in the Society, was authorized  to collaborate in a "modernist agenda" and made a proposal suggesting that a  rite derived from the mixture of the modernist and traditionalist liturgies  would be fully satisfactory? (9)
          Heading to a hybrid Mass: Card.  Lehman, a known progressivist, now appears traditional How can we trust the  authorities of the SSPX when we learn that, after three years, this same priest  neither disavowed his statement nor was he punished? (10) How can one  explain that the SSPX no longer considers the Mass of St. Pius V fully  satisfactory? How could it consider that a mixture of the traditional liturgy  and the modernist liturgy could produce a fully satisfactory rite?
          Those  who have raised their voices to alert others about the danger of the errors  mentioned in this Open Letter have become the target of attacks by some SSPX  priests, who accuse them of judging their superiors.
           Your Excellency  once affirmed: “A simple exposition of the facts does not transform one into a
    judge. Otherwise, one would have to agree to no longer think” (11).
           Should anyone accuse us of judging the SSPX authorities, we would respond by  making your words our own. For example, the pointed out above,  the offenses to the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as the double language used  when addressing the faithful on the one hand and the media or the Vatican on the  other constitute a “simple exposition of facts.” Pointing them out “does not  transform us into judges” of the SSPX authorities. “Otherwise, one would have  to agree to no longer think.”
          Anguished, but with deep respect, we end  by asking: Where are you heading, Your Excellency? Where are you leading those  priests, religious men and women and seminarians whom God called to be under  your custody? Where are you steering the faithful who have placed their trust in  you? How will Your Excellency respond to God regarding them when He will call  you to judgment?


    Jaime Adolfo Flores Guerrero &
    Marco Antonio Flores Guerrero
    1. “How can anyone claim that modernist Rome  has changed and is favoring Tradition? What a delusion?” Letter to friends and
    benefactors # 65, 2004.
    2. In July of 2003, Your Excellency affirmed, “We  will believe that Rome is truly heading toward Tradition only when it changes
    and corrects – in one way or another – the general anti-traditional line that  continues to infect the Church.” (Letter to friends and benefactors # 64).
    3. The Angelus, May 2, 2009.
    4. Letter to friends and benefactors # 62,  2002.
    5. Bishop Fellay, Sermon at Flavigny on February 2th, 2006, The  Angelus, May 2, 2009; Letter of the Superior General of the Priestly Society of
    Saint Pius X, January 24, 2009.
    6. SSPX Bishops Letter to Our Holy Father,  January 29, 2009.
    7. Although Fr. Bouchacourt qualified it as “very  deplorable” and Bishop de Galarreta has said it “corresponds neither to truth
    nor justice, The Angelus, May 2, 2009.
    8. Superior General's Letter to  Friends & Benefactors #63. January 6, 2003. 9. Benedict XVI and the  tradicionalists. Book writen by Fr. Gregory Celier with journalist Olivier  Pichon, pubblished in February 2007.
    10. Agenda, Benedict XVI 2010, Ed.  Terra Mare, France.
    11. Letter to friends and benefactors # 62, 2002.

    After this kind of a warning in 2009, how could Bp Fellay possibly say he was tricked By Benedict in 2012?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #10 on: January 01, 2013, 07:29:37 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Open Letter of British Faithful to Bishop Fellay (taken from TIA website):

    May 19th 2012

    Your Excellency Bishop Fellay,

    We come before you, in a spirit of charity, in order to bring before you certain concerns which we wish to address to you as the Superior General of the SSPX. For a little while now, we have been hearing talk of a practical arrangement with Rome. We are concerned at the potential danger this might pose to the integrity of the faith, our faith, and the faith of our children and grandchildren.

    Rome’s intentions towards an SSPX agreement

    Several high-ranking SSPX clerics (Fr. Pfluger, Fr. Schmidberger, and others) have stated that Rome is prepared to give the SSPX “carte blanche” – in other words, to accept the SSPX as it is, without compromise. However, in contradiction to that, we have the published words of several high-ranking Romans, including the Vatican press spokesman, who make it clear that they view this as a question of the SSPX accepting the new “Vatican II” religion in order to ‘”return to Rome.”

    At the same time, we are warned that we ought to pay no heed to rumors. Since there is a contradiction between the two versions of what is being offered to the SSPX, and since a Vatican press announcement is not a rumor, are we to conclude that we ought to pay no heed to the words of Fr. Pfluger, for example?

    Your own position regarding the Council

    We are also scandalized at your recent remarks, published across the world by CNS, that: “ [Thanks to the doctrinal discussions with Rome] we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council” … and that: “The Pope says that the Council must be put within the great Tradition of the Church… These are statements we agree with, totally, absolutely.” (CNS, May, 2012)

    Bishop Fellay talking out of both sides of his mouth We wish to point out that when you say “we,” you do not speak for us. Furthermore, we wonder how you can reconcile this idea that the Council taught nothing wrong, but rather was misinterpreted, with the words of Archbishop Lefebvre (in his book They Have Uncrowned Him, for example), or even with your own statements from not so very long ago, such as: “Ratzinger should prepare for a direct revision of the Council texts and not just denounce their incorrect hermeneutics (interpretation)” (CNA, Oct.30, 2007)

    From certain quarters we are being urged to show loyalty, obedience and unity. Leaving aside the awkward memory of how these very same words were used to silence opposition to conciliar teachings and the New Mass some 40 years ago, we feel compelled to ask – Which Bishop Fellay are we supposed to obey? The Bishop Fellay of 2007 who thinks that Vatican II must be revised, or the Bishop Fellay of 2012 who thinks that Vatican II was merely misunderstood and must be accepted? Furthermore, which Bishop Fellay is more consistent with the example of Archbishop Lefebvre?

    Your attitude towards Benedict XVI

    We also must confess ourselves confused, to say the least, regarding your recent statements about Benedict XVI. It has been said that nobody in the SSPX has a right to refuse if the Pope insists on a canonical accommodation. You yourself have spoken of him in terms of him being our leader in the fight for Tradition: “But we are not alone in working to defend the Faith … It is the Pope himself who does it; that’s his job. And if we are called to help the Holy Father, then so be it.”

    A part of the SSPX grassroots is still under the spell of our progressivist Pope May we remind you that this is the same man (Cardinal Ratzinger) whom Archbishop Lefebvre felt he could not trust in 1988? That this is the same man who has professed heresies which he has never retracted, as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has pointed out on several occasions? That in the mind of this same Benedict XVI, the idea ‘defending the faith’ appears to include speculating about the non-existence of Limbo, about the possible moral probity of contraception when used by the depraved, and that he appears to believe that conversion, baptism or the confession of Christ are not necessary for Jєωs to be saved?

    Given that a person as prominent as yourself is not normally ignorant of these things, is it unreasonable for us to conclude that you are consciously and deliberately overlooking the heterodox teaching and leadership of Benedict XVI?

    The SSPX USA District website currently carries an article purporting to show that, following the example of St. Basil of Caesarea, the correct attitude of Catholics when faced with heterodoxy and heresy in high places is one of silence in the face of apostasy, in order to accommodate themselves with the apostates. We cannot for one minute imagine that Archbishop Lefebvre would have agreed with this, nor that he would have tolerated such an idea being taught in his SSPX for one moment.

    Once again, we find that, in remaining faithful to the legacy of the great Archbishop, faithful to Catholic Tradition, we are placed at odds with you and your leadership. We neither desired this nor asked for it: The cause lies with you; therefore, with you lies also the solution. Whatever the result, we shall not be the ones to change. We will remain faithful to Tradition, whatever the consequences.

    Rumors, information, openness and honesty

    Finally, we wish to express our very deep concern that amidst this turmoil, amidst what appears to be a huge upheaval affecting the SSPX - and thus all of us, and by implication, the future of Tradition and the whole Church – there appears to be a reticence on the part of the leadership of the SSPX to come forward with information in a spirit of honesty and openness. We are told, on the one hand, that we ought to pay no attention to rumors or internet gossip, and only pay heed to information that comes to us from the official sources of the SSPX.

    On the other hand, when solid facts come to light (such as the letter of the three Bishops, or your recent interview with CNS, or the Vatican press release about the SSPX), we are supposed not to look at that either.

    On the one hand, we are told that we should only get our information from the official organs of the SSPX (dici,, etc). On the other hand, these same news organs (dici,, have been demonstrably hiding from their readers any facts that do not help the cause they are trying to advance (namely, the argument in favor of reaching a practical agreement with Rome). Nowhere on, or on, or on will one find the recent press statements from the Vatican, nor any reference to the fact that a large proportion of the Bishops, priests and faithful of the SSPX – we believe the majority – would be against the idea of a practical agreement with Rome.

    Either you subscribe to Vatican II and the New Mass or you will have no canonical status We are castigated for reading what is termed “private correspondence,” when our only desire is to put an end to rumor by making ourselves informed of the facts. The letter that the three SSPX Bishops sent to you last month did not contain any personal information, and treated only of public matters affecting the future of the SSPX, therefore it is surely somewhat disingenuous for it to be termed “private correspondence.”

    What is more, it does appear that there is a double standard in allowing clerics who are in favor of reaching a practical arrangement to express their personal opinions from the pulpit, whilst at the same time requiring absolute silence from those who are against such an arrangement. We therefore feel that we are justified in both reading and circulating the letter to other faithful Catholics, who like us, are concerned for the future of the SSPX, and who – but for the appearance of this letter – might feel themselves alone and confounded.

    In short, if Your Excellency wishes the faithful to trust the leadership of the SSPX, if the faithful of the SSPX are exhorted to pay no heed to rumors, then we feel you ought to take steps to dispel the current climate of fear and distrust, and allow all opinions on the matter to be stated openly, and all information (regarding, for example, whether the Rome of today has converted from its Modernism) to be circulated openly. It is in a spirit of honesty and openness that we write this letter to you, in genuine concern for the future of Tradition throughout the world.

    The future of the SSPX and the future of Tradition

    When you became Superior General, in 1994, you inherited a Society of St. Pius X that was strongly united, fervent, devout and unworldly, which knew what it stood for and why, and which had a clear vision of where it was going. Our Lord entrusted this Society into your hands. Were He to ask you now to render an account of what you have done with that same Society, what would you be able to show Him? What sort of a Society will you bequeath to your successor?

    The frog: I am sure the serpent is becoming traditionalist. We won! We won! ... It is abundantly clear to us that Rome has not converted, that Rome is as steeped in Modernism as ever it was. What is not clear to us is what the leadership of the SSPX is doing or why – your own attitude, beliefs or motives.

    Archbishop Lefebvre taught us admirably well, both through his writing and in the personal example he gave to the world, that the duty of Catholics is not one of merely believing in a passive way. It is also apostolic, of converting the world, and of pointing out and denouncing error when one sees it.

    In his own day, Archbishop Lefebvre denounced the various errors spread by Church authorities, including the Pope. He founded the SSPX not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end: the end being the continuation of Tradition and the denouncing of error. He did not found the SSPX in order for it to “not be provocative [or] aggressive,” to use some more of your recent words. We are perplexed and dismayed that certain members of the SSPX appear to see a motive, an end, which outranks that of preaching the Truth and denouncing error, and are thus willing to remain silent in the face of the many errors and evils of our day. It is our fervent hope that the future of the SSPX and the future of Tradition are, as in days past, one and the same thing.

    Whatever may be the case, however, we will do all within our power to believe and spread the Truth, to denounce error, and, in so doing, to remain faithful to Our Lord and His Church, to Tradition, and to the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre - whatever the cost - and whether Your Excellency chooses to abandon us or remain with us.

    St. Pius X, ora pro nobis!

    Posted June 5, 2012

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #11 on: January 01, 2013, 07:31:14 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Letter of Fr Cardozo to the "Silent Priests:"

    Dear colleagues,

    In your letters, you say that you expect to something bad to happen before acting ... What serious thing are you waiting for? ... That they make you say the new mass with a woman acolyte who distributes communion in the hand, as some Fathers of Campos do already? Once we accept an error, what is the standard for not to make the next mistake? What is the limit? We saw the fall of "hard" priests who one day became absolute modernist, and have spent writings against Catholic orthodoxy ... What ensures you that there will be a return to sound principles of Catholic Tradition we have received from our founder Archbishop Lefebvre? Is the letter of Bishop Fellay to three bishops, the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, lies and permanent ambiguity of your superiors were not serious enough?

    I think many are deceived and deceiving souls entrusted to them by God, saying that the Fraternity remains the same, that the agreement has not been signed, etc.. How can it be the same from the moment the SG Bishop Fellay responded to three bishops in May of this year by minimizing the errors of Vatican II, praised Benedict XVI as if he were a faithful instrument of Christ, insisting that we must enter [ed: dar el paso in Spanish] in the official Church "? ... If we are in the Church of Christ why enter "[dar el paso] a conciliar church which, in principle, we never wanted to belong? Or have you also thought that we were outside the Church? ... This can be only that to explains your attitude! ... One of you told me that we should apply the rule of St. Ignatius, "no change in the time of tribulation" ... exactly! Why change Fraternity? [note: Father means that the Fraternity of Bishop Fellay is not the same as the Fraternity of Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests therefore should not change Fraternity] We must stay Catholics! ... We are members of the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, which has nothing to do with the sect that occupies our priories, our schools, chapels and seminars. Would it not be clear enough that the principles of this sect have nothing to do with the Society of St. Pius X and his fight against modernism? How can you criticize Vatican II now, when your Leader says it "is not a super-heresy" How are you going to say something against the beatification, for example, of Paul VI, when your leader say that Benedict XVI is a person of "integrity"? ... Where do you see the four notes of the Church of Christ in the conciliar church to which your leaders are committed to drag you in?

    Your silence is already scandalous. Priests outside the Fraternity reacted, the faithfuls who demands to hear the truth raise their voices and the only response is silence or complaint within four walls ... Is it not cowardice? ... Is it not complicity? Or omission? ... Do your silence protects the modernist mistakes of your leaders? ... And your anti-modernist oath, what became of it? ... Or is it that there is no death, judgment, or hell to you?

    These days, I read the following:
    Who are those who follow the path of hell?
    It is mainly men who abuse their authority in any field, who are dragging their subordinates to evil, either by violence or by deception. They will be judged very harshly. real Satans of this earth, it is to them that are addressed these terrible words of the Scripture: "Oh, Lucifer, how did you fall from heaven"
    Bishop de Segur, hell, chap. III.

    Because of the silence, we are in this situation! I pray to God that you leave your silence and speak against so much disorder and apostasy. False prudence hides the cowardice and lack of faith, silence only benefits the enemy.

    P. E.J.J. Cardozo

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #12 on: January 01, 2013, 07:40:30 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is this Operation ѕυιcιdє?
    An Analysis of the evidence relating to an agreement between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Conciliar Church of Rome
    With material compiled by Stephen J. Fox

    Entire 200 page book available for free at homepage.ѕυιcιdє

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #13 on: January 01, 2013, 07:46:17 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Commentary of Fr Basilio Meramo on the Response of Bishop Fellay to the Letter of the Three Bishops (taken from


    The unprecedented response of Bishop Fellay {to the} letter {of} his three brothers in the episcopate in which they expressed their disagreement {with} him, surprises by the stupidity of the charge, and betrays, {in} the author, an intellectual myopia preventing him from seeing beyond illusions.

    In his letter, Bishop Fellay, in effect, assumes {the} power of truth itself, since this infallible guru attempts to impose himself at all cost{s}, as if invested in a divine mission for which, in his naïve ignorance, he cultivates the ambition to overthrow the {-} anti-Catholic revolution and the apostate adultery today {coming} from Rome.

    Bishop Fellay, flattered by a corrupt Rome and wrapped up in the promise of a personal prelature, dares to emphasize its meaningless standard, by which it would confer a legal and canonical status in the religion of the Great Scarlet Prostitute -- {a} vision of whom was caught {by} the Apostle St. John the Evangelist when he saw her dressed in gold and purple (attributes of royal power and prestige) and straddling the beast from the sea -- or in antichristian craftiness.

    He displayed a weak theological and intellectual background and a false mysticism, as demonstrated by the fact of having been dazzled and duped a few years ago by a Swiss prophetess {-} seeking to reform the spirituality of the Fraternity left by his founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. This complete illuminist found fertile ground in the weak sensitivity of Bishop Fellay, but it seems to have prevailed at the time, despite strong opposition from other members of the Fraternity, which, in any case, blindly and naively leaned towards the bishop because of the wonderful apparition.

    He now claims to be the unique and special envoy able to resolve the current crisis, whose dimensions exceed the same apocalyptic and eschatological {terminus} that he ignores.

    Bishop Fellay charges the other three bishops with two serious errors, according to this myopically-enlightened guru {-} believing himself to be invested with a mandate and authority over the whole of Tradition and driving it into bankruptcy as well as formal public {apostasy}.

    According to him, these two errors would be: in face of the current crisis in the Church, the three bishops in question -- Mgrs Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and de Galarreta -- sin by lack of both supernatural vision and realism. They lack supernatural vision, because they do not see in the present official Church, the visible Church which holds Benedict XVI to be a legitimate Pope, and because they do not realize {a} that Jesus Christ Himself can speak through the mouth of Joseph Ratzinger, {b} that the will of the latter is legitimate and -- also -- is kind to Tradition, and finally, {c} that our Lord Jesus Christ will give the means and the necessary graces.

    According to him, the Pope always wanted to solve the problem, which is a {major} concern of his papacy, and {which} manifests itself immediately and irrevocably in his will. So they have a vision of the Church {that is} too human or too fatalistic. They do not see {the} assistance of grace and the Holy Spirit: they perceive only the dangers, cօռspιʀαcιҽs and difficulties. And as if that were not enough, they lack -- according to Bishop Fellay -- realism : on the one hand, they make {the} errors of Vatican II {into} super-heresies. This caricature of reality, leads to a hardening; leads to an absolute and real Schism {yet} on the other hand, not everyone in Rome is modernist, not everyone in Rome is rotten.

    Not only {is} the outlook of Bishop Fellay naïve and unrealistic, but it is hyper-supernatural, as would {be} that of a visionary who did not know the theological principle {of the} supernatural and {the} natural that he is talking about: grace (supernatural) builds on nature, because it is about human nature and the angelic nature (intelligent and free). It is not able to act on a stone or an animal {which are} without reason or will.

    Archbishop Lefebvre was the first to report clearly and categorically that the official (post-conciliar) Church is not necessarily identifiable with the visible Church of God. He writes, "Where is the visible Church? The visible Church is recognized by the signs that it has always given to {its} visibility: it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. I ask: where are the true marks of the Church? Are they more in the official Church. (This is not the visible church: this is the official church) or here, in what we represent; {in} what we are? Clearly it is we who keep the unity of {the} faith, which has disappeared from the official Church." And he stresses that: "Of course, it can be objected: ‘Is it necessarily gone from the visible Church {...}?" It's not us, but the modernists who leave the Church. As for saying "gone from the visible Church,": {this} is to {be} mistaken in equating {the} official church and {the} visible Church." (No. 66 Fideliter November-December 1988).

    This is what Bishop Fellay, Father Schmidberger and their unconditional supporters do {?not?} want to see or {to} hear, they are walled up in {the} blindness and {the} deafness of their error.

    Bishop Fellay gives the most complete illusion, as is evidenced by the remarks made by Archbishop Lefebvre himself during an interview with Fideliter one year after the consecrations:

    Fideliter -- Some say: "Yes, but the Archbishop should have accepted an agreement with Rome, because once the Fraternity has been recognized and the sanctions have been lifted, it could act more effectively within the Church, than outside, as it is today."
    "Msgr Lefebvre -- These are easy things to say. Getting inside the church, what does that mean? And first, of what church do we speak? If this is the Conciliar church, should we, who have fought against it for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, return to this Conciliar church calling it Catholic? This is a total illusion."
    (Fideliter No. 70, July-August 1989).

    These words of Archbishop Lefebvre clearly show that Bishop Fellay and his clique {-} are utopians. In fact, for them {to} persist in this business under a total illusion is a sign of mental retardation or connotes an attitude of {the} guru and {the mystic}, elated by what he believes is his divine mission of "Superman" of the Church and {of} Tradition, {who} is about to reverse the anti-Catholic Revolution. Only a dreamer or ?a lunatic? can {make} such a claim, while accusing those who seriously oppose him of lacking realism and supernatural spirit. Has anyone ever seen such illusions and such pride? What animates Bishop Fellay other than a form of religious paranoia? Bishop Fellay's supernatural spirit based on the fervent and dogmatic idea that Benedict XVI is certainly and absolutely Pope; that his will is legitimate; and {that} God can speak through his mouth.

    However, this is {the} theological error of taking as a matter of faith {-} something that does not {exist}: it is here in the present theological dogmatism of the ignorant, which makes {-} an article of faith (or considered as such) {out of} that which does not {exist} in reality. Do not forget that {according to the Biblical} account God can also express {Himself} by the mouth of Balaam's mule, or make the stones speak.

    St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject provides a very significant example when he talks about faith as an inherent divine certainty and he highlights the case of a wafer that the faithful worship, when it has not been consecrated, as might occur with a particular host. Answer: What is {of} faith, is that any valid host really and substantially consecrated contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, but it is not of faith that this particular host (here and now) contains the divine presence, because there may have been a voluntary or involuntary {fault}, which has prevented the consecration, {but} there was no desire to expose the error to the faith in the Church of believers.

    It would be the same with the Pope: every legitimate pontiff is really and truly {the} Pope, but it is not of faith that any pontiff in particular -- for example, Benedict XVI -- is indeed {the} Pope. It is precisely because his legitimacy is in question -- because, indeed, {of} his acts that contradict {the} faith of the Church -- {that} he may not actually and truly be {the} Pope, without drawing away the faithful from their faith in the Church.  Remember the case of St. Vincent Ferrer, who {recognized as} the genuine and legitimate Pope, the antipope Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna, or Moonstone), and who was then wrong, but without sin against the faith, by considering as false, him who really was {the} Pope.

    Bishop Fellay has fallen into the falsely-based dialectic {that it is} an a priori {requirement} of faith to believe that this pontiff -- John Paul II or Benedict XVI -- is the genuine and legitimate Pope, {so that} anyone, who does not agree with the above or doubts {it}, sins against the faith and {is} making a big mistake by not knowing exactly {how to} distinguish {between} what is {?the subject and the object?} of faith

    If this were so, Archbishop Lefebvre (or all theologians, except Pighi the Dutch{man}) never would have considered the possibility of Sede Vacante. So it is obvious that this position can not be regarded as schismatic, heretic{al} or apostate. The same discussion that takes place on the ground about theological doctrinal differences confirms that this theory is entirely possible, but modernist and apostate Rome has very cleverly and subtly created a Machiavellian dialectic on this subject {so} that no one can question the legitimacy of the conciliar Popes, {and} whereby anyone who dares to do {so} is disqualified as {a} contemptible pariah; the question becomes {a} theological taboo then allowing Rome to continue -- unimpeded -- to pontificate in {its} error and violate the immaculate virginal faith.

    At {his} conference in Econe {on} 15 April 1986, Archbishop Lefebvre returned to what he said in his Easter sermon stressing that: "Is the Pope always the Pope when he is a heretic? Frankly, I do not know! But you yourself can {ask the} question. I think in any sensible man, the question must be asked. I do not know {why} not. Now, it is urgent to talk about this? ... We can not talk {in public}, obviously ... We can talk amongst ourselves, privately, in our institutions, our private conversations between seminarians, priests between ... Is it necessary to speak to the faithful? Many say ‘No, do not tell the faithful, they will be scandalized. It will be terrible, it will go away ...’ Fine. I said {to} the priests, in Paris, when I met {them}, and then to yourself ({to whom} I'd already spoken), I told them: "I think, nevertheless, it is necessary to very carefully illuminate just the faithful. I'm not saying that we should do it and launch it brutally in the face of {the} faithful to scare them ... no, but I still think it is precisely a matter of {the} faith. It is necessary that the faithful do not lose {the} faith."

    However, it was forbidden and repressed in many ways within the Fraternity: First by Father Schmidberger when he was Superior General, and now it is done by Bishop Fellay, and the faithful are kept in the dark. {To} discuss this theory was and is worse {than} contracting leprosy or AIDS: there is a taboo that cannot be violated by discrediting {the legitimacy of the Pope}. For nothing can shake the apostate Rome more than seeing {put} in doubt {or} publicly attacked the legitimacy or authority she brings to the Conciliar-Church, the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, thus fulfilling the prophecy of La Salette: "Rome will lose {the} faith and become the seat of the Antichrist" (?Apparition?)

    Bishop Fellay is so unrealistic that it was he who accused the other three bishops of unreality because they perceive, in the errors of Vatican II, super-heresies, as if heresies were not enough in spite of their already {being} disastrous. Of course, why would he not say that, he said that he accepted 95% of Vatican II and that {he would} hasten to (the modernist) Rome if he is called?

    All this fails to surprise, but as he himself admits, not receiving any support from {the} three other bishops, he put them away. At the same time, he pursued his purpose, so that the case is now in the public square, while {he} wanted to continue to keep {it} under wraps. Furthermore, he issued a statement in which he states that his brother bishops have sinned grievously, yet in fact grave and mortal sin, but rather {it is} he who is guilty and who remains there in sowing discord and destruction in the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, but this sleepy illuminated guru puts {on} his blinkers. He hides behind his authority {as} Superior General {which} he brandishes, trying to make believe that {he} only is suitable for deciding the fate of the Fraternity, as if he could do and undo everything at will.

    His concept of authority is neither Catholic nor Thomistic and is pagan and proactive. He believes himself capable of exercising power in defiance of goodness and of truth. However, any authority is perverted and distorted (is delegitimized) if it is exercised against justice and truth and the service for which it was instituted.

    This is Bishop Fellay who creates from scratch a vile and unacceptable dialectic between truth and authority, between faith and authority, while the best that remains to him to do would be to resign for having shown {himself} abusive and inept, incapable of governing his subordinates in the sense of {the} mission that was assigned to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, {by} Archbishop Lefebvre {and} conceived by him as a bastion of faith and Catholic tradition, and {for} the fight against the modernists who occupy Rome.

    To believe {what} Bishop Fellay says now, {that} with Benedict XVI things {-} have changed, and {that} there seems to {be} a trend in favor of faith and tradition: "In itself, the solution of the proposed Personal Prelature is not a trap. {It} is evident first of all that the present situation in April 2012 is very different from that of 1988. {To} claim that nothing has changed is a historic mistake. The same problems are hurting the Church, {the} consequences are more serious and obvious {than} then, but at the same time we can see a change in attitude in the Church, aided by gestures and acts of Benedict XVI towards Tradition. This new movement {that} was born there at least a decade {ago}, will {be} strengthening."
    (Bishop Fellay's response to the three Bishops of April 14, 2012).

    This is absurd and illogical. This is from a blind {and} stubborn {individual} who takes us all for complacent fools and does not realize that he yields to the error that Monsignor Lefebvre had denounced, in his time, in a letter to Jean Madiran: "We cannot, without seriously failing in truth and charity, suggest, to those whose {words} we listen {to} or read, that the Pope is untouchable; that he is full of desires to return to Tradition; and {that} it's his entourage {that} is guilty ..." (Letter of 29 January 1986).

    Bishop Fellay cannot deny the theological authority of his three brothers in the Episcopate, as bishops are the successors of the Apostles -- that is to say the guardians of the Doctrine of the Faith. And he should reflect {on the fact} that they have more weight than his sole opinion.

    {May} God illuminate {him with} His divine grace so that he finds in himself the courage and {the} humility necessary to realize what he is about to do by destroying the only bastion of resistance that the Fraternity of St. Pius X, as an international institution, {poses} against the heresy of Rome {and} the apostate, heretical modernists, whom Archbishop Lefebvre treated {as} antichrists by writing in his letter of August 29, 1987 to the future bishops whom he would consecrate: "The Chair of Peter and {the} positions of authority in Rome are occupied by antichrists."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14672
    • Reputation: +9678/-3110
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #14 on: January 01, 2013, 07:50:25 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • From

    Fr Juan Carlos Ceriani
    Analysis of the SSPX General Statement by Fr. Juan Carlos Ceriani

    Fr. Ceriani is a former SSPX priest, having left in 2009.

    Declaration versus declaration
    We have read today the SSPX’s General Chapter Statement, of July 2012.

    Let us remember Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s declaration of November 21, 1974:

    We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.
    We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

    In effect, all these reforms have contributed and continue to contribute to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, to the disappearance of the religious life, and to a naturalistic and Teilhardian education in the universities, in the seminaries, in catechetics: an education deriving from Liberalism and Protestantism which had been condemned many times by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

    No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

    "Friends," said St. Paul, "though it were we ourselves, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we have preached to you, a curse upon him" (Gal. 1:8).

    Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if there is a certain contradiction manifest in his words and deeds as well as in the acts of the dicasteries,* then we cleave to what has always been taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties which destroy the Church.

    It is impossible to profoundly modify the Lex Orandi without modifying the Lex Credendi. To the New Mass there corresponds the new catechism, the new priesthood, the new seminaries, the new universities, the "Charismatic" Church, Pentecostalism: all of them opposed to orthodoxy and the never-changing Magisterium.  This reformation, deriving as it does from Liberalism and Modernism, is entirely corrupted; it derives from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical.  It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this reformation and to submit to it in any way whatsoever.  The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation.

    That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of priestly formation under the guidance of the never-changing Magisterium, convinced as we are that we cannot possibly render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to posterity.

    That is why we hold firmly to everything that has been consistently taught and practiced by the Church (and codified in books published before the Modernist influence of the Council) concerning faith, morals, divine worship, catechetics, priestly formation, and the institution of the Church, until such time as the true light of tradition dissipates the gloom which obscures the sky of the eternal Rome.

    Doing this, with the grace of God, the help of the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, and St. Pius X, we are certain that we are being faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church, to all of Peter's successors, and of being the “Fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi In Spiritu Sancto”.  Amen.

    Comparing both Declarations, it is found that the SSPX General Chapter of July 2012, not only differs from the Open Letter of July 6, 1988 signed by all the Major Superiors, but also denies its Founder’s Declaration, when it abandons the distinction between the Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith, the eternal Rome, and the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies.
    Archbishop Lefebvre’s Declaration

    We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.

    General Chapter’s Statement
    It seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation; our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth

    So far, there is not a significant difference… but the poison comes in the details…
    Archbishop Lefebvre’s Declaration

    We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.
    No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

    "Friends," said St. Paul, "though it were we ourselves, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we have preached to you, a curse upon him" (Gal. 1:8).

    General Chapter’s Statement
    The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it.

    The difference is obvious: there is not condemnation nor rejection.
    This coincides perfectly with the statements made on several occasions by the current Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay:
    1) Conference of December 11, 2005, which recounts his meeting with Benedict XVI.
    At this conference, with the itch to assert the perpetuity of the Church visible (which is true), Bishop Fellay even says that today's Rome is the guardian of the Faith. For that, he uses the Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre of November 1974 , but giving the opposite sense:

    Archbishop Lefebvre expressed this first principle of attachment to the Catholic faith admirably on November 21, 1974, and we may say that it is still our charter today:
    “We wholeheartedly adhere with all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to keep this faith; to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth”.

    We wholeheartedly adhere to this text.

    “To Catholic Rome” means something. This Catholic Rome is not an abstraction, let us be very careful about this! It is not an abstraction. It is a reality.

    When the Archbishop says:

    We adhere to Catholic Rome, this means Catholic Rome today. It is not merely adhesion to Michelangelo’s Rome or Saint Peter’s Rome. It is the Rome that exists today, with the following characteristics: this eternal Rome is Catholic, guardian of the faith, preserving the faith.

    What was Bishop Fellay thinking and what he wanted to convey when saying: "When the Archbishop says, "We adhere to the Catholic Rome", that means today’s Catholic Rome"?
    2) Remember the Press after the hearing of August 2005:

    The audience was an opportunity for the Society to manifest that it has always been attached —and always will be —to the Holy See, Eternal Rome.

    Very good! But he omitted the second part, the distinction from "the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council..."
    3) Letter of the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, January 24, 2009

    “We are ready to write the Creed with our own blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of faith of Pius IV, we accept and make our own all the councils up to  the Second Vatican Council about which we express some reservations.”
    4) February 16, 2009. Conference at the seminary in Flavigny, before more than 60 SSPX priests:

    Some, to make things easier, identify the official Church with the Modernist Church. But that is wrong, because we talk about a concrete reality.
    5)Letter to the other three bishops of the SSPX, April 14, 2012:

    Reading your letter one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church with its seat in Rome is truly the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured for sure from head to foot, but a Church which nevertheless still has for its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One has the impression that you are so scandalised that you no longer accept that that could still be true. It Benedict XVI still the legitimate pope for you? If he is, can Jesus Christ still speak through his mouth?
    This failure to distinguish leads one or the other of you three to an "absolute hardening". This is serious because such a caricature no longer corresponds to reality and logically it will in the future finish up in a true schism. And it may well be that this fact is one of the arguments pushing me to delay no longer in responding to the pressure from Rome.

    It is obvious that we are before a new Society of Saint Pius X…

    Fr. Juan Carlos Ceriani