Source website (http://www.oriensjournal.com/ homepage/ fellay-firmly-leading-sspx-back-to-rome )
Fellay argues case for reconciliation with Rome.
Posted on May 12, 2012 Leave a Comment
Letter of the General Council of the Society of Saint Pius X.
We publish an important letter from the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, together with two other members of the Society’s General Council, First Assistant Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Second Assistant Fr. Alain-Marc Nély. The letter is dated April 14, 2012 and has been addressed to the other SSPX bishops Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson, and De Galarreta.
The letter is of great moment. It indicates that Bishop Fellay and his team are attempting to lead the SSPX toward a final resolution of its canonical status in union with Rome. The letter explains the policy of the General Council in its negotiations with Rome. However, the letter also indicates that Fellay is at odds with the other three SSPX bishops and that, unless he can win them over, a real schism that could develop around the intransigent three.
This letter was first translated by, and published on, the Rorate Caeli blogspot.
SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X
Menzingen, April 14, 2012
The Most Reverend Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson, and De Galarreta
Your Excellencies,
Your collective letter addressed to the members of the General Council received our full attention. We thank you for your solicitude and charity. Allow us in our turn, with the same concern for justice and charity, to make the following observations.
First of all, the letter indeed mentions the gravity of the crisis gripping the Church and precisely analyzes the nature of the ambient errors that pullulate in the Church. Nonetheless, the description is marred by two defects in relation to the reality in the Church: it is lacking in a supernatural spirit and at the same time it lacks realism.
The description lacks a supernatural spirit. To read your letter, one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is at Rome is indeed the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured, to be sure, a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, but a Church that in spite of all still has as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One gets the impression that you have been so scandalized that you no longer accept that it can still be the true Church. For you, it would seem to be a question whether Benedict XVI is still the legitimate pope. And if he is, there is a question as to whether Jesus Christ can still speak through him. If the pope expresses a legitimate will concerning us which is good and which does not order anything contrary to the commandments of God, have we the right to neglect or to dismiss this will? Otherwise, on what principle do you base your actions? Do you not believe that if Our Lord commands us, He will also give us the means to carry on our work? Now, the pope has let us know that an abiding concern for the regularization of our situation for the good of the Church lies at the very heart of his pontificate, and also that he knew very well that it would be easier both for him and for us to leave things as they stand now. And so it is indeed a decided and legitimate will that he is expressing.
With the attitude you recommend, no room is left for the Gideons or the Davids or for those who count on the Lord’s help. You reproach us with being naïve or fearful, but rather it is your vision of the Church that is too human, and even fatalistic. You see the dangers, the plots, the difficulties, but you no longer see the assistance of grace and of the Holy Ghost. If one grants that Divine Providence leads the affairs of men while safeguarding their liberty, it is also needful to admit that the gestures in our favor over the last several years are also under its guidance. Now, they trace a line– not straight–but clearly in favor of Tradition. Why should this suddenly stop when we are doing our utmost to be faithful and to intensify our prayer? Will the good God let us fall at the most critical moment? That does not make a lot of sense, especially as we are not trying to impose on Him the least self-will, but are trying to examine events closely so as to discern what God wants, and being disposed to all that shall please Him. At the same time, your description is lacking in realism as regards both the degree of the errors and their extent.
Degree: Within the Society, some are making the conciliar errors into super heresies, absolute evil, worse than anything, in the same way that the liberals have dogmatized this pastoral council. The evils are sufficiently dramatic; there is hardly any reason to exaggerate them further (cf. Roberto de Mattei, Une histoire jamais écrite, p. 22; Mgr. Gherardini, Un débat à ouvrir, p. 53, etc.). Needful distinctions are not being made, whereas Mgr. Lefebvre did make the necessary distinctions on the subject of liberals several times. i This failure to distinguish is leading one or the other of you to a hardening of your position. This is a grave matter because this caricature no longer corresponds with reality and in future it will logically end in a real schism. And it may well be that this fact is one of the arguments that urges me to delay no longer in responding to the Roman authorities.
Extent: On the one hand, you saddle the current authorities with all the errors and evils to be found in the Church while leaving aside the fact that they are trying at least partly to disengage themselves from the most serious of them (the condemnation of the “hermeneutic of rupture” denounces real errors). On the other hand, you act as if ALL of them are implicated in this pertinacity (“they’re all modernists,” “all are rotten”). Now that is manifestly false. The great majority are still caught up in the movement, but not all.
So that, coming to the most crucial question, the possibility of our surviving in the conditions of recognition of the Society by Rome, we do not reach the same conclusion as you do.
Let us note in passing that it was not we who were looking for a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused a priori to consider, as you ask, the Pope’s offer. For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current solution of an intermediary status quo, but clearly, Rome is not going to tolerate it any longer.
In itself, the solution of the proposed personal prelature is not a trap. This is apparent from the fact, first of all, that the present situation in April 2012 is quite different from that of 1988. To pretend that nothing has changed is an historical error. The same evils afflict the Church, the consequences are even worse and more obvious than before; but at the same time we have observed a change of attitude in the Church, helped by the gestures and acts of Benedict XVI toward Tradition. This new movement, which began at least ten years ago, has been growing. It has reached a good number (still a minority) of young priests, seminarians, and even includes a small number of young bishops who clearly stand out from their predecessors, who confide in us their sympathy and support, but who are still pretty well stifled by the dominant line in the hierarchy in favor of Vatican II. This hierarchy is losing speed. This perception is not an illusion, and it shows that it is no longer illusory for us to contemplate an “intramural” struggle, the difficulty of which we are not unaware. I have been able to observe at Rome that however much the talk about the glories of Vatican II we’ll be dinned with is still on the lips of many, it is no longer in people’s heads. Fewer and fewer believe it.
This concrete situation, with the canonical solution that has been proposed, is quite different from that of 1988. And when we compare the arguments that Archbishop Lefebvre made at the time, we conclude that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not lose our sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder.
The history of the Church shows that recovery from the conflicts that beset it usually occurs gradually, slowly. And once one problem is resolved, something else starts up—oportet haereses esse. To require that we wait until everything is regulated before reaching what you call a practical agreement is not realistic. Seeing how things happen, it is likely that it will take decades for this crisis to come to an end. But to refuse to work in the field because there are still weeds that may crowd out or hamper the good grain is a curious reading of the Biblical lesson: It is our Lord Himself who gave us to understand by the parable of the wheat and the cockle that there will always be, in one form or another, weeds to be uprooted and grappled with in His Church…
You cannot know how your attitude these last months–quite different for each one of you–has been hard on us. It has kept the Superior General from communicating and sharing with you these weighty matters, in which he would have so willingly involved you had he not found himself before such a strong and passionate incomprehension. How he would have liked to be able to count on you, on your advice and counsel at such a delicate passage in our history. It has been a great trial, perhaps the greatest of his superiorate. Our venerated founder gave the bishops of the Society a precise function and duties. He made it clear that the unifying principle of our society is the Superior General. But for some time now, you have tried, each in his own way, to impose on him your point of view, even in the form of threats, even publically. This dialectic between truth and faith on one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood. At least he might have hoped that you would try to understand the arguments that have moved him to act as he has these last years, according to the will of Divine Providence.
We do pray for each one of you, that in this battle which is far from being over we may find ourselves all together for the greater glory of God and for the love of our dear Society.
May our Risen Lord and our Lady deign to protect you and bless you,
+Bernard Fellay
Niklaus Pfluger+
Alain-Marc Nély+
www.inthissignyoushallconquer.com
Donations: Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church
1730 N. Stillwell Road, Boston, KY 40107 USA
Sermon given on Second Sunday after Epiphany
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, SSPX
January 20th, A.D. 2013
From Mass in Denver, CO
Errors of ‘Science’
(sermon prepared for Septuagesima Sunday, delivered a week early)
Duration 52:32
[The first few minutes of announcements are not transcribed here, min = 7:35 -- THEREFORE, sermon duration = 44:57]
Fr. Pfeiffer: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Today is the Second Sunday after Epiphany, but when I was looking at my map and my calendar yesterday, I misjudged the weeks and prepared for Septuagesima, which is next Sunday. So today, a few considerations rather than today’s Sunday, Septuagesima, which is next Sunday, which in the early days of the Church, used to be considered the first Sunday of the Liturgical Year. It was only about 800 years ago, that Septuagesima Sunday was just another season. Now it’s a mysterious season thrown in as a filler, between Epiphany and Lent. But that’s not what it originally was; it was the first day of the year, and the beginning of everything in our liturgical life. And the reason that is, is that the center of all of our life is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. That is the CENTER of HISTORY.
Everything is Before Christ and After Christ, with Christ or against Christ; everything is centered on the decisions we make in regards to Christ crucified. We either have the blood of the Lamb washed upon us for our redemption or we reject the Blood of the Lamb, and we are going to be counted amongst the damned if we do that.
But nonetheless, the good and bad, true and false, before and after, up and down, everything, is centered around Jesus Christ and His crucifixion. Therefore the beginning of the year is when we begin to prepare for that crucifixion.. And that special time of preparation is Septuagesima Sunday, and it also symbolizes the whole of the history of the world, the sacredness of numbers: seventy weeks of years was what Daniel spoke of, seventy DAYS between Septuagesima Sunday and the Saturday after Easter Sunday. If you count the number of days after Septuagesima, 70 days will take you to the Saturday before Low Sunday. And during that time, the whole of Redemption will be considered – the whole of it – our “deviation” is what it’s called by the Apostles of the Church, that when God created man, He created him good, but then there was the time of the “deviation,” when the first thing that man did was walk away from God. He deviated: went away from God.
And then God came down to the earth to bring man back to Himself! To bring man back to heaven; and this is the story of the history of the world. And it is symbolized by the number 70, and also the number 7. And these numbers are sacred. And they tell us the history of our life, the history of our world, the history of everything, and of the supernatural life as well.
When we begin our Septuagesima Sunday, our Sacred Scripture reading, we haven’t changed that when the liturgical year moved Sunday of Advent considered the new beginning of the liturgical year, they didn’t change the Breviary readings, so on Septuagesima Sunday – next Sunday, not today – when we read: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and He said, ‘Let there be light’.” And on Septuagesima Sunday we read the story of God’s creation of the six days. And this is the beginning of everything. And all of our supernatural life, all of the history of the world, all the history of our own lives, the history of everything, the history of salvation, is patterned on the 6 days of creation. They are extremely important.
St. Thomas Aquinas tells us, ‘We could not know, it is not naturally possible for man to know how God created the world’ – we can measure the world after it was created, but we cannot know the order, or the details of how He created it. It requires a special act of divine revelation. And God revealed to Moses, and God revealed to Adam, and God revealed to us how He created the world, and the order in which He created it; and there is a divine reason for everything that He created: IN SIX LITERAL DAYS.
God did create the world in six days. Evening and morning was the first day, was the second day, was the third day, was the fourth day, was the fifth day and the sixth day, and they were twenty-four hour days. And on the seventh day He rested from His work, and He laid the pattern of our lives, a pattern which has never been changed.
If you look at the life of Jesus Christ and all of the things that He did to bring us to heaven, He gave us seven sacraments, which match these seven days – and the 7 ages of the Church, and the 7 letters of the 7 Churches and the 7 ages of the Church that St. John speaks about, that summarize the whole history of the world. And there are 7 virtues: the three theological virtues and the four cardinal. 7 Gifts of the Holy Ghost – all of these things are important. And they all fit together. And even the devil came up with 7 capital sins.
Seven is really essential to our lives, and God created the world in 6 literal days, and on the seventh day He rested, and it’s important, and He revealed to us how He did it. St. Thomas says the first 3 days are the days of the placing of the essential elements, and then on the final 3 days was the ornamentation, the decoration of those elements, light and the space was created on the first day, and on the 4th day the stars filled the spaces. And on the second day, the separation of the waters. And on the 5th day, we find the creation of fishes and birds to be inside of the waters and inside of the air. And on the third day the dry land appears, and on the 6th day He creates all the various animals. He created and then He ornamented.
And this is what He does in our spiritual life as well. And the Fathers of the Church relate our spiritual life, they relate the history of the world, they relate the history of the Catholic Church to these days of creation. And the devil knows it. And that is why the devil tried to destroy it.
The devil attacked us at our roots. Look at Genesis, and these 6 days. It was very important that he do this. And one of the key elements in the destruction of the Catholic Faith, is in the last 400 years today we will consider one wicked man, who we are not supposed to talk about because we will be mocked if we do.
His name is Galileo Galilei. And Galileo lived 400 years ago. And GALILEO WAS THE KEY TO THE MODERN DESTRUCTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Galileo was the key victor – the first man to understood the technique to destroy the Catholic Church, by creating a side church, by creating a false church, which would be the church of science – a false church which would replace the true Church. And he saw the great way of doing it. The key to doing it. He was the one that was the father of the scientific revolution. There were other revolutionaries before him, like Copernicus, and others before him, but they were not successful. They failed. Galileo recognized the two key weapons to destroy the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith, and he recognized the power of science: How was science going to defeat the Church? How was science going to defeat God? —by two main weapons, and he recognized their power.
The first was the telescope. Galileo had a telescope. And he realized: you know, there are very few men in the world that have telescopes. And all I have to do, is say, “I have a telescope, and I am a scientist, and I see the waves of the ocean going back and forth, and therefore the earth must be spinning around. And I have a telescope, and I can see the stars, and when I look into this telescope, I can see the movement of the stars and I can see that the sun is in the center of the universe and we are spinning around. You can’t see it because you don’t have a telescope. And if I gave you my telescope, you couldn’t see it either, because you’re not trained in how to look through a telescope.
So Galileo realized the true power of modern science: pride. The true power of modern science is: I have a telescope, you don’t. I know how to look through telescopes, you don’t. And therefore, I will tell you what I see.
One man that did this in religion, and you can see exactly the case, was Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith had a pair of glasses. And Joseph Smith sat in front of a curtain, and he looked through his glasses and he said, ah, write down this – and the idiot on the other side of the curtain had to write down whatever Joseph Smith said. And he said, “The angel’s telling me these things.” And he was not allowed to look around the curtain, and see that he was just reading out of the Bible, and quoting it. He was just reading out of other books and just quoting it. And the editions that he wrote were just bad editions with lots of typos which were transferred into the Book of Mormon, the same typos. And so the idiot didn’t know that, because he wasn’t allowed to look [tape skips – ‘behind the curtain’].
Galileo was the first one to realize the power of telescopes. The power of the telescope is: you don’t have one; I do. You don’t have a degree; I do. Therefore, I can make up anything I want, and I can say it’s science, and you will have to follow me. You will have to agree. I can only -- I can say ‘science has proven.’ For instance, one day in the life of Galileo, a man said, “It is impossible” – a scientist and an astronomer – “It is impossible for there to be the earth spinning and going around the sun, because if it did, there would be phases in Venus.” And he said, “Ah: that’s right.” So he went, and he looked at the phases of Venus and he said, “I saw phases in Venus.” Turns out there are phases in Venus, and there’s an explanation for it. But he couldn’t see them through his telescope. His telescope was not able to see the phases of Venus. He just lied.
He said, “Ah! I saw it!” And he wrote it down. He did never see the phases of Venus because you can’t see it with his telescope. He just lied! And he realized, if you tell a lie boldly, and you act like it’s true, and you say you’re an expert, people will believe you.
And then Galileo said, that the Scriptures are spiritual books. He was the first one to say that. They used to be historical books. They used to be inerrant and infallible books. But he said, no, they’re just ‘spiritual books’. Now, many Protestants also deny the truth of Sacred Scripture. We now think of Protestants as the ones who BELIEVE in Sacred Scripture, in fact, many of the Protestant heretics said, ‘It’s only a spiritual book also,’ so in this sense, he was a Catholic imitating the Protestants; Galileo was a Catholic. And he said, ‘No, they’re just spiritual books – and God’s trying to teach spirituality in these books – He’s not trying to teach science, and so when the Bible says things that touch science, don’t believe it’. And he began to make the first separation, which was the first infiltration of the Catholic Church 400 years ago: rip apart science and God – science and religion. This is essential to the destruction of the Catholic Faith.
Because St. Thomas Aquinas tells us: “Do not believe that Jesus is God, just because He says He’s God. And that God Himself says, ‘Do not believe’.” Remember the story of the northern prophet and the southern prophet? You read it in the Book of Kings. You read about the northern prophet and the southern prophet. And the southern prophet was told by God, ‘Go to the king, and tell him he has offended God, and then, on your way to the king, do not speak to anyone, and do not eat. And come back fasting to the land of the south’. And he went – he told the king. And on his way back, the northern prophet came and intercepted him. And he said, ‘I too am a prophet. I am the northern prophet’.
Their names are not given in the Book of Kings, they’re just the northern prophet and the southern prophet. And he says, ‘I have been sent by God to give you food, because you are fasting, and He feels for you and tells you to eat’. And so he said, ‘Oh, thank you’, and so he ate. And when he had finished eating, the northern prophet said, ‘Why did you eat? God told you, “Go to the king, and tell him he was to be punished.” And He told you to leave, and He told you not to speak to anyone, but you spoke to me. He told you not to eat, and you ate. Why did you eat? Behold you will be killed this day because of your sin’. And lions came and ate, and killed the southern prophet.
The northern prophet was sent to test the southern prophet. And the southern prophet failed the test. And so, the Fathers tell us, that we must test the spirits. And we do not believe that when Christ says He’s God, that He’s God – we want proof. And what is the proof? He rose from the dead. Jesus Christ really died before thousands and thousands of witnesses, who was seen with our own eyes. He did die on the cross, he was buried; one hundred soldiers guarded his tomb; and He rose from the dead on the third day and a seven-year old child should know that.
How do we know that Jesus is God? Because He rose from the dead! – with many witnesses of his death – many witnesses of his burial – many witnesses of his rising again. Therefore, we must believe what He says, when He says He is God. And there have been many miracles of the Church down the last 2,000 years. Not only then, but even in the 20th century the miracle of the sun. There are still continued miracles proving to rational men that God is still working amongst men, and has control of the operations of men.
St. Thomas says, ‘You do not believe what Christ says just because He said it, we must have motives of credibility. We must have proof.’ And the proof is the miracles of Christ’s life, the evidence of those twelve Apostles, who’s proved the truth of those evidences as dying as witnesses to the truth of what they saw and of course the resurrection.
What happens with Galileo? Galileo is essential. Many have noticed that, many modern scholars have said, he created the greatest revolution in thought in the history of the world. Why? Because if you walk outside, this morning, if you did that, now-a-days people don’t go outside, but supposing you theoretically did that – if you go out tomorrow morning and you look to the east, you will see the sun rise. And if you look in the evening you will see the sun set in the west. You will watch the sun go through the sky, and you’ll watch it set. Every day you’ll see it rise in the east, and every day you’ll see it set in the west. And your eyes tell you that the sun is moving.
What was the power of the wickedness of Galileo? Your eyes no longer tell you the truth. The senses are no longer infallible. St. Thomas tells us the common sense is infallible. If you stand out in the rain and you feel the rain coming down, and you watch the rain, and you know what? ‘It’s rainin’. And you’re right: it’s raining.
Now, from this sense, we can get certitude, from this certitude, we can learn about miracles, and the presence of God. From this certitude, we can rise to the knowledge that there is a God. From this certitude we can rise to the knowledge that there is a just judge, who will judge the good and the wicked, and give them their rewards. But our certitude begins with our eyes. [tape skips] Eyewitnesses – their certitude begins with our senses. We see, we hear, we smell, we taste, we touch; and what we see, we hear, we smell, we taste, we touch is real. Galileo tells us, “No.” Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. He ripped out the foundation of all certitude. And when you rip out the foundation of all certitude, you rip out the foundation of truth. And when you rip out the foundation of truth, you rip out truth. What is truth? Truth is no longer from the outside. And so, enter, in the next couple of hundred years: SUBJECTIVISM.
Enter, after Galileo, since there is no OBJECTIVE TRUTH, if I can’t even tell the sun is moving, and if I’m moving at 133,000 miles per hour and I look like I’m standing still, and that’s the way it’s really going on; and I don’t know – I can’t see it, but I know it’s true, it means my senses cannot be trusted—and therefore, what do I trust? – the scientists! It’s a DOGMA. It is a dogma outside of which there is no salvation! You must believe that the earth is spinning – or you are a heretic! You must believe that the sun is stationary in the middle of this universe or you are a heretic! You are a FOOL and a HERETIC – it is a MOST IMPORTANT DOGMA!
One of the proofs that it’s so important, is why it continues and continues to come up and come up and come up – Galileo died 400 years ago! What do we care about that idiot? But you find things in the newspapers; you find things in the History Channel; you find things on the PBS; you find you have to learn about it, everybody has to be handed their little globe that’s spinning around on an axis. You have to believe it – it’s essential dogma, and if you don’t believe it: there’s no truth! It is the most important dogma of science.
The other dogma is the spiritual dogma. And that is the dogma of the ‘h0Ɩ0cαųst.’ The dogma that there were 6 million Jєωs that were killed in the ‘h0Ɩ0cαųst’. This is the spiritual dogma. And then the dogma of science is, there is, that we are spinning around in the universe, around a sun, and we are not at the center of the universe. God did not become man in the center of the universe. This is not the case. And so, we must believe it.
And what is the consequence of it? It takes time for it to rip apart the minds of men, because we human beings are slow. It takes hundreds of years before minds of men are so ripped apart that we don’t know anything. We don’t know whether or not it’s real.. if you go out, and you see a man that gets shot in the street, you’ve got to go home and see if it’s on the evening news to see if it really happened! And if it’s not on the news, it probably didn’t happen.
And so you don’t believe what you see. We don’t know if what we see, whether it’s true or if it’s false. Galileo ripped apart the mind, firstly by the power of the telescope. Real scientists say what they really see, but modern scientists, what do they say? They tell you you evolved from an ape! They tell you you evolved over billions of years. They tell you that you must see that the sun is the center, and that we’re spinning around.
But they DON’T tell you, that whenever we send satellites into space, they pretend like the earth isn’t moving—because if you don’t do that, the satellites won’t get where they’re supposed to go. So if they’re going to send real satellites into the real space, you make the earth stationary in your calculations! But in the classroom, you don’t tell the people that. And so, what are they going to do?
They are telling us what to believe: These scientists are PRIESTS. They are modern, pagan priests, who are teaching another religion that is not the true religion. They are preparing for the Antichrist, with a pseudo-science and a pseudo-religion – because, just like Jesus Christ had POWER, why did he have power? – because he really walked on the water – because He performed real miracles – because He showed by His actions that He had the power over the waves, and He had the power to rise from the dead – He showed by His real power over true science.
Without science, there is no religion.
Jesus Christ defied the powers of death, when He said to that man that was dead 4 days in the tomb: Lazarus, come forth! And He rose up, and the stone was rolled back and he came out of the tomb. Without science there is no miracle of the resurrection and of Lazarus. Without science there’s no miracle of Christ’s resurrection. Without science there’s no explanation for the death of those Egyptians who went with Pharaoh into the Red Sea. Science is essential to our faith.
We cannot have a true faith or be certain of our faith, unless it is scientifically proven. Like in the case of Padre Pio and one of his miracles: a [girl] was born in England without pupils. [She] didn’t have pupils. [She] came to Padre Pio. (It was a lady.) He cured her, and she watches movies, and she reads the newspaper, and she doesn’t have pupils. He didn’t give her pupils. He didn’t give her the necessary elements to be able to see; he just gave her the power to see. And she drives a car, without eyes. That’s science, God over science! – God doing something that cannot be denied by the scientists. She sees: she has no pupils. Miracles depend upon science. And the devil knows that. So what did he do? Destroy science! Make it the tool of the devil! Science was the great enemy of the devil before – now it’s the tool of the devil, because it is not real science, it is pseudo-science.
Because when the Antichrist comes, he will need scientists – he will need experts: “That was a real miracle!” What he does is false miracles! And you will believe it – why? – because you believe these idiot morons with PhD’s with stupid universities. That’s why you will believe it. And these morons, who don’t know anything, they are respected as Gods. They are respected as popes. They are respected as priests and bishops. And they are the priests and bishops and popes of the CHURCH OF SATAN.
The battle is a supernatural battle. It is not a natural battle. The first weapon was the telescope, and the second weapon, human respect and mockery. This is a very powerful weapon: Human Respect and Mockery.
Galileo was an expert at mockery during his own life. He used to mock anyone who did not agree with him, rather than giving an argument against his adversaries, he would make them look like fools, and he would mock them. The bad scientists before him were trying to give reasons. Galileo realized: you don’t need to give reasons. You need to act like you’re smart, you need to act like you know, you need to pretend you have the proof, and you need to lie with impunity, and you need to mock and curse anyone who’s against you and they will all bow down: Popes and bishops included!
And that’s what happened. Friends of Galileo became cardinals over the next couple of hundred years, friends of his ideas. And they removed his books from the Index. He was declared a heretic – or, his doctrine was declared a heresy in 1616, and then it was declared heresy in 1633. And the word “heresy” was explicitly used by the popes, two different popes. And what did they say? For any Catholic to believe that the earth is not stationary and founded in its foundations like it says in the Book of Psalms, and like it says many times in Sacred Scripture, this is a heresy. Because it is against the divine word of God, which is infallible and inerrant, and it is against the common teaching of the Fathers of the Church which, when they have preached the same thing and give the same interpretation it is also infallible and inerrant.
And if anyone says that the sun is not moving about the earth, that it is stationary, this is an error in philosophy, and it is insonorous to pious ears, and dangerous to the Faith. Because, it is also against Sacred Scripture – it is also against the Fathers, but to a lesser degree. And this is exactly what the popes said.
Many later, theologians said, ‘When the popes said it was heresy, they didn’t mean heresy like you and I mean heresy. They didn’t mean error like you and I mean error. They thought about it differently back then. Just like when I mentioned earlier in the first sermon, when David went to Goliath and said ‘We’re not the best of buddies’ he didn’t mean it like we do now-a-days. Well, you know what happened? Goliath died, because they weren’t the best of buddies! Because when David went to kill Goliath, Goliath died. Because back then, they said the truth, and they put it into practice.
It’s the modern idiot that doesn’t know what the truth means. It’s the modern fools who don’t know what it means. Galileo was very important in the transformation of our thoughts.
And what happened? Descartes comes, and others. And they realize the problem. If I cannot be certain that the sun is moving, and I can’t be certain of what I see, there must be certitude, but it doesn’t come from outside. It doesn’t come from evidence anymore. It doesn’t come from without, it doesn’t come from witnesses, it doesn’t come from external proofs. So where does it come from? It must come from within. And therefore, Descartes said, Cogito ergo sum – I think, therefore I am. A more intelligent man on Saturday Night Live said, “I can’t think, therefore I am not.”
But the fact is, that he said was looking for certitude somewhere, you can’t find it outside, so you’ve gotta find it within, and this is a very important preparation for the Antichrist. Get man to search for truth within! And no longer search for truth outside, because the trouble with the world is, the rocks, and the trees, and the sun and the moon and the stars and the animals, and all external things point to God. That’s a big problem for the devil! And so, he wants us to look into our own nothingness—what is nothing? Nothing is the exact opposite of God!
Nothing is what happens when we turn away from God. We are ripped away from He
Who is everything, and we return to a kind of nothingness. We will never fully return to nothingness, because God made us to live forever, and we will: whether it be in heaven in glory, or in hell in pain, we [tape skips] God will not change His mind.
Galileo was very important. And he put wicked ideas into the world. And these ideas must be condemned and they WERE condemned by the Church. And it’s interesting, in February of 1615, just before that, I think it was the first Sunday of Advent, 1614, in November or December of 1614, a Father Foscarini, a Franciscan priest, preached a famous sermon in Florence. And in that sermon, he talked about Joshua making the sun stand still. And he said, it says in the Book of Judges that Joshua made the sun to stand still. But in fact, we know, by Galileo’s telescope, and we know by other modern scientists that Copernicus spoke the truth, when he said the sun was in the middle of the world, and not the earth, and therefore, the sun did not stand still. When God performed the miracle of Joshua making the sun to stand still, which is in Judges chapter 10, it was indeed a miracle, said Fr. Foscarini, but it was not true that the sun stood still, it was the earth that stopped spinning. And therefore the Scripture was incorrect. It was correct in that there was a long day, but it was not correct in that the sun did not stop in its orbit.
Because Sacred Scripture does not mean to teach literal science, so said Fr. Foscarini. In Sacred Scripture it’s telling us historical events, according to the ways and understanding of the times, and Aristotle and St. Thomas didn’t understand these things.
A Dominican wrote a letter to the holy office of the Inquisition, in February of 1615, speaking about this sermon, and the teachers who agreed with Fr. Foscarini. And in that letter, he said these things: These people say: Words do not mean what they seem to mean.
For instance, “Joshua made the sun stand still,” doesn’t mean that. Words do not mean what they seem to mean, and they trample upon Aristotle, and they trample upon St. Thomas Aquinas, and they trample upon the certitude of our knowledge, how the foundations of our faith, they attack the very foundations of the faith. And if the Church allows this to go on, it will be the end of Christianity. Such was the prophesy of a Dominican in February of 1615. It has come true.
Once certitude has been taken away from us – first Galileo, and the sun moving about, then later on comes Darwin – well, that’s before man was created – so then maybe man did evolve from an ape, and maybe the six days aren’t really six literal days. And then, maybe those men didn’t drown in the Red Sea. Maybe the Egyptians, you know, got tired and went home and maybe they tripped up because their armor was heavy and they couldn’t walk through the swamp, and the Jєωs could walk through the swamp because they didn’t have armor and chariots, and the Pharaoh couldn’t walk through the swamp. Maybe that’s what happened!
And then, what about Jesus Christ? Maybe He didn’t rise from the dead! Maybe He didn’t perform all these miracles – maybe there’s a difference between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith! How do we combat them? Do we combat them by saying,
“No! No! Galileo was right! No, no, Darwin was right! No, no, Scripture is not a book of science! No! BUT, Jesus Christ really, really died!” You’re dead!
The word of God is the word of God, or it’s not. The truth is the truth or it is not.
You cannot say, “I accept this part of the truth but I don’t accept the other part.” We either accept the whole, or in the end we accept nothing. The devil has ripped everything apart, and wisely so, over the last 400 years. So that now, Catholic priests and Catholic bishops – what has happened? Now, when many modern men, through modern science, have found God, like Doctor Henry Morris: who believed in evolution, was trained in evolution, and was a geologist studying in the rocks. And he was a nothing, an atheist. And he was studying the rocks, and he discovered that the Rocky Mountains here in Colorado and the mountains and Himalayas in Asia, that they are formed by water! There is sedimentary rock! And they couldn’t be so high, and it couldn’t have been formed unless there was a global flood! And so he wrote in his treatise that there must have been a global flood sometime in the past. And then his professor said, ‘Ah! You’re a Scripture nut! You’re a Bible nut! You believe in the Flood!’ – and he said: ‘What flood? What bible?’ He’d never read it before. He never went to bible class. And then he looked it up. And he converted……to Protestantism, and not to Catholicism!
Had the Catholic bishops, and the Catholic priests, and the Catholic intellectuals in the last 150 years not been cowards, who were terrified of the modern scientists, had they been brave and stood upon what they knew to be true, then Henry Morris would have become a Catholic and not a Protestant. Then these men that are finding God through science would not be going to Protestantism, they would be coming to Catholicism. Every day, there are new men that find God through science – every day. When they see the beauty and order and structure that God created, they see the inter-harmony of all things, they see how all things must have been created at the same time in order for any of them to exist, and they come to God—but they do not come to the Catholic Church because the Catholics are not defending the truth!
And if we want to face the reality of the wickedness of modern teaching, we must go to the roots and go to the source and condemn it from the roots and condemn it from the source and we must stand in the truth. The truth is, Galileo was a heretic. And Galileo’s teaching caused damage to billions of souls. And, it matters!
Our pattern of our supernatural life is built on the order that God made. He created the world in 6 days, and on the seventh day He rested, and there are seven ages of the spiritual life, and they fit together. He made our virtues; He made our sacraments; He made the structure of the Church; He made the supernatural life—all fit the nature that He is the author of. If we do not believe in the nature that He is the author of, and we don’t believe in the structure that He created, how can we supernaturalize that which we do not believe in?
The devil is after our souls. He is trying to destroy our souls, through modern science, modern false priests, modern ignorance, modern foolishness. And the last example I mentioned in the earlier sermon, one big difference between the old Chinese and modern man: When you hear amongst the Chinese about a Chinese emperor, and a tailor came to that emperor, and he started to sew new clothes for the emperor. And they asked him what he was doing, and he said, ‘Well, what does it look like I’m doing – I’m sewing clothes. And they said, ‘Oh! They’re very beautiful!’ And finally, he decorated the emperor with his clothes. And the emperor walked naked through the streets – and a little boy said, “He’s naked!” When the little boy said, “he’s naked,” all the people said, “You’re right! He’s naked!” This is the difference between the Chinese then and the modern fools today.
Now the emperor of modern science walks through the streets with his stupidity of evolution, with his stupidity of saying we’re going back to the ‘big bang’ – that we’re looking back through time, we’re looking back 6 billion years – we can’t look back yesterday, but we’ll look back 6 billion years. And we’re seeing the moment just before the ‘big bang’ – what an idiot! And the foolishness of evolution – stupid! Naked! And then somebody says, “He’s naked!” And, what happens this time? “Oh! You’ve got a dirty mind!” And what do they say now? “You’re crazy!” Well then explain to me what the emperor’s new clothes look like! “They’re so beautiful, they’re beyond description!” What color is he wearing – can you explain to me? “Oh! They’re so much beautiful! They’re so beautiful! You don’t even understand. You don’t even ‘get it’, man!”
Now, the people are so ignorant, that when the emperor is walking naked in the streets and the little boy says, “He’s naked!” they just simply beat up the boy. And they crucify him. And they put him in an insane asylum. That’s the difference between now and then.
There’s several reasons for that. One of them is, the modern scientist is the modern priest. And according to that modern priest, you don’t need to go to confession. There is no sin. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is normal. That’s become ‘science’ – ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity has become ‘science’. Abortion has become ‘science’. Birth control has become ‘science’. Living without God has become ‘science’. And there’s another explanation for the universe than God, and this is ‘science’. And open your Catholic eyes and your Catholic ears, and turn on a little bit of your Catholic brain, and speak to the people on the streets. Ask them: Why do you not believe in God? “I don’t believe in God because of the discoveries of modern science!”
That’s what they say. “I don’t believe in religion because I know about – we evolved from an ape. I don’t believe in religion, I don’t believe in science, I don’t believe in the bible – I don’t believe in the bible because the bible doesn’t even know about how we’re spinning around in our universe.”
What is the effect of this modern science?
The denial of the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. And also, it is a BLASPHEMY. Why? Because Our Lord Jesus Christ said Himself: Don’t believe me – believe my works! And that’s God speaking. If anyone has the right to say, believe me because I’m God, and I know more than you, and I said it, and therefore it’s true – if anyone has a right to say that, it’s God. And He doesn’t say that.
But then we give that right to an idiot scientist – can you prove, scientifically, do you know all the proofs of why the sun is in the center and the earth is spinning around it in an elliptical orbit? You should read Robert Sungenis’ thick book, Galileo Was Wrong.
Do you really know? No, you don’t. But you believe. And you believe with FERVOR and faith, because you know science would not lie to you. That man that doesn’t believe in God. That man who worships satan. That man who aborts his babies – he would never lie to me! But God might. This is a blasphemy against the First Commandment.
We take these modern, foolish scientists, and we give them the adoration, the unquestioning obedience, and the absolute acceptance of whatever they say, without any proof. And yet, when we speak to people about Christ, they say, “Where’s the proof?!”
He rose from the dead! “Oh, I don’t know, I mean, people didn’t see back then like they do now-a-days.” I know – they didn’t have video games back then. They had EYES. They didn’t have stupidity in their minds, they had BRAINS, they had thoughts, they had IDEAS. Now, we’re fools. Training fools to become more fools.
Galileo was a great, wicked man of the modern age, who changed thoughts, who was a real father of the modern revolution – of the scientific revolution – who recognized the real power of this revolution, which was, tell a lie, boldly, claim that the scientist and his tools know better than the poor, foolish people, and they’re above them, they have more secret knowledge that the others don’t have. And resort to mockery when they don’t believe in you! And this is sufficient to seduce modern man.
We must reject this foolishness. And it matters for the salvation of souls. It matters whether we’re going to be pleasing to God.
And lastly, prayer: Why does God not hear our prayers? If we look at the most sacred prayers of the Church, the Psalms are those prayers. And in the Psalms, it speaks about the sun, as a bridegroom coming out from his chamber and running about the circuits of the skies. And it speaks about those people dying in the Red Sea, Pharaoh’s soldiers being wiped out, and it speaks of the creation of the world, that God created according to the breath of his mouth and His speaking of His word. And it speaks of how God controls science. Like Psalm 103 tells us that God looks upon the hart; He looks upon the deer as he’s running through the forest, and God turns His face away, and the deer dies.
Who determines the moment of the death of a tick? Who determines the moment of the death of a dear, the death of a dog, the death of a rabbit? God. And we don’t believe it. We read the prayers and we think they’re nice, but we don’t believe it’s TRUE. And if we don’t believe the very prayers we say are true, why should God listen to us, who speak lies when we read His works?
There’s even a saying from the 19th century priests: “He’s a liar: like the second nocturne.” You know, there are three nocturnes in the breviary. The first nocturne is always a reading of the Sacred Scripture; the third nocturne is always a sermon on the Gospel. The second nocturne is usually the story of the saints, how they died, how they became martyrs and all their miracles. And Catholic priests had a standard saying, that goes back 150 years – “He’s a liar like the second nocturne.” They read it in their breviary every day – this is a mortal sin, if you don’t read that, you see! And they read it every day in their breviary, but they don’t believe in the miracles! They don’t believe in what it says in the Psalms! And they wonder why they become corrupt, and they wonder why God does not listen.
Our prayers are connected to the truth of God’s view of science. Our prayers are connected to the truth of history. Our prayers are connected to the truth of Sacred Scripture, and if we don’t believe the proof in our prayers, why should God listen to our prayers? And this is a reason why – a reason why God does not listen to the most prayers of modern men.
It is most grave, the heresy of Galileo. It is most grave, the heresy of Charles Darwin. It is most grave heresy of the Modernists, who are simply the children – they’re just the children of Darwin and Galileo.
We must stand firm on the truth, from its origin—condemn the errors completely, and recognize the gravity of these two grave errors, stand firm upon Catholic truth, and then our prayers will have power again, and God will bring miracles again, back into the world.
I’ll close there, and may God bless you all, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
.
Curiously, this important Resistance docuмent has been missing in
the collection here, for whatever reason..............
Source (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25791&min=20#p4)
AFD = April Fifteenth Declaration
Perhaps at times like this, it's easier if one has been reading IA (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=12330).
HAHAHAHA
But seriously, in this GOLDMINE of Resistance principles, terminology
and sound bytes, Fr. Chazal provides an excellent example of how
this fight is not of men but of principalities and powers in high places,
for any logical man reading this would be persuaded, but show me
any evidence that Fr. Laisney has even READ it! BTW: Have YOU?
As for anyone who wonders what "AFD" means, well -- the term,
"AFD" is used here Fifteen times!
A Letter from Fr. Chazal to Fr. Laisney:
L’ILLUSION LIBERALE II
Manila 18 April 2013
Dear Fr Laisney,
Part One: THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE APRIL 15TH DECLARATION [AFD]
The burden of proofs is such against Bishop Fellay, that you find it easier to simply ignore the many declarations, allocutions, interviews, sermons, internal letters, discussions etc. all of them clearly put to the fore by us. Why would Bishop Fellay need to reassure his constituency that he is still against Vatican II and the New Mass today, just after the release of the April 15th Declaration? Amongst the many accusations we have made and that you fail to see as proofs that Bishop Fellay is a liberal, this declaration presented to Cardinal Levada (that I shall abbreviate AFD (April 15th Declaration)) was indeed the puzzle’s missing center piece, just like the liberals in the SSPX hinge their whole argument on the May 05th 1988 Protocol.
Everybody must read it because it is so loaded with implications, from which Bishop Fellay is still trying to extricate himself unsuccessfully because he refuses to retract the substance of the text. “That text can be read with (DICI) pink or dark (resistance) glasses. But for a moment, my dear opponent, put on these cool looking glasses and ask:
1- HOW COULD BISHOP FELLAY WRITE SUCH A TEXT EVEN ONCE?
Even if he lists the evil items of the text; something he refuses to do, and retract them; how did such a son of the Archbishop declare, simultaneously, and with his own hand:
- Official endorsement of the word “living” with Tradition as a “living transmission”, a first in the SSPX (III,3).
- That Vatican II “enlightens” (in the miraculous light of Tradition of course), “deepen and make explicit” the doctrine of the Church, when all we saw since then was a diabolical disorientation in the Church? (III,4)
- That the worse text of the Council, (which is directly against Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Pius IX, and that was invoked repeatedly in order to destroy the past union of Church and State and old Concordates, leading in turn to a massive apostasy in South America for instance) that this text is RECONCILIABLE, albeit with difficulty, with the prior Magisterium. (III,5).
- That the post Vatican II Magisterium relating to the relationship with Lutheran, Calvinists, Born-again, schismatics etc. can be understood in the light of Tradition.
- The euphemism of #III,6.
- That the new Mass is legitimately promulgated, (III,7).
- That the novusordo Sacraments are both valid and legitimate, when we have such doubts on confirmations, and to a lesser extent, Holy Orders (III,7).
- That we promise to follow “ESPECIALLY” the new Code of John Paul II, not even mentioning the old Code that the Archbishop told us to follow. (III,8)
- That he endorses the 1989 Profession of Faith (in the notes), a docuмent totally rejected by the Archbishop (in le Bourget for instance) because it forces Vatican II on the consciences and submits to LG25, even in today’s abnormal circuмstances (#II). LG25, cannot be applied to the erroneous magisterium that followed Vat II, neither can it force our submission to those points that are not currently deemed infallible, including what the bishops say (cf. first paragraph of LG25).
So, obviously, as Fr Themann said recently, this is a good diplomatic docuмent... and a pity that Cardinal Levada wrecked it on June 13th, adding unacceptable conditions! Pink glasses will only see prudence and diplomacy, dark ones sees that list of items, a new doctrine in the SSPX. But the doctrine of the Faith is what has kept the SSPX together, miraculously. So far, it was understood that in necessary things, there must be unity. Bishop Fellay has divided the Society in two camps; and within the official Society, some priests now endorse or defend this declaration, which Fr Thouvenot promises to publish with commentaries, for us to know what to think about it. Three priests have “paid with their lives” to bring forth this accusation on Bishop Fellay…
2- HOW CAN ONE SAY THAT IT IS NOT US JOINING VATICAN II ROME BUT THAT IT IS ROME WHO IS COMING TO US, WRITING THE AFD AT THE SAME TIME?
Last year, in his Pentecost sermon His Lordship said “Today at least I reach this certainty that the one who wants to recognize the society is indeed [bel et bien] the Pope.” “The attitude of the official Church has changed, not us” (interview of June 08 2012) In the many conferences the Superior General and Fr Pfluger gave in the running up of the crisis, the notion was hammered constantly: We are not changing, but Rome is changing. The three superiors of Morgon, Avrille and Bellaigue were lectured for two and a half hour on that topic alone.
All this happened all the while concocting eruditely, with the help of theologians, this one massive doctrinal move toward Vatican II and the NOM, the mention of which confuses Menzingen now. Fr Selegny told me: “You caught Bishop Fellay with the hand in the jelly pot (or cookie jar), and you expect him to be happy at the same time?”
3- WHY NOTHING IS DONE AGAINST THOSE WHO AGREE WITH THE AFD, WHY BISHOP FELLAY REFUSES TO WITHDRAW THE TEXT POINT BY POINT?
I ask this question because some may say that the declaration has been withdrawn. The only withdrawal I know so far is the private one in Econe, not for reasons of substance, but because it is a text that divides us (to say the least), and a text in which Bishop Fellay thought that he had avoided all ambiguities. This text is linked in substance to the letter of the previous day, and to the extract of the CNS interview of May 10th.
Bishop Fellay can still tell us that he is against Vatican II and the new Mass, but he has also to tell us what he thinks of the new code, of the new profession of Faith, living tradition of the new sacraments, and how Lumen Gentium 25 #1 applies today, because we are missing reassurances on these points.
4- THE AFD IS THE MODUS OPERANDI OF ANY ECCLESIA DEI PRIEST.
Check the constitutions of the FSP, IBP & ICK, the doctrinal terms (you keep on sliding on their bad practical terms. Be of good faith, stay the course.) are almost identical with what Bishop Fellay proposed. Rome was expected to be happy with these terms, for good reasons. Once you say that the novusordo Mass is legitimately promulgated, what prevents you from saying it once, even if you personally believe that the Traditional Mass is better? Doesn’t Benedict XVI say that the Council of Vatican II can only be understood in the light of Tradition? Aren’t the Ecclesia Dei groups claiming to use the new erroneous Magisterium profitably, thanks to the cleansing rays of the light of Tradition? I remember that they were all in extasis over “Veritatis Splendor”, which entrapped Fr Simoulin for some time. Ecclesia Dei groups work under the conditions of the New Code of Canon Law, to the exception of their particular laws. A canonical regularization with Vatican II authority can only be under the new Code of law; It is one of the big things you refuse to analyze when you embark on your praises of a canonical regularization for us today.
5- THE LIBERALS ARE ENCOURAGED BY THE AFD
Poor Bishop Fellay. In the case his Easter attempt is sincere (albeit still loaded with ambiguities), what can he do with liberals, agreeing with his past liberal statements, at all the controls of the SSPX, or what can he do with people who were antiliberals before, like Fr Petrucci and Fr de Cacqueray, but who are acting in favor of the Revolution in order to stay loyal to him? Once a leader embraces double talk, the subordinates start double talking, misjudging and become heavy handed in their turn, as we see in many places. In the view of protecting itself against hostile forces, defending the unity of the Society implies the defense of new liberal principles. As thereconciliarsspx spends more energy attacking the resistance, its stance against the novusordo weakens further.
6- THIS AFD BEING AN OFFER THAT ROME COULD NOT REFUSE, HOW DID ROME REFUSE IT?
30 Pieces of silver, as Fr Hewko said, that’s a good price. Bishop Fellay proposed to work with Rome under the same doctrinal and canonical terms as the Fraternity of St Peter, and Rome is not happy. What’s the matter with Rome?
*TIMING: It would have been better to obtain Rome’s agreement before April, when the disagreement of the three bishops became apparent. In March, Rome would have been assured to take the whole Society.
*CHANGE: Rome is changing, but for the worse. The toleration of Ecclesia Dei contraptions might be running thin, if we go by certain discourses of Pope Francis (Good Friday w.o.c., scorn for pontifical regalia, sermon at St Martha). It is time to implement Vatican II fully.
*BAD APPLES need to be neutralized first. How can the SSPX have so many obnoxious priests and bishop (W+) and be taken seriously? Menzingen must do his homework and turn around the mind of the members, as Fr Lorans, the GREC and others do so well, but such a shift of doctrine has not yet totally happened. Rome recognized that the AFD was a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done, even after Bishop Williamson’s expulsion. Rome is like a fisherman catching a big fish, pulling and releasing, wearing down the strength of the fish before pulling it at last out of the water.
*PUBLIC OPINION: The past experience of 2009 shows that one must be prudent before acting. The wider public, especially our separate elder Jєωιѕн brethren, and the media after and under them, may not understand perfectly everything. Past political incorrectness has “skunkified” the entire SSPX. I believe that such a smelly shield has saved the day several times for us, still worked wonders three years later, and duly congratulated His Lordship for it.
7- ANYTHING IS ACCEPTABLE IN THE LIGHT OF TRADITION
This declaration shows us what happens from the abuse of an expression that the Archbishop ended up dropping, because it is too ambiguous. In matters of doctrine, you cannot accept anything bad in the light of something good.
There are too many errors in Vatican II for us to be able to rescue that Council. Even in a good light these errors are meshed, most of the time, in a most subtle way with the truth, making them more lethal for the Church, because, precisely, they can penetrate under the guise of Tradition. Pascendi applies. Real people, the mass of Catholics, didn’t make fine distinctions in practice, carefully rejecting what is bad in Vatican II. They took the poison and died in the Faith. I thought Bishop Fellay had understood this. I was able to tell him last September, when he told me I was too black and white “But My Lord, the errors of the Council are not in explicit form as you know so well, but under the note 'favenshaeresim'.”
The consequence for us is a grave slide, like recognizing that we follow especially the New Code of Canon Law. Fr Themann says it is OK, but how? By what is above in the text, which is, guess what... the Light of Tradition!
And why is the light of Tradition so good and so different of the Hermeneutics of Continuity of Benedict XVI? It is because Rome rejected it, just like Bishop Fellay said in Albano that the Hermeneutics of Continuity cannot be glossed over”. If LOT and HOC are a total different way of saying that VII can be understood in a traditional way, then who said that when the Pope says that Vatican II must be understood in line with Tradition, this is something we totally agree with? You must study reconciliational classics.
8- HOW CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE NEGOCIATIONS FAILED BECAUSE OF VATICAN II AND THE NEW MASS WHEN THE AFD PRECISELY RECOGNISES BOTH?
Precisely because of the light of Tradition. It is a great device; switch it on, anything bad can become good or almost good; but switch it off, and that bad thing can become really bad once again, like the council of Vatican II in a letter to benefactors. To please Rome we have to agree with Vatican II and to our faithful we have to say we are against Vatican II. So we pick up some 1976 Archbishop’s statements and the fact that he sat and signed Council docuмents while ignoring his final conclusion that Vatican II is a total perversion of the spirit, and there we are. I think it is to the credit of the Archbishop that he didn’t reach such a drastic conclusion suddenly on Vat II. Such caution on his part makes the final conclusion even stronger: Vatican II is unsalvageable.
The Archbishop dumped the light of tradition, unlike Vatican II who took the principles of the Revolution in the light of the Gospel, like Lammenais, and unlike John Paul II who took Kant in the light of St Thomas. The Archbishop understood that if you put Tradition and the Council in the same bag, one kills the other. The problem of the Archbishoplefebvrologians is that they think they can quote the Archbishop backwards. The fact that he took always his time before condemning totally Vatican II, even signing most of its texts when he sat there, is all to his prudence. But that only made his final decision stronger: Vatican II is a total perversion of the spirit, unsalvageable. Liberals, on the contrary, untighten the screws.
In a liberal democracy, the left always wins, as we see clearly, worldwide, with the issue of gαy marriage. Today hard core modernists are taking over; they don’t care for the light of Tradition at all. So there is no merit in Bishop Fellay disagreeing with them, just like there is hardly any merit for a tradcat to be against gαy marriage. What we are referring to is that Bishop Fellay really made a proposition to Rome based on soft core modernism, something of the same kind as the hermeneutics of continuity of Pope Benedict, (which Menzingen ended up liking in the April 14th letter to the three bishops). The fact that Rome didn’t like our version of the hermeneutic of continuity (or light of Tradition) doesn’t prove that it is good, just like when Adventist don’t like Mormons both are wrong. The AFD is just an unrequited ready acceptance of error. Girondins, liberals, always end up misunderstood by the left.
9- HOW CAN ONE COMPARE THE AFD WITH A SIMPLE PROTOCOL?
When I met Fr Rostand a few months ago in Post Falls, I soon realized that his whole argumentation was based on the May 05th protocol. I tried them to explain that the Archbishop didn’t write the protocol, that he rescinded it quite soon, went on consecrating bishops, saying at the same time “had I signed this protocol we would have been dead within a year”, ranted against its content, point by point (Vat II, new Mass, new Code), before as well as after it. All these attempts were futile, because for Fr Rostand that protocol is like a treaty. Thankfully there was a dictionary in Fr Vassal’s office, and this is what big Webster said about protocol: …draft!
So I told Fr Rostand I was impressed by his archbishoplefebvrology, (he has tons of quotes, with the exact time and place, at his fingertips), but that the expert on the matter is Bishop Tissier, a direct witness of the protocol who is even pictured at the moment of the signing.
Fr Themann is right to say that we must understand the Archbishop in the light of his actions: by consecrating bishops, he junked the draft! No more question of protocolizing once four ugly ducklings get consecrated without papal mandate. We also need to look at the circuмstances of the actions on both sides. At that time the Archbishop consulted the contemplatives, who, led by Mother Anne-Marie Simoulin, told him not to sign and consecrate bishops. What do we have today? This time it is the heads of the three main contemplative orders that came to Menzingen, asking him not to sign. All they got was a lengthy denial of the real situation in Rome, and a few weeks later, ordination blackmail (Benedictines), and denial (Dominicans and Capuchins) for those who had to leave Fr Couture’s retreat just before the set date. Around the 18th of May, a fax was sent to all priories, stating that this preamble would be sent to Rome, the approval of which would lead to the creation of a canonical structure for the Society on the part of Rome. So there is nothing common between a failed bad DRAFT and a carefully prepared and duly submitted DECLARATION, that led to actions, expectations and preparations.
10- IS THE AFD A SIMPLY DIPLOMATIC TEXT?
Of course yes! When one says, nay writes: ”We Promise” “We declare” “We declare” “We recognize” “We declare that we recognize” and “We promise to respect”, it’s got to be diplomacy, or a minimalist approach. As Fr Pfluger said in Post Falls (Apr 10th) and Fr Thielman in St Mary’s, this text does not reflect what we exacly think, but a certain desire to lure Rome into discussions, because, note well, it is not Rome deceiving us; no, it is our diplomacy working wonders in Rome.
Fr Themann also told us that the AFD walks a delicate line because it was designed to correct a misconception of the Roman Authorities saying “you don’t accept whatever the Authorities say”. People should understand the fine line of Bishop Fellay: he is telling the authorities that we accept what they want us to accept, but it doesn’t mean that he accepts, that would be treason indeed. When he says the new Mass is legitimately promulgated, it doesn’t mean that the new mass is licit, but that the authorities that promulgated it are legitimate. Read the text, it says the Mass but, obviously, it means the Authorities, how can it be otherwise! Let us all be believers.
A fine line indeed; but it is only a prudential one, not a doctrinal one: to accept living Tradition, Vatican II, the new Magisterium, the New Mass, the new Sacraments, the new Code the new Profession of Faith all the while you keep the right to attack these things. A fine line indeed...
Part Two: THE LIST OF SOPHISMS GROWS LONGER
In a controversy, you must refute your opponent point by point, otherwise his accusations stand and you maintain your sophistic stance. But you, my dear Fr Laisney, in order to defend your sophisms, you add new ones, fulfilling all my hopes, unlike Fr Rostand who is not giving his “Against againstagainstagainstagainst the rumors” against me (after I gave my “Against ×4 the rumors”). I hope you will keep the ball rolling; people need to know where the liberals are leading them.
Let me list first your previous collection of sophisms, that you are keen to maintain:
1- It is good to be regularized now,
2- The new Popes are bad or liberals, not heretics,
3- The new Popes are not that liberal,
4- We must rejoin the Visible Church now (as if we had left it),
5-Bishop Fellay fights Vatican II,
6- Rome is moving towards Tradition,
7- It is better to heal than to prevent a disease, 8- Pray pay and obey.
You leave out entirely some main points I make. Instead of jumping around angrily, recognize with me that a law is more than just an order, an ordinance, but an ordinance of reason promulgated for the common good by the one who has the care of the community. This is textbook philosophy. You do not challenge the affirmation that Bishop Tissier’s book proves that Benedict XVI is a heretic; you cannot refute my allegation that things are getting worse in Rome; and you refuse to admit what the AFD entails: you just say that you don’t like it. You don’t dare to say what you think of the CNS interview (May 2012) or the lame six conditions of the Chapter. You are the first one I bump into denying the existence of the 1976 Declaration or “remarks on a suspension”, that Fr Roberts recommended us to put in our Vienna, August 10th declaration.
I still ask you, How the “sin” of questioning Menzingen can be reserved to Menzingen in virtue of supplied jurisdiction? We asked that question to Fr Couture and he told us, “I will not answer that question,” and went straight to his room.
If you leave some points, don’t leave out the main ones. We are in a very interesting debate here.
With the addition of the first part, and the refutation of your confused ideas on the two Churches, it makes my text a little long this time, I do apologise; I’ll pay you a beer later - but I have to kill four birds (two Laisneys, the AFD, Fr Themann) with one stone. Let’s go point by point:
SOPHISM #1: BISHOP FELLAY IS ACCUSED WITHOUT ANY PROOFS
Cf. first part, the fact that Menzingen is embarrassed by the AFD at least is an admission that there is something. The hilarious reply of Fr Pfluger about it in Post Falls on April 10th speaks volumes about this embarrassment.
Bishop Fellay doesn’t speak that often; that projects an image of prudence and caution. Therefore when he says repeatedly the same thing, (i.e. “Rome has changed”, “Vat II is not so bad” etc.), it gives it a lot of weight.
SOPHISM #2: YOU ATTACK BISHOP FELLAY BECAUSE YOU DON’T LIKE HIM
I am not quite sure you interpret my sayings in the best possible light, because, as soon as this light comes into light it calls me: “vicious” “wicked” “schismatic (restrictively)” “bitter” etc. What is your worse possible light Father, maybe it’s better, can we try it a bit?
If we were ill disposed towards Bishop Fellay we would have left him a long time ago, but I think we gave him the benefit of the doubt. For instance, when I was in India, I expelled Mr John Menezes because he called Bishop Fellay a traitor and refused to apologize; and when Bishop Fellay told me “why do you call me a traitor?” I answered “No, my Lord, only if you sign; then only shall I call you a traitor.”
YET I do admit leaving out the word soon, which is for you the final proof of my wickedness. Well… I just quoted out of memory, and I should have gone back to the text, mea culpa. So, for my penance, let me quote the whole section of the text. It is interesting because it contradicts Bishop Fellay Easter Appeal and is chronologically quite close to us: ”We know very well that it is very difficult to ask the authorities to condemn the new mass. In reality if what needs to be corrected were corrected, it would already be a big step, [then follows the description of the dreamy big step] As far as Vatican II is concerned, just like for the mass, we believe that it is necessary to clarify and correct a certain number of points that are either erroneous or lead to error. That being said we do not expect Rome to condemn Vatican II anytime soon. She can recall the truth and discreetly correct the errors while preserving her authority.”
When did the Archbishop tell us that a hybrid new mass would be a step to be wished for? Isn’t this the reform of the reform? Isn’t this worse that a hybrid Tridentine Mass since the point of departure is the new Mass? How can a discreet recall of the truth convert the massive apostasy? Isn’t it because we said for 40 years that the New Mass and Vatican II is really bad, that many have left the novusordo and joined Tradition?
SOPHISM #3: THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS NOT A SEPARATE CHURCH
Sophists love to quote themselves, as John-Paul II used to. They are also big experts (archbishoplefebvrology, donatism, Church Fathers etc.) Let me archbishoplefebvre you in my turn:
“That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. [it has new… new… new…] The Church that admits such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Reflections on a suspension a divinis, June 29 1976). “Let there be no mistake. It is not a question of a difference between Mgr Lefebvre and Pope Paul VIth. It is a question of radical incompatibility beween the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church”. (note of July 12th 1976 to AFP) “Vatican II is a schismatic council” (Aug 76). “All who cooperate […] and adhere to this new Conciliar Church […] enter into schism” (Le Figaro, Aug 2 1976). “A Church which no longer brings forth fruits, a Church which is sterile is not the Catholic Church” (Ordinations 1978). “The modernist Rome is changing religion? I refuse it and reject it […] I refuse that church” (Dec 9 1983 press conference). After reviewing the four marks of the Church, in favor of us, the Archbishop concluded: “All this shows that it is we who have the marks of the Visible Church. If there is still a visibility in the Church, it is thanks to you. Those signs are not found in the others. We are not of this religion, we do not accept this new religion, (goes on and on and on…)” (Fideliter 66 nov 1988). “Upon reflection it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion during these meetings” (May 24th 1988). “Resulting from these principles and facts is the absolute need to continue the Catholic episcopacy in order to continue the Catholic Church” (Letter to Bishop Castro de Mayer, Dec 4th 1990).
(These are only a few quotes, on a specific topic; the Church. On other topics, the Archbishop spoke; take for instance the Pope, whom he called an “Antichrist”. That quote, you are going to tell me, is purely rhetorical, and certainly doesn’t mean that the Pope is a heretic, or it is a very limited quote, or a quote to be understood restrictively! And, mark my words, with such a Pope as Pope Francis, the Archbishop would never use such a language, also because the triumphant 70’s are over: he would have the same restraint, prudence and diplomacy that Bishop Fellay has used with Pope Francis for a month and a half, and many more months to come)
Now, also, let me profit from the occasion. With the blessings of Frs Couture and Rostand you embark to prove that the Conciliar Church is a part of the Catholic visible Church, using the quote of a man who says that the new Church is neither Catholic, nor the Catholic Church! (top and bottom of left column, page 8, Apostle)! Your sophistry is outstanding! If I am neither pfeifferic nor Fr Pfeiffer, how can I be a part of that entity, no matter how big that entity is?
To uphold his credibility, Fr Cacho publishes locally a series of talks of the Archbishop called, “They are changing our religion!”, indeed a famous expression of the Archbishop, alongside the “New Rome”, or “Rome of neo-modernist tendencies”. Distinct Faith (ordinations 1976), distinct Rome, distinct Church, distinct religion.
It all points to something we don’t love and don’t recognize; something dying, dead or deathly to billions of souls, and you conclude that we must recognize and be recognized by this new Religion, this new Rome. There are caveats in the thought of the Archbishop, for he says to whatever extent one unites to the novusordo, he separates himself from God, which means that some people still have the faith or may be saved despite the novusordo, but certainly not because of it. There are novusordo people that are rescuable from it, our faithful are the proof of that. To describe such a church leading into apostasy, I think the best image is the conveyor belt: those who are on it have not yet all fallen in the abyss. But there you go again, in your last letter, you want us to run on this belt, canonically of course, and run against it because we are true Catholics. This is what you say, you want us to be in that structure, that you call the order willed by Jesus-Christ. Our souls are in danger out of that conveyor belt, canonical devices are in place to allow us to run fast on it and denounce its errors at the same time.
And if I grant you that a dead part of a body is in a body (Fr Simoulin 2001 argument)… it will always be on the way out; the body will always do whatever it can to rid itself of the necrosis. Similarly, it is not because we cannot say, “outside the SSPX no salvation”, nor say that all novus ordo people go to Hell, nor know at what moment this separation actually takes place that we don’t have a process leading to two separate entities, like in the meiosis and mitosis of a cell. The two things, entangled as they may, are still really separating, way before the end of times. Ask the millions of souls that have lost, not just the state of Grace, as St Augustine refers to, but the Catholic Faith. They are cut off from us, they refuse to believe that Christ is God or that Mary is a Virgin, like Cardinal Muller. They bear an appearance, nothing else. They really have already fallen off the vine, totally, unlike simple sinners, (that you confuse with heretics).
What you fail to realize is that the whole work of the Archbishop, from 1965 to March 25th 1991 was to keep us clear from this operation of death called novusordo Church. Two isolated quotes after June 1988 won’t do. After June 88 the Archbishop denounced the protocol, simply because it would have placed us under the wrong people, and the consecration of Bishops was the best way to escape them. People were very grateful, nobody was thinking much of the protocol at the time, except the Fraternity of St Peter). The approval of Bishop Charriere is the certification of an escape pod. Haven’t we always compared ourselves to a life boat, a rescue operation, a little bench of survivors? Like the sedevacantists, I think you try too much to figure it out. This whole process, involving the damnation of so many souls is beyond our comprehension. Just be happy to stay clear and safe; keep the lifeboat discipline, (which, by the way, Bishop Fellay is not keeping by asking, like you, to paddle towards the vortex!).
SOPHISM #4: REGULARIZATION UNDER NOVUS ORDO LEADS NOT TO SUBMISSION TO IT
I never said, “to submit to evil out of obedience is a sin” -- the archbishop said it on 09th of August 1986, and it does not prevent the saying to be perfectly true (S#3 proves that you agree less and less with the founder). Go to the principles. You should read the papal bull “cuм Ex Supremi Apostolatu” at this stage. In it Pope Paul IV tells, nay, commands all Catholics to stay clear of all hierarchs stained with heresies. I still don’t know how God shall rid us of these intruders; “cuм Ex” doesn’t specify, but this I do know, from the clear words of this good Pope, that I must stay clear of them. He himself says that what you portray as Donatism has always been the discipline of the Church. Tell me how St Athanasius dealt with Arian bishops… if I recall, he consecrated bishops to replace them, something quite stronger than consecrating simply auxiliary bishops, as the Archbishop did. I would be glad to know how St Augustine treated heretic bishops of his time, but I don’t have a library any more in my situation. Maybe somebody should come to my rescue and refute your misleading historical allegations.
Yet it remains that a canonical recognition is more than just a recognition; it’s us falling in the wrong hands.
SOPHISM #5: A RIGHT CANONICAL STRUCTURE ENABLES TO RESIST ALL PRESSURES WITHIN THE NOVUS ORDO, WE DON’T NEED TO WAIT FOR ROME TO CONVERT IF WE HAVE IT
You repeat again and again that if the FSP, ICK, IBP Campos and SOR failed lamentably, it is because of a lack or a proper structure, like the dreamed of prelature. Oh! But I forgot! We also have friends in Rome and lots of novusordo Bishops are saying the Latin Mass these days… they are going to welcome us and ask our help.
Fr Themann confirms that if the reconciliar sspx no longer puts the conversion as a condition for a canonical structure, it is in order to retain better the right to condemn errors. The aim is to force Rome to admit that Vatican II is fallible which would be a tactical defeat for the enemy and a help for the fence sitters, providing cover for those priests who want to return to Tradition. We are back to the little oyster syndrome. Read what I wrote before, I am not going to quote myself, it’s too pretentious for a small French fry.
SOPHISM #6: NOT TO ASSOCIATE WITH NOVUS ORDO IS DONATISM
You still maintain adamantly that we are donatists, but I repeat to you what I said: that we do have sinners, and dubious people among ourselves or working for us is the clear proof of your calumny. Now and then I hear, “How can you take so and so? How can you take that person?” You can’t have it both ways, Father. Then you will go on saying that we have a Donatist schismatic mentality, the “proof” being your superior knowledge of Donatism, over us, ignorant readers. This knowledge doesn’t entitle you to insinuate that we are schismatics … that sounds too much like the novusordo weapon “you are not in communion…” (“YANIC!” “VEPCA!” in French).
SOPHISM #7: YOU SHOULD NOT JUDGE POPE FRANCIS
By now Menzingen should be firing broadsides after broadsides at the scandals of Pope Francis; that would in a way discredit a key argument of the resistance (the official sspx is not fighting the novusordo any longer). But what do we see? The Dominicans of Avrille are still firing, their last “Sel de la Terre” is very good, but, most worrying, the guns of Bishop Tissier have fallen silent. This is not good. As the iniquities of the Fornicating New Rome grow, we should be less and less silent in the face of this open and repeated mockery of the first commandment on the part of Pope Francis. It is the honor of the Catholic Church, which you say you understand so well which is at stake. The final plunge of the New Rome into heresy is actually taking place, and you tell me that I judge prematurely Pope Francis. All we have so far from Bishop Fellay is a little more than zero, a genteel rebuke about the lesser aspects of Pope Francis. Nothing has appeared about the scandal of Holy Thursday, the inauguration Mass, the various discourses of the Pope and what he is preparing. Pope Francis is very prolific; look at what he said, even during his election: “The Church is worldly if she says that she possesses the truth” (Preconclave) and to Monsignor Marini, the Master of Ceremony who presented him the Mozzeta: ”Wear it yourself, the carnival is over” (bbcnews 16th March), the various bizarre “blessings”, the quote “Cardinal Kasper is a great theologian”. After all that, the pink glasses of DICI are just a little bit shaken of the nose of Menzingen. The same thing applies across the ocean (sspx.org, sspx asia). No, Father, the harshest judgment against Pope Francis are his actions themselves, they speak for themselves, they don’t need any harsh interpretations to be damning. Pope Francis has promised a lot more to come, and so far, he is a man of his word.
But in the reconciliar sspx, yes is not a yes anymore, unlike the Archbishop, who six months before his death told his priests in Econe that, “The docuмents of the Council are a total perversion of the spirit”. Now, Fr Themann is the last one to proclaim officially that the 2006 principle (no practical deal without doctrinal deal) is ditched, all the while the March 2013 Cor Unum endorses the AFD, with a growing number of liberals within the SSPX. Tell me how the little sspx will defend itself… when before being taken in, it is already toothless, only able to swallow…
Our Lady should have told us that Rome is going to lose the faith and become the see of the Antichrist with restrictive clauses. On you tube we have this moving recording of the Archbishop, but without restrictive santa clauses “Rome has lost the Faith, my dear Friends, Rome has lost the Faith…”. Bishop Tissier should have restricted himself in the past, his containment is just. The bitter who don’t restrict themselves should be constrained like him. Bishop Williamson should be loved with an big crowd of restrictive santa clauses: “Bitterness to the bitter, no liberty for the enemies of liberty”.
SOPHISM #8: LET’S GO IN THE FIELD OF WHEAT AND COCKLE
Another of my mistakes (I should keep some in this text, it keeps your appetite!) was to confuse the English words chaff and cockle. But am not I the only one. “It is Our Lord himself who gives us to understand with His parable of the chaff that there will always be in one form or another weeds to be pulled up and fought against in His Church” (infamous letter of April 14th). I think the English translator tried to correct the enormity of the mistake of the French text: “C’est Notre Seigneur lui-meme qui nous a fait comprendre avec sa parabole de l’ivraiequ’il y aura toujours, sous une forme ou une autre de la mauvaise herbe a arracher et a combattre dans son Eglise.” In French, ivraie means cockle, not chaff. As you rightly point out, the parable of the chaff is from the discourse, not of Our Lord, but of St John the Baptist, (Mt 3,8). In his text, Bishop Fellay did not mention the threshing floor, but did tell us to go on the field of wheat and cockle to eradicate the cockle, contrary to the order of the divine Master. I don’t think the Church’s Fathers agree with Bishop Fellay on this. I don’t think you have read the April 14th letter often enough which you seem to confuse with the April 15th declaration (which you call the April 14th statement). We all make mistakes, and the biggest mistake is to deny we make some. The best means to avoid confusion is to remember that on April 14th the Titanic hit the iceberg late at night, and sunk on the 15th, a few hours later with this horrific surrender declaration of Menzingen. I hope it helps.
SOPHISM #9: TO CONSIDER REGULARIZATION TODAY AS BAD IS AN OBSTACLE TO SALVATION
Just before the Consecrations, the Archbishop told the four bishop-elects that “we must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than maneuvers, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.”
Not too long ago, three bishops of the Society used to say together that, “the Roman authorities can (will) tolerate the Society, continue to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not permit that it condemn Conciliar teachings. That is why an even purely practical agreement would necessarily silence little by little the Society, a full critique of the Council and the New Mass. By ceasing to attack the most important of all the victories of the Revolution, the poor Society would necessarily cease being opposed to the universal apostasy of our sad times, and would get bogged down.[…]”. Doesn’t one see already in the Fraternity symptoms of a lessening in the confession of the Faith?”
What is becoming an obstacle to the salvation of our faithful is the liberal behavior of more and more priests of the reconciliar Society. I know one who, according to witnesses I can name privately, (or publicly - if you persist to deny the facts!), who told our Bombay faithful to attend a motuproprio Latin Mass at St Anthony’s, Malwani church, near our own mass center in Malad. That priest told them they could receive communion, and he even sang himself in the choir. This is a complete ignorance on how the novusordo treats the true mass these days, for as in Buenos Aires under Cardinal Bergoglio, these masses are put in place to counter our presence, by novusordo priests saying the novusordo mass most of the time, under the condition that they recognize Vatican II and the New Mass, some of them disliking publicly the Traditional Mass, like in Bandra (Bombay), botching the rubrics (Mahim), and saying this mass under throttling conditions and lack of traditional catechism, retreats and other sacraments. If there was a need to say the anniversary mass of Mrs Wilfried, why didn’t that priest of the Society say it himself since he was around? If such priests are misguiding the faithful before a deal is signed, how much more shall they entrap our faithful later on? Fr Couture acknowledged not the problem, but the embarrassment, by promising the faithful that he would not send that priest back to Bombay anytime soon.
The same problem is happening elsewhere; for instance, people whom Fr Rostand tries to separate from Fr Ringrose go to the Indult mass when the reconciliar priest is not coming, people in the isolated center of Bismarck were told they could go to the Indult mass, many mixed marriages (with a diocese approved priest receiving the consents) are taking place in France. How can the lines be clear when we sing the Te Deum for the ambiguous Motu Proprio of 2007 and when Fr Pfluger tells the French priests that they would have to compete on the same grounds as all the other Ecclesia Dei contraptions in Nov 2011… A new attitude towards what I call the novusordo Latin Mass (NOLM) is being put in place.
SOPHISM #10: ARCHBISHOP DI NOIA BEAUTIFUL QUOTES OF ST AUGUSTINE REFER TO OUR DANGER OF SCHISM
Dear Father, I read again these beautiful quotes of St Augustine, but they refer to people causing schism (and breaking Charity). These quotes don’t concern us, or maybe you feel yourself a tiny bit schismatic hearing them. Contrary to the fallacious insinuations of Archbishop Di Noia, I hold the SSPX not to be in schism, and truly charitable because of the precedence of the Charity of the Truth over the novus ordo truthless chawity, to use the expression of a bishop you love with so many restrictive clauses.
SOPHISM #11: THE MAY 05TH PROTOCOL IS AN AUTHORITATIVE PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR THE SSPX
Cf. part one, paragraph eight.
SOPHISM #12: TO OPPOSE BISHOP FELLAY TODAY IS PURE REBELLION
This is your last and most lengthy sophism, to which I refer you to the whole first half of this letter. If our case is unsubstantiated, I agree with you, the Society is facing internal rebellion and grave scandal.
If there is a serious wave of liberalism taking place, it cannot be left unfought, because ultimately, liberalism leads the souls entrusted to our priesthood to Hell. Since you don’t see the liberalism, all you see is rebellion. Anoint your eyes with the collyre (Apoc. IV,18) and you shall see that we cannot allow the entire work of the Archbishop go to the dogs. Most of the real estate will stay yours, don’t worry.
Bishop Fellay is ambiguous about Vatican II and the New Mass, as recently as mid February, and just say that many Novus Ordo Bishops love the Latin Mass... but he is not yet in favor of altar-girls. To this day he doesn’t come clean on the AFD, made plenty of other fallacious statements, has placed liberals at the controls of the SSPX, refuses to return to the principle of 2006, wears the DICI pink glasses (and the sspx.org rosy fluo lipstick), has not reinstated Bishop Williamson and others whose 2012 fears have proved to be substantiated even more by the AFD, continues to lose priests (6 in march, 4 so far in April), religious and faithful by his heavy handedness and double speech. The mess is huge. Fr Moulin told me that there are various forms of infighting in most of the communities of nuns in France. The most famous case is Mother Anne-Marie Simoulin who is warring her own brother in Fanjeaux itself.
Bishop Fellay is determined. Four days after his AFD is “refused as a step in the right direction,” he writes to the Pope: “I committed myself to this perspective [practical agreement without doctrinal agreement] despite the quite strong opposition within the ranks of the Society and at the price of a lot of trouble.” This I grant to him: he is a stout Swiss fighter… and he is far from stupid. The pity is that his liberalism is in such a powerful position.
We must keep in mind that Bishop Fellay rebelled against the guidelines of the 2006 Chapter which, by law, he was obliged to follow, namely that no practical agreement can be sought without the previous consent of the Chapter, and without the conversion of Rome. Saying, “What do we exactly mean by 'conversion of Rome'?”(Econe, Sept 2012) only compounds the problem. Briefly, if you go against the DNA of the sspx, don’t be surprised to get cancer. The blessings of Bishop Charriere and the Archbishop do not apply to an organization that returns to novusordo principles, because what the Archbishop and Bishop Charriere were looking for, was an escape from the novusordo (narrative in the cospec). You don’t like it, but canonic legality follows the Faith, not the other way around.
Don’t you see Father, that we also cannot collaborate any longer, because we do not agree? For you I am vicious, for me you are delusional. To you as to Fr Couture last year I said: “Go to the novusordo if you will, but go there without me; I still have oaths to keep.” As for the better half of the Society, I told Bishop Tissier, Fr Giraud and Fr de Cacqueray that I shall not accept silence; if we wait for ever for each other, like porcelain dogs, nothing shall ever be done to rescue the sspx position. If you mislead the faithful, we shall lead them, if you lose your priests, (six already in one year in Asia), we shall take them in, as long as confusion reigns upstairs.
Wouldn’t it be great if Bishop Fellay converted? He would thank all those who torpedoed the deal, reestablish solemnly the principle of the 2006 General Chapter, fall into the arms of Bishop Williamson and say with tears, “Had I signed this agreement, we would have been dead within a year” (I think some Archbishop famously said that). But I think he should resign and allow Fr de Jorna or Bishop Tissier, I mean some really untainted antiliberal to clean house, not necessarily one of us rebs (as you call us). The task would be herculean, but you never know, one cannot despair of the Grace of God, just as I trust you shall keep the ping pong ball bouncing with me. You have been great so far. Don’t leave my love unrequited.
God bless you, my dear fighting Fr Laisney,
In Iesu et Maria
Francois Chazal+