Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 06:43:54 AM

Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 06:43:54 AM
Open Letter to Fr. Thouvenot, Secretary General of SSPX

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

Dear Father,

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

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

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

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

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

In Christo sacerdote et Maria Immaculata.

Fr Matthew Clifton.
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 06:46:23 AM
Letter of the Three Bishops:


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

Here is Bishop Fellay's response:

Menzingen 14 April 2012

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


Your Excellencies,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+Bernard Fellay

Niklaus Pfluger+

Alain-Marc Nély+
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 06:48:11 AM

HONOR AND GLORY TO BP. WILLIAMSON
Dom Thomas Aquinas
September 3, Feast of St. Pius X

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

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

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

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

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

English version seen here:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?s=830a28e0677009addd74c02fba9cf7fe&showtopic=10756

Spanish can be seen here:
http://nonpossummus.foroactivo.mx/t180-honor-y-gloria-a-monsenor-williamson-por-dom-tomas-de-aquino

And Portuguese here:
http://spessantotomas.blogspot.com/2012/09/honra-e-gloria-dom-williamson.html
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 06:52:38 AM
Letter of Arsenius, OSB (Published by Dominicans of Avrille)

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

by Arsenius

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We judge ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objection ...

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

We answer ...

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

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

Conclusion

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

No ordinations in France for Truly Traditional seminarians, Summer 2012
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 06:57:28 AM

OPEN LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY BISHOP FELLAY, SOCIETY PRIESTS,
RELIGIOUS AND FAITHFUL
November 8, 2012
Feast of the 4 Holy Crowned Martyrs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our dear Founder clearly saw “three surrenders” by making a merely practical agreement with Modernist Rome, regardless of the number of conditions, which are: (1) surrender to Rome’s ultimate power of veto on the major decisions of the Society; (2) surrender of the power of veto over any future elected Superior General; and (3) surrender of the power of veto over the names of candidates proposed as future bishops. With these influential powers handed over to the enemies of Jesus Christ, “they will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Dec. 13, 1984 Address to Priests of the French District). And further: “That is why what can look like a concession, is in reality, merely a maneuver.” And more: “We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome! It is the greatest danger threatening our people! If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order to, now, put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors!” (Archbishop Lefebvre Interview, Fideliter, July-August 1989). “I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The greatest service we can render the Catholic Church, the Successor of Peter, the salvation of souls and our own, is to say ‘NO’ to the reformed Liberal Church because we believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Son-of-God-made-Man, Who is neither liberal nor reformable!”
---Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Sept. 3, 1975, Letter to Friends and Benefactors #9)
“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church, for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” ---Archbishop Lefebvre (Spiritual Journey, p. 13)
FURTHER “MUST” READING:
*Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre “A Bishop Speaks from Beyond the Grave” (2 pamphlets)
http://www.truetrad.com/pdf/ABL%20Union%20...%20Rome%202.pdf
http://www.truetrad.com/pdf/ABL%20Union%20...20Rome%201a.pdf

*Declaration of 1974
http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/19...op_lefebvre.htm

*Declaration of 1983
http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/pu...e_june_1988.htm

*General Chapter Statement of 2006
http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news...ral_chapter.htm

*Letters of Dom Tomas Aquinas, OSB, Santa Cruz Monastery, Brazil
Two Currents
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/i...topic=8902&st=0

Honor and Glory to Bishop Williamson
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=printer&t=20407
Letter in Response to Fr. Bouchacourt
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=printer&t=20407
Arsenius (published by the Dominicans of Avrille)
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/State...cans-of-Avrille
Two Imaginary Conversations
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/i...1027&st=0&#last
*Bishop Williamson’s Open Letter and Eleison Comments #276
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/i...opic=11210&st=0
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Eleison-Comments-1027
*Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє? by Stephen Fox
http://isthisoperationѕυιcιdє.files.wordpr...ed-20121029.pdf
*Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre: “The Episcopal Consecrations,” 1988
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbish...onsecration.htm
* An Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre: “One Year After the Consecrations,” 1989
http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/on...nsecrations.htm
*Archbishop Lefebvre’s Address to His Priests, Econe, Switzerland: “Two Years after the Consecrations:
We Must Not Waver, We May Not Compromise,” September 6, 1990
http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/tw...nsecrations.htm
*Letter of 3 Bishops to Bishop Fellay
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Lette...o-Bishop-Fellay
*Books
By Archbishop Lefebvre
I Accuse the Council! (oddly out of print at Angelus Press)
A Bishop Speaks
Against the Heresies
The Mass of All Time
They Have Uncrowned Him
*Marcel Lefebvre, by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
*The Works of Fr. Denis Fahey
*The Apparition of Our Lady of Good Fortune, Quito, Ecuador (1634)

Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 07:03:35 AM
Several Open Letters from Fr Chazal (taken from Truetrad.com):



I ACCUSE THE COUNSEL  by Fr. Francois Chazal

Note from translator: I have edited the text that appears on the SSPX Korea website, for punctuation and clarity. All bolding and all brackets are my own additions.    http://sspx2.pr1.prshop.com/board/board_vi...&config_id=5147


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

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


3 SINE QUA NON (or necessary) CONDITIONS:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

------------------

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

From cathinfo.com:

WAR IS ON
Bohol 18 May,

OLVC, Manila 20 May,

Seoul, 27 May 2012.

My dear faithful,

Part I

The Fornicating New Rome

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

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

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

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

The Adultery from the Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part III

The Thwarted& Tempting Treason

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

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

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

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

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

TODAY’S SITUATION

That will very soon become out of date

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

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

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

Nothing is happening, then

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

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

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

HOW WE DID GET HERE

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

-1 LOSS OF CLARITY

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

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

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

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

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

-2 LOSS OF FORM OF DUE PROCESS

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

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

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

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

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

-3 FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORD AGREEMENT

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

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

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

-4 A DRAMATIC INCREASE OF GULLIBILITY

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

 - don’t attack the new mass?

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

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

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

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

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

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

-5 BELIEF IN GRADUAL EVOLUTION

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

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

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

-6 SIGNS OF DOCTRINAL FLAKING

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

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

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

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

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

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

-7 GRADUAL & AUTHORITARIAN COERCION OF RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

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

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

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

PLOT COUNTERED

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seoul 10 June,
My dear faithful,


Part I
Nightmare Scenarios


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

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

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

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




Part II
Proposed Course of Action




Something needs to exist to receive all these priestly crumbs, those shattered, directionless, and uncoordinated warriors, but not something heavy and bureaucratized, but something endowed with that minimum of organization and visible authority for operating. Its first leaders get short mandates, until, much later, a college of leaders forms a General Chapter of some sort to nominate a more permanent figure to rally around be he be pwiest or Bishop.
The internal link called “Cor Unum” will have to be issued very soon, no matter how small the group
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 07:08:57 AM
The following was read and distributed to parishoners at St. Athanasius Church in Vienna, VA, on Sunday, December 16th:

November 9, 2012

Dear Father Rostand,

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

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

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

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

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

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

May God bless you and Our Lady watch over you.

Fraternally yours,

Rev. Ronald J. Ringrose
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 07:13:17 AM
The New ‘Hermeneutics’ of Bishop Fellay - Part I

A Soft SSPX Walking toward Its ѕυιcιdє

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

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

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

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

Leaning toward compromise & causing an internal crisis

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The soft positions of today's SSPX

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

 
Walking away from the Catholic doctrine to pocket a canonical recognition


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

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

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

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

The right to denounce a voluntary ѕυιcιdє

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued


Posted December 12, 2012
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 07:16:39 AM
Bishop Williamson's Open Letter to Bishop Fellay on the Expulsion:



                                OPEN  LETTER  TO  BISHOP FELLAY
                                          ON  AN  “EXCLUSION”

                                                                                                      London, 19 October, 2012

Your Excellency,


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 07:22:53 AM
Open Letter to Bishop Fellay from Mexican Laity (2009), taken from TIA website:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contradictory interpretations of the excommunication  

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

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

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

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

Final words

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

Sincerely,

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


After this kind of a warning in 2009, how could Bp Fellay possibly say he was tricked By Benedict in 2012?
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 07:29:37 AM
Open Letter of British Faithful to Bishop Fellay (taken from TIA website):


May 19th 2012

Your Excellency Bishop Fellay,

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

Rome’s intentions towards an SSPX agreement

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

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

Your own position regarding the Council

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



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

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

Your attitude towards Benedict XVI

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



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

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

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

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

Rumors, information, openness and honesty

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

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

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



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

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

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

The future of the SSPX and the future of Tradition

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



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

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

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

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

St. Pius X, ora pro nobis!

Posted June 5, 2012
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 07:31:14 AM
Letter of Fr Cardozo to the "Silent Priests:"


Dear colleagues,

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

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

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

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

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

P. E.J.J. Cardozo
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 07:40:30 AM
Is this Operation ѕυιcιdє?
An Analysis of the evidence relating to an agreement between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Conciliar Church of Rome
With material compiled by Stephen J. Fox


Entire 200 page book available for free at Cathinfo.com homepage.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Is-This-Operation-ѕυιcιdє (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Is-This-Operation-ѕυιcιdє)
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 07:46:17 AM
Commentary of Fr Basilio Meramo on the Response of Bishop Fellay to the Letter of the Three Bishops (taken from Truetrad.com):


ABOUT THE RESPONSE OF BISHOP FELLAY {TO}
THE OTHER THREE BISHOPS OF THE FRATERNITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{May} God illuminate {him with} His divine grace so that he finds in himself the courage and {the} humility necessary to realize what he is about to do by destroying the only bastion of resistance that the Fraternity of St. Pius X, as an international institution, {poses} against the heresy of Rome {and} the apostate, heretical modernists, whom Archbishop Lefebvre treated {as} antichrists by writing in his letter of August 29, 1987 to the future bishops whom he would consecrate: "The Chair of Peter and {the} positions of authority in Rome are occupied by antichrists."
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 07:50:25 AM
From Truetrad.com


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

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

Source:  http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10259
Declaration versus declaration
We have read today the SSPX’s General Chapter Statement, of July 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

We wholeheartedly adhere to this text.

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

When the Archbishop says:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. Juan Carlos Ceriani

 
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 07:57:37 AM
Resignation Letter of Fr Juan Turco to Bishop Fellay (from TIA website):


Letter to the Superior General of SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay

Fr. Juan José Turco

Bogotá, April 5, 2010.
Monday in the Octave of Easter
Bishop Fellay,

After informing you of what has happened with me on a personal level (with the correspondence that I sent you yesterday) and after having received your replies, I see no point to continue writing. In good conscience I cannot agree with what is being done by both Your Excellency and the other Fathers.

Doctrinal concessions

First and foremost, I refer to all the doctrinal flaws involved in the present talks with Rome.

In short, let me mention the following:
The doctrinal flaw of accepting pre-conditions;

Did you or did you not ask for the lifting of the excommunication?

Why were things that Archbishop Lefebvre has said and done hidden or misrepresented?

How it is possible to attribute to the Virgin Mary [the accomplishment of] pre-conditions involving modernist errors and falsehoods?

How can we have continued on [with the talks] despite the fact that Rome has not converted?

How can you present a false image of Benedict XVI as if he would be regularly favoring Tradition? How does he show this? Is it by his saying that the Traditional Mass is subordinate to the New Mass or by seeking to merge the two? Is it by his lifting of the excommunication as if it were valid? Is it by his saying that we are outside of the Church if we do not accept the Council? Is it by his using the image of the Curé of Ars to encourage "the active participation of the laity" or his embellishing of Modernism with "holiness" and "piety" in order to thus save the modernist liturgy?


Smiles and concessions in the talks with Rome
I place these questions along with the other points presented in the letters I sent to you in October and November of last year (2009).

In good conscience I cannot agree to these talks and their flaws:
Because we are forced to remain silent (the facts can prove it);
Because I foresee that we will continue to make doctrinal concessions;
Because, according to statements of the Society, I see that what is intended is not to convert Rome, but to reach a canonical solution regardless of whether we shred the doctrine and the liturgy in the process;
Because I foresee that we will align ourselves with those [who accepted the conditions] of Ecclesia Dei;
Because the way these talks are being conducted is a betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Fellay: ‘An authentic renewal started…’

Second, in good conscience I cannot agree with many of your statements.

In addition to those I have mentioned on other occasions, I want to affirm here that it seems incredible to me that the Superior of the SSPX can make such error of judgment as to write to me: "If someone, as you claim, like Fr. Ceriani, that everyone [in the Vatican] is modernist, then think again. You are outside of the reality and the truth".

Or when you wrote: "A renewal of the Church has started. It is very difficult, but authentic."

Ideological persecution inside SSPX

Third, because of the doctrinal implications in the talks:

I cannot agree to the prohibitions which demanded that I remain silent about the Modernism of Benedict XVI. It is incredible that this has occurred in the Society of Saint Pius X.



No official criticism permitted of Benedict's visit to the Rome ѕуηαgσgυє In January 2010
Fourth, I cannot agree with – and once again I protest – the abuse of authority that has taken place:
The threat that I would have to leave the Society unless I remained silent about the Modernism of the Pope;
The expulsion of Bucaramanga based on lies;
The alleged canonical admonitions preparing for my expulsion;
The prohibition to carry out any ministry and to hear confessions.
It is absolutely incredible how deep you – and the other Superiors of the Society – have fallen to avoid any talk about the flaws in these discussions with Rome and to persecute those who dare to raise objections.

Bishop Fellay, it is your decision whether to continue with these talks. My conscience cannot agree either with the doctrinal flaws included in them or with the abuse of authority that has been made. In good conscience, I cannot officially concur with what the SSPX is doing at present, and, for that reason, I see myself forced to leave the Society.

Decision to leave

Therefore, be aware that for the reasons exposed above, today I leave the Society of Saint Pius X. Should the Society at any time cut off these talks that are destroying it and return to clearly denouncing the Modernism of the Pope and the official Church, I will request permission to enter the Society once again.

May God and the Virgin help us all.

             With respect,

             Fr. Juan José Turco
This letter was posted on Radio Cristiandad under the headline
“Father Juan José Turco continues the good combat.”
It can be read in Spanish here.
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 08:12:47 AM
Taken from TIA website:


Letter of Resignation of Fr. Gabriel Grosso


Dear Fr. Bouchacourt,

I am writing to tell you that for some time I have been praying to know what God Our Lord is asking of me. I assure you that I have experienced painful hours because of my disagreement with the authorities of the SSPX. But since I am not a member [with power of decision] and my opinion does not count on these matters, I have decided to inform you of my determination to leave the SSPX.

 

Fr. Grosso expresses his sadness and regret
I am explaining to you some of the reasons for my decision because you deserve to know them for the charity and understanding that you have shown me since my arrival at the SSPX.

The question is rooted in my different understanding of the facts and correlating them to eschatology. I am not just talking about the Apocalypse, because the issue goes beyond this text since it also refers to the eschatological words of Our Lord and passages from the writings of St. Peter, St. John, St. Paul and the Prophet Daniel.

Since I was in the seminary, I have been reading Fr. Leonardo Castellani and I believe in Bible prophecies, so these ideas concerning the time in which we live are not new to me. I consider that given the current state of affairs, to preach to the faithful that we should reconquer [in the merge with Rome] something that is heading toward death means to not understand our situation.

I believe - and for this reason I decided to act accordingly - that the fight has reached the point spoken of by the Angel to the Church of Sardis: “Be watchful and strengthen the things that remain, which are ready to die. For I find not thy works full before my God” (Apoc 3:2).

Therefore, in my view, to approach modernist Rome is futile, and worse, it is harmful, because until now Rome has shown that it will devour all the traditionalist groups and reduce them to the synthesis that it believes is the Church, that is to say, Vatican II. And, of course, Benedict XVI is the chief mentor of this Church.

Now it seems that you and Bishop Bernard Fellay have faith in him and believe that he will save the Church: “We can indeed hope that God will reward the undeniable valor that Benedict XVI has shown by conceding the two prerequisites that the SSPX solicited, and that He will give him the strength and lights necessary to carry out such a restoration, which seems impossible from the human point of view (your editorial in Iesus Christi n. 121).

The contrast is striking when one considers the Apocalypse "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke like a dragon," … “And it deceiveth those who dwell on earth.”

Thus I believe that the road taken by the SSPX is drawing it toward its ruin, and this is corroborated by others who have already denounced it (see the resignation of Fr. Juan Carlos Ceriani).

 

Faith in Ratzinger and a belief he will save the Church
In the Book of Daniel and the Apocalypse, we are warned that our enemies will have divine permission “to make war on the saints and to overcome them” (Apoc 13:7) and nothing, at least nothing visibly organized, will remain that the enemies will not have infiltrated and destroyed. All that will remain will be some irrelevant dispersed faithful. This will not happen, however, without the infidelity of the leaders of the group, because we know that God never abandons man unless man abandons Him first. We have the example of the present day Vatican, completely dominated by its enemies because their members have abandoned Our Lord Jesus Christ.

These considerations – and many others – have distanced me from the SSPX, because [according to you] to preach such words to the faithful would frighten them. I believe, on the contrary, that it is our duty to tell the “the faithful to flee Jerusalem (Rome) before its horrible destruction,” which is the position the SSPX has taken since 2000, as I was told. “When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel in the holy place: let he who reads, hears, and then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains (Mt 24: 15-16).

And we must not approach the Rome anathematized by God: “But should we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have proclaimed to you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1: 8-0)

Dear Father, since my intention is not to discuss interpretation of texts, I have decided after much prayer and consultation with prudent persons, to take my leave without making any scandal or saying anything to the faithful. I will go and live with my parents in San Francisco (Córdoba Province, Argentina), and there, with the help of God and some persons I know who think as I do on such matters, I intend to persevere in the priesthood.

God bless you and thank you very much for everything.

In Domino,

Fr. Gabriel Grosso.

P S. - I was thinking of what we were talking about yesterday and I believe that it is my duty to be faithful to what Our Lord Jesus Christ asks of me.






















Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 08:18:33 AM
French Capuchin Resists Drive for Accord Back in 2009
Taken from TIA website
TIA commentary puts letter in context; actual letter follows:


Reactions opposed to the accord of the SSPX leaders with Rome implying the acceptance of Vatican II “interpreted in the light of Tradition” seem to be growing among priests of the organization. Two of them that recently came to TIA's knowledge appear to be just the tip of the iceberg. The first was from the Prior of Orizaba in Mexico, Fr. Basilio Meramo, who publicly stated his indignation over Bishop Fellay’s agreement with Rome, which he qualified as an apostasy. TIA posted one sermon and an open letter that he wrote presenting his opposition to any accord.

Now, a new case has come to the surface.

On February 5, Bishop Fellay was present at a meeting of the SSPX superiors in France that took place in St. Nicholas de Chardonnay, Paris. After his speech in which he gave an account of the recent steps regarding his relations with the Vatican, a Capuchin superior of the Convent of St. Anthony Aurenque, Fr. Jean de Morgon, stood up and asked whether it was Bishop Fellay’s intention to accept “the Conciliar Church, the Modernist Rome.” As the Bishop hesitated, the religious insisted a second and a third time, but received no answer to his question.

The Franciscan superior, also present, ordered Fr. Jean to be silent and leave the room. Fr. Jean declared in loud voice that “there is no obligation whatsoever to obey someone who contradicts Faith and Morals,” but he left the room. Afterwards, he was ordered to issue a letter of apology to Bishop Fellay.

Fr. Jean stated that he would apologize for the form of his question, not for its content. To this “letter of apology” he had been ordered to write, he attached a declaration in which he expounded the reasons for his disagreement with the accord. He sent this declaration to various friends and supporters of SSPX, who placed it on a French website on February 22, 2009. Recently, one of our readers sent it to us.

Below, we present the main excerpts of Fr. Jean’s attached statement, translated from French by TIA (our subtitles). Our readers familiar with French can read the full text here or read news about it on websites that reported the episode (here and here).

The highlights of this docuмent are doubtless the following:

Fr. Jean’s allegation that a network of progressivist priests infiltrated the SSPX;
His affirmation that they managed to rise to key-positions in the organization;
His statement that the present day accord with Rome headed by Bishop Fellay would be the principal goal of their agenda.
Also surprising is his final affirmation that Bishop Williamson would be a part of this team.
I leave the reader to judge the truth of these statements.

TIA is taking the initiative to report this episode, as it did in the case of Fr. Meramo, because it seems to have been forbidden to circulate these dissensions among the SSPX grassroots. It is hard to justify leaders of a movement who prevent their followers from knowing what is happening in their own ranks. I believe the faithful have the right to know these controversies. Here is my contribution toward this end..

     The Editor



Principal Excerpts from Fr. Jean’s Letter


Convent St. Anthony Aurenque
Castelnaud d’Arbieu, Fleurence
February 11, 2009
Our Lady of Lourdes

Monsignor, …

In conscience, before God and men, for the common good of Catholic tradition and hence the Church, it seems to be my duty to add to my letter of apology what follows:

After my vehement intervention on February 5, pressure was put on me both in St. Nicholas and in Causade. In response, I said that I would apologize for the form (the ire) but not for the matter (the complaint).

Thus, I intensely regret having lost my temper, insofar as it caused scandal to some (although I have received congratulations by telephone and letter) or harmed or deviated from the subject of my complaint. Further, a simple letter of apology might allow you to think that I regret what I said. Thus, [to avoid this impression] I feel obliged to return to that matter and make it even more explicit. …

If I did not sing the Te Deum for the Motu Proprio, it is because my superior allowed me freedom on that point. I did not want to applaud a text that places the Mass of all times on the same level as the “bastard” Mass, as Msgr. Lefebvre often called it. …

I consider the SSPX a work of the Church, my second mother. To it I owe the integral conservation of my faith, my religious life and my priesthood. I wholehearted love it, and this is why I become indignant when I believe it is threatened. …

[He goes on to explain that he believes there is an infiltration inside the SSPX, and he calls those members “subversives.”]

When I took the microphone [at the meeting in Paris], I said that I - along with many other priests - was very apprehensive with what was happening in the SSPX- Vatican relations that appears to be leading us - slowly but surely – toward joining with conciliar and modernist Rome.

On that occasion I spoke out – with great repugnance – on behalf of other priests who encouraged me to do so. I was not just expressing my personal opinion. For five years, I have been convinced that this development constitutes part of a skillful process designed by certain subversive priests who managed to occupy strategic positions in the SSPX (as superiors, in seminaries, media and finances) in order to lead it to this merger [with modernist Vatican]. …

A suspect petition

Since I returned from Paris, Divine Providence has confirmed to me - as if it were necessary - that this process of merging is in progress. One of the faithful showed me a text from the Internet of a petition of support for Benedict XVI. In the announcements of Sunday Mass, I believed it was my duty to warn the faithful about this campaign, telling them that we should pray for Pope Benedict XVI, because he has heavy responsibilities, but that it was not the case to give him an unconditional support, considering that he had just declared (L’Osservatore Romano, French weekly edition, Dec. 23-30, 2008, p. 6) that the Church rejoices at the autonomy between the State and the Church, considering it a great progress of mankind. I also deemed it proper to invite the faithful to read an [old] article of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais about the errors taught (again and again, without any corrections) by professor Ratzinger (Sel de la Terre n. 67, pp 22-54).

Further investigation of the source of this petition clearly shows on the website of Forum Catholique that it springs from and is encouraged by GREC [French acronym for Group of Reflection among Catholics] that was founded in 1997 (for 10 years we did not even know of the existence of such a club!). This group brings together clergy and laity from all the various tendencies of “tradition,” primarily those who have merged [with the Vatican]. Among those is found the SSPX. They work “to achieve reconciliation according to the institutional and juridical forms.” This goal obviously targets the SSPX, which among that group is the only one that (still) has not merged.

One can also read there that this petition is encouraged by Archbishop [Fortunato] Baldelli, the Apostolic Nuncio, and Bishop [Philippe] Breton of Aire and Dax, representing the Bishops of France. I was told by a SSPX colleague that Bishop Breton stated that he met Fr. Cacqueray [the French superior of SSPX] at a GREC meeting … I was not surprised, therefore, to learn that the superior of the French district [Cacqueray] had exhorted all the faithful of Mutualité [in Paris] to sign the petition supporting Benedict XVI.

Do we need more proofs that the SSPX authorities are determined to merge with conciliar Rome? Is it necessary to listen again to the program of Radio Courtesy (July 17, 2007) where Fr. Lelong, a GREC activist, assured his listeners that the present day SSPX leaders would be fully willing to merge and that their task would essentially be only to silence the recalcitrant inside the SSPX?

Measuring the consequences

I am perfectly aware of the gravity of these revelations and their consequences. I have weighed and verified them as much as possible through the means Divine Providence recently afforded me. In conscience I could no longer remain silent, only in prayer. I do not want to wait for the house to be completely burned before calling the alert! I am absolutely certain that I fulfill my duty and the will of God in communicating these things to you. It is up to you to make your own judgment following your own conscience. Thinking about the numerous souls that were confided by Our Lord Jesus Christ to your care and for which you will have to give an account regarding their faith at the judgment day [the question rises]: “What do you expect from the Church?” The answer: The FAITH.

Regarding the future, I place myself totally in the hands of Divine Providence. I expect to be cast into the street, being labeled “sede-vacantist” (defamation is a classical tactic of the subversives to marginalize their opponents). If some tragedy will happen to me - it is necessary to foresee everything - I have confided this letter and all my hot docuмents to some dependable friends, who can disseminate them should the need arise. I know that my parents will provide for me and help me to re-start or, better said, to continue my religious life somewhere else. It is an enormous pain for me to become “vagus”, but if this is the will of the Good God in this astonishing crisis, so be it!

I have no trust in Bishop Fellay, who uses his authority to cover this whole operation. Neither do I have any in Bishop Williamson, who was found to be in secret contact with Rome a week after Easter 2008. Regarding our other two Bishops, I hope that on the day of the merger (which would not be so far off, as many pretend, since Benedict XVI is getting old…) or even before, at least one of them will stand up and continue the work of Msgr. Lefebvre.

Should this happen, I alert my brothers of Morgon and Aurenque who refuse this capitulation on the battlefield of the Faith that I will return and place myself under the obedience of their superior or the eldest one. Until this day comes, let us remain united in praying the Rosary, confiding in the final triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Fr. Jean O.F.M.
Posted April 14, 2009



Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 08:28:41 AM
Letter to Bishop Fellay Replying to My Expulsion from the SSPX

Fr. Basilio Méramo


On April 7, I received a hand-delivered notification of my expulsion - a thing to be expected after two canonical admonitions. It is, let me say at once, unjust and invalid both juridically and theologically since the two admonitions were per se inconsistent, and were immediately acknowledged as such by me in my two letters of response.

I appeal to Eternal Rome against the decree of my expulsion, according to Canon Law (can 647 § 2 n. 4), which suspends any decree. Thus, juridically my expulsion would be suspended, lacking juridical effect until the appeal is judged, that is, indefinitely. Indeed, this is because today Eternal Rome has been invaded by unworthy prelates who do not fulfill their duty of confirming the faithful in the Faith.

On the contrary, they corrupt and prostitute the Faith, cult and morals, and violate the truth, whose rule they abhor like antichrists. … Never has a greater abomination and desolation been seen in the holy place. They promote adoration of themselves as God, invoking the divine power, which they pervert and invert. For this reason Msgr. Lefebvre said that “Rome is occupied by antichrists” in his June 30, 1988 declaration. Ironically, the topic [of my expulsion] remains suspended until the parousia of Christ.



Open arms to those who accept Vatican II
Notwithstanding, it falls to me to bear with patience and integrity this injury, remaining firm as a Catholic priest in the front lines against Modernism in the Antichrist-Rome. This is what Msgr. Lefebvre in that same docuмent called the modernist and liberal Rome that persecutes the holy and infallible Catholic Tradition. It is to this Rome that you, along with the direction of SSPX and the three Bishops, cowardly deliver us under the appearance of a making a good action - [throwing yourselves] into the arms of Benedict XVI who was able to tempt you into a skillful trap.

Accepting the Council is accepting the French Revolution in the Church

Now, if you permit me, I will go on to refute the most serious of your fulminating but absurd charges in their theological-doctrinal context.

I was charged with making false and grave accusations against the general superior of the SSPX, of causing serious damage by opposing him, of being obstinate, rebelling against authority, causing scandal, etc.



Suenens: "Vatican II was the 1789 in the Church"
I would like to know, Most Reverend Bishop, what exactly are these false accusations you said I have made. My accusations are grave, I agree, but not false. If falseness exists, it cannot be justly said to be on my part, but rather - forgive me - on yours, since you have been using a double language for a long time. Not because you are bilingual, but because of your great dilemma: How to enter into an accord without allowing the treason to be noticed, covering it under a false appearance of good?

How is it possible to accept what you stated eight years ago (in an interview to the daily La Liberté on May 11, 2001, published by DICI n. 6, on May 18, 2001), that is, that “we go along with about 95% of the Second Vatican Council,” without being a liberal and modernist? The liberals and modernists themselves acknowledge that Council Vatican II was “the 1789 in the Church,” according to Card. Suenens, that is, the French Revolution of 1789 inside the Church.

Or as then Card. Ratzinger (today Benedict XVI) said: “The problem of the Council was to assimilate the values of centuries of liberal culture” (Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Dethroned Him, introduction). Thus, it is clear that whoever accepts 95% of Vatican Council II, accepts 95% of the French Revolution inside de Church, and also assimilates centuries of liberal culture in the Church. And 95% is a very high percentage.

Then comes the great question: What are you saying when you affirm that you are going to dialogue with Rome on doctrinal issues? What are you going to discuss? The remaining 5%? This alone bluntly demonstrates the parody, deception, lie and falsity [of your position], all executed with the great appearance of seriousness while in fact everything was becoming increasingly rotten.

No longer a resistance, but a pact with Masonry and Ecuмenism

What, then, remains of the SSPX, of resistance against Modernism, when one accepts, goes along with or sustains 95% of that nefarious and atypical Council Vatican II? Indeed, its pretense to not be dogmatic is as absurd as imagining a square circle … [as theologian Marin Sola and Msgr. Lefebvre have proved].

Msgr. Lefebvre denounced the pact of non-aggression between the Church and Masonry veiled under the names of aggiornamento and openness to the world (cf. Un Évèque Parle, p. 97). You, however, are willing to enter into that pact. Regarding such pact he adds: “Further, the Church no longer accepts being the one true religion, the only road of eternal salvation” (ibid. p. 97).

Card. Ratzinger (today Benedict XVI) recognizes the false religions as extraordinary roads of salvation, as one can note in this text that, despite its conservative bent, is deeply heretical: “The values of the non-Christian religions have been excessively emphasized to the point that some theologians present them as ordinary roads of salvation, instead of extraordinary” (Informe sobre la Fé, BAC Popular, Madrid, p. 220).

Acceptance of a schismatic Conciliar Church

Further, Msgr. Lefebvre stressed that “in the eyes of the Roman authorities as well as our own, this Council represents a new Church that they call the ‘Conciliar Church’” (ibid., p. 97). He also affirmed that this Council was schismatic. Notwithstanding, you can uphold 95% of it. Doing so, you become 95% schismatic.

Here are his words: “In view of an external and internal analysis of Vatican II, that is, analyzing its texts and the details of this Council, we believe that we can affirm it is a schismatic council because it rejects Tradition and breaks with the Church of the past. It is by the fruits that one judges the tree” (ibid. p. 97).

Thus, we have the paradoxical and absurd situation of you accepting 95% of the schismatic and apostate post-conciliar New Church. Hence you would be 95% schismatic and apostate – not an insignificant percentage! And you still pretend to be a faithful and worthy successor of Msgr. Lefebvre. If this is not falseness and treason, then I don’t know what it is.

Nefarious consequences of an accord

Msgr. Lefebvre considers that “all those who cooperate in the application of this inversion of values, accepting and adhering to the new ‘conciliar Church’ … enter into schism” (ibid. p. 98). Yet today you intend to reach an accord with this schismatic new conciliar Church.



Ecuмenism represents the universal apostasy
Further, you want the SSPX to be recognized and regularized by modernist Rome, which practices an apostate ecuмenism. This is how Msgr. Lefebvre described it: “Those who, motivated by laicism and apostate ecuмenism, either minimize or deny these [traditional] riches can only condemn these Bishops [of SSPX]. Doing so, they confirm their schism and their separation from Our Lord and His Reign” (Itinéraire spiritual, p. 9).

Yes, it is an apostate ecuмenism - this is the language of Scriptures, which calls it the Great Apostasy, that is, the universal or ecuмenical apostasy. Yet you would bring us closer to this ecuмenical apostasy. You want, then, to make us adulterous and schismatic, for according to Msgr. Lefebvre’s words: “This apostasy transforms those members into adulterers and schismatics, opposed to tradition and in rupture with the past of the Church, and hence with the Church that remains faithful to the Church of Our Lord. Those who continue to be faithful to the true Church are the object of savage and continuous persecutions” (ibid. pp 70-71).

Duplicity also in the reply to Benedict’s letter

In his letter to the Bishops of March 10, 2009, Benedict XVI, after referring to the “remission of the excommunication” called his invitation to the four Bishops of the SSPX to return as if they were prodigal sons a gesture of goodness and paternal mercy.



A smile that expresses the absence of obstacles
However, he clearly and explicitly reminded them that “they do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church,” given that they lack canonical mission or status. Their suspension a divinis remains in effect as long as they do not accept Vatican Council II.

Benedict XVI spelled it out in clear terms …: “This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature, and concern primarily the acceptance of the Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. … The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 - this must be quite clear to the Society.”

With this we see the objective of modernist and apostate Rome. But you and the other three Bishops of SSPX tell us that you are going to Rome to preach the truth and convert it, etc. … On March 12, 2009 - only two days later - in your quick response to Benedict XVI’s letter, you reached the apex [of shame] when you used his words to say: “Far from wanting to stop Tradition in 1962, we wish to consider Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar teaching.” This statement shows - forgive me, Bishop Fellay - your duplicity of language, a modernist and liberal language that manifests your falseness and betrayal.

My expulsion is an abuse of authority that only favors the enemies

Therefore, Bishop Fellay, it is absurd and unjust for you to expel me from SSPX for publicly and openly resisting your sinister politics of merging with [Vatican II], the landmark of the New Conciliar Church and its schismatic and apostate ecuмenism. In an abusive exercise of your authority, compromising with the worst and principal enemies of the Church, you dare to falsely and injuriously accuse me of being a rebel, insubordinate, disobedient, obstinate, scandalous, subversive, in need of correction, harmful and dangerous to the common good of the SSPX. I could launch these same accusations against you to your face, but [I will not because] the Divine Judge will do so when He will come to judge the living and the dead. I leave it for then, when I expect to meet you.

However, I pray for you, that God will forgive you because you know not what you do – either with the SSPX or with me, whom you throw into the street like a vile delinquent – the same fate suffered by so many priests who opposed the innovations at the time of the Council. You expel me at the age of 55, after having giving myself with a complete and generous commitment to the service of the SSPX, which I served for 29 years, leaving behind everything, renouncing everything to serve Holy Mother Church in the SSPX, resisting and combating that apostate and heretical Modernism which today you lead us toward – softly and sweetly, but surely.

A New SSPX is being shaped in the likeness of the New Church

Today you expel me for a New Society [SSPX], recycled at the feet of the New Conciliar Church. I have never belonged, and I never want to belong to this New SSPX and New Church. I will continue to be part of the true Church and the true SSPX. You expel me, better said, you excommunicate me from your New SSPX, but I don’t care, just as Msgr. Lefebvre didn’t care when he was excommunicated from the New Church. This punishment, far from being a stigma or affront, is a true mark of decoration and proof of orthodoxy.

He was not like you, the four Bishops, who shamefully asked the excommunication to be lifted before the eyes of the world, refusing to bear the weight of the cross, considering it an ignominy. Christ did nothing of this sort. He did not step down from His Cross (the greatest instrument of shame and suffering). He preferred to die crucified, ridiculed, spat upon, scourged, stripped of His clothes and abandoned by all. This is how He founded His Divine Church, leaving her as inheritance His Blood shed on the Cross.

The apocalyptic significance of accepting the New Mass



The stripped altar of the Novus Ordo Mass
This inheritance signed with His Divine Blood, His whole Body immolated, is the Holy Mass. The same Mass that today you do no longer recognize as being the one, exclusive Mass when you accept the spurious, bastard New Mass … considering it the legitimate and principal (ordinary) rite, while the Tridentine Mass becomes an occasional (extraordinary) rite of the New Church, which is – or will be – the see of the Antichrist and the False Prophet, as Our Lady of La Salette predicted: “Rome will lose the faith and become the see of the Antichrist.”

Let him who has eyes see, and let him who has ears listen.

Ironically, today you chop off my head, without remembering that it was thanks to my intervention in the General Chapter of 1994 asking that Fr. Schmidberger not be re-elected that you accepted the position of General Superior. Indeed, for two years he had been arranging everything for his reelection. He was at the very point of achieving his aim when surprisingly, contrary to his plans, you were elected. I stood up to tell you to accept that position as a cross, following the example of St. Pius X …

Association of this punishment with the Passion of the Church

This entire apocalyptical drama the Church is living is prophetically encompassed in the Lenten liturgy in a special and solemn way during Holy Week and in the Sacred Triduum, which shows us the desolate Church, the stripped altar and the empty tabernacle. It is a clear depiction of what happened 2,000 years ago with the Passion and Death of Christ. It is also a symbol of what would happen to the Church, the mystical body of Chirst, during the apocalyptic end times …

I ask God to forgive you, Msgr., along with the Chapter that - like a Sanhedrin - condemned me and expelled me. It reminds me of what the then elect people did to Our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the words of the liturgy: “The impious ones said, let us destroy the just man for he is against our works” (5th antiphony of Lauds of Holy Saturday).

But the words of the Prophet also come to mind: “The Lord God is my helper, therefore I am not confounded: and I have set my face as a hard stone, knowing that I will not be confounded” (Is 50:7).

Thus, since my alternative was either to be silent in a vile silence before what I see or to clearly and firmly speak out at the price of my expulsion, I fulfilled my priestly duty without betraying God or my conscience. Now, my only choice is to wander carrying my head in my hands, as St. Denis did before he fell and died.

I bid you farewell during this tragic and expressive Sacred Tridium of Holy Week, filled with mentions of what would happen to the Church in the last apocalyptic times, which is, nonetheless, the necessary prelude for the future Easter and Resurrection.

Fr. Basilio Méramo
Orizaba, Good Friday, April 9, 2009

Posted April 22, 2009




Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 08:33:35 AM
Open Letter of Fr Carzozo to the Resistance
Taken from TIA website:



Open Letter to my Colleague Priests, Faithful & Friends


Nova Friburgo, May 13, 2012
95th anniversary of the 1st apparition of Our Lady in Fatima


After reading the letter of the three SSPX Bishops to the General House, and the answer given by Msgr. Fellay and his followers (which have more or less the same errors as those manifested in the past by Dom Gérard, Fr. Rifan and Fr. Muñoz), I have nothing more to say than to express:

1.   My total adhesion to the SSPX and its Founder and, therefore, my absolute support of the three Bishops who remain faithful to the work of Msgr. Lefebvre, in whom I place my obedience.

2.   My non-recognition of the authority of Msgr. Fellay, given his pertinacity and distancing from the principles of the Founder, and [my non-recognition of the authority] of all those who share his position of surrendering to Rome, independent of the office they occupy, and, therefore, my rejection of such position of this Bishop, based on his opinions and polices that are totally removed from the policy of yes-yes, no-no of the Gospel and the foundations given by Msgr. Lefebvre. (1)

 

Fr. Ernesto Cardozo
3.   Our absolute rejection also to any accord with modernist Rome to which this Bishop, Msgr. Fellay, is shamefully dragging us in a suicidal operation, ignoring the counsels:
 Of the Founder;
 Of his three brothers in the Episcopate;
 Of diverse priests who, in the last years with due reasons, refuted his steps toward a communion with a Church self-defined as “post-conciliar” and not Catholic, which is enemy of Our Lord and His universal Kingship. (2) They ended by being expelled or resigning in order to not end in the lamentable situation we have reached today.
4.   For these reasons, I call on the three faithful Bishops, who have an authority given to them by the Founder, to assume the command of the SSPX to avoid its dismantling and dispersion.

5.   I call on the members and faithful who still maintain a minimum of loyalty, fidelity and obedience to the Founder to support in a clear and efficient way our three Bishops, and withdraw all support from those subservient followers of the one who permitted, by his consent, collaboration and silence, the present day state of affairs that is leading the SSPX to an irremediable division.

Given that we have been confirmed, i.e., that we are soldiers of Christ the King by the anti-modernist oath we made at our ordination, in order not to end in perjury and apostasy, I call on all to clearly take the position of Tradition and support with all their efforts the defense of the SSPX, the secure boat in which we have reached so many goals and through which we survived the apostasy of our times, while we wait for the complete conversion of the Pope and Rome to the Eternal Rome.

Trusting in the consecration of our religious family made in the past to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, let us combat with her and for her until the end. Amen.

Fr. Ernesto J.J. Cardozo

1.   In a letter dated August 18, 1988, Msgr. Lefebvre, referring to the agreement made by Dom Gerard, wrote to Dom Thomas, prior of the Monastery of the Holy Cross: “to maintain his liberty and reject any bond with modernist Rome.”

2.   In a statement made this Friday [May 11, 2012] to Catholic News Service, speaking from the General House in Menzingen, Switzerland, the Superior of the SSPX, Bernard Fellay, admitted discrepancies in the Society regarding an accord with the Holy See: “I cannot exclude that there might be a split,” he affirmed.

Msgr. Fellay told CNS that in his opinion “the move of the Holy Father - because it really comes from him - is genuine.” “It doesn’t seem to be any trap …(sic!) So we have to look into it very closely and if possible move ahead.”

Referring to the initiative of Benedict XVI, Fellay was quite clear: “Personally, I would have waited for some more time to see things clearer, but once again it really appears that the Holy Father wants it to happen now.”, “But we are not alone in working to defend the faith. It’s the Pope himself who does it … (sic!)”
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 08:36:51 AM
Taken from the TIA website.
Part I occurs earlier in this thread.
Sorry I did not post them concurrently:                   


The New ‘Hermeneutics’ of Bishop Fellay - Part II
An Omissive, Authoritarian Leadership,
Eager to Compromise

Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz
We left out the two first items of Part II of this Open Letter. Consequently, we did not maintain the original numeration of the subtitles. We also made some slight changes to correspond to the TIA editorial style and to our division of the letter into two parts. The title is ours. Part I is here. The Editor
I would like to support what I affirmed in my last article by showing how the statements and actions of the current SSPX leadership are completely contrary to what Arch. Lefebvre clearly stated. And even if Arch. Lefebvre did not explicitly speak about some of them, these changes are in grave opposition to the common good of the Society and to basic common sense. …

The need for a practical agreement

… The leaders advocate an absolute need for a practical agreement with the current authorities, but without any prior doctrinal agreement, thus contradicting what Arch. Lefebvre had explicitly stated, especially after 1988, and what the General Chapter (which, let us remind Menzingen, has more authority than Bishop Fellay) decided in 2006. Their present search for a purely practical agreement is all the more surprising when one considers that the recent doctrinal discussions between our Theological Commission and the Vatican came to the conclusion that a doctrinal agreement with the Conciliar Church is impossible!


Fr. Ortiz sets out his strong objections to the doctrinal compromises

Therefore, for the Society to search for a purely practical agreement with present-day Rome, which continues to be in error, is equivalent to committing an "operation ѕυιcιdє: " We will be "absorbed" by the Conciliar Church, with all its structure not only rooted in the Council, but working to implement the conciliar and post-conciliar reforms. We know what happened to the eight traditional communities who rallied to this Conciliar Church without a preliminary doctrinal accord; inevitably the same thing can be expected to happen to us...

Arch. Lefebvre clearly placed first and foremost, especially after the consecrations of Bishops, a solution to the doctrinal question as a prerequisite to any future dialogue with the Conciliar Church,: “I will place the question on the doctrinal level: Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the Popes who preceded you ... Are you in full communion with these Popes and with their affirmations? Do you still accept the Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to speak. As long as you do not agree to reform the Council considering the doctrine of the Popes who preceded you, there is no dialogue possible. It is useless. Thus the positions will be clearer.”(Fideliter, n. 66, Nov-Dec 1988, p. 12-13)

The illusion of 'doing a greater good’

Then, in order to find a "positive" justification for negotiating with conciliar Rome, the SSPX authorities affirm that this purely practical agreement will allow us to do a greater good, for, being "inside the visible Church" they will convert the Conciliar Church to Tradition... This is exactly the same argument invoked by Dom Gérard and the priests of Campos to justify their reunion with the conciliar Rome!

Our Founder answered this deceptively "optimistic" perspective with great realism in an interview, saying, “Getting inside the Church, what does it mean? And, first of all, which Church are we speaking about? If this is about the Conciliar Church should we, who have fought against it for 20 years because we want the Catholic Church, return to the Conciliar Church supposedly to make it Catholic? This is a total illusion! Inferiors do not change superiors, but superiors change inferiors.”(Fideliter n. 70 July-August 1989)

And the facts show us that the little good that those who rallied to Rome since 1988 have done does not justify the greater evil they have done by abandoning their faithful to the conciliar errors, to the new Mass, to justifications of the actions of the post-conciliar popes, etc...

Are the preliminary conditions sufficient?

Again, in order to justify this agreement, they affirm that the preliminary conditions set by the last General Chapter in July 2012, would be sufficient to avoid falling into the same “traps” as the rallied communities did.

But apart from the fact that these conditions are insufficient and unrealistic to protect us from being "assimilated" and "neutralized" by the Conciliar Church, the General Chapter has forgotten the two most important conditions, clearly requested by Arch. Lefebvre: the conversion of the official authorities of the Church, namely, by their explicit condemnation of conciliar errors, and exemption from the New Code of Canon Law.


Bishop Rifan's betrayal led to every compromise, including concelebrating a Mass in June 2011

Arch. Lefebvre said that even if modernist Rome granted us some preliminary conditions, such conditions would be insufficient to make an agreement with them. Here is what he said to Card. Ratzinger: “Your Eminence, look, even if you give us a Bishop, even if you give us some autonomy from the Bishops, even if you give us the entire liturgy of 1962, if you give us to continue the seminaries and the Society as we do now, we cannot work together, it's impossible, impossible, because we work in two diametrically opposed directions: you work for the de-Christianization of society, of the human person and the Church and we, we are working to Christianize. We cannot agree.” (Retreat at Ecône, September 4, 1987)

In addition, Arch. Lefebvre put the conversion of Rome as a prerequisite to an agreement when he addressed these words to the four future bishops: “… being confident that without delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a perfectly Catholic Successor of Peter, in which hands you could deposit the grace of your episcopate in order that he confirms it.” (August 29, 1987)

And concerning the Code of Canon Law, how could we keep our identity by continuing our combat, if we are under the common law of the Conciliar Church, which is the New Code of Canon Law? Don’t they see that the new code was specifically made to implement the conciliar reforms, but not to preserve tradition?

Vatican II could be acceptable!

And in order to overcome the doctrinal impasse that results from the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar “magisterium,” we have seen these SSPX leaders in their recent conferences, their sermons and their interviews show an explicit and repeated determination to minimize the conciliar errors in order to prepare the minds of the faithful for reconciliation with conciliar Rome.

Did we not hear with stupefaction Bishop Fellay, in an interview with Catholic News Service, state that, “The Council is presenting a religious liberty which in fact was a very, very limited one, very limited,” and also that the conclusion of doctrinal discussions with Rome was that “… we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council, but the common understanding of it.”! And: “the Council must be put within this great tradition of the Church, must be understood within this, and in correlation to it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely.” (May 11, 2012)


Benedict praying with false religions at Assisi

And the only (incomplete) revealed text concerning their last doctrinal preamble presented in Rome in April, and spoken of by Fr. Pfluger in a conference, not only betrays the same desire to minimize the conciliar errors but even to accept them: “…the entire Tradition of the Catholic Faith should be the criterion and the guide of understanding of the teachings of Vatican II, which in turn illuminates some aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, implicitly present in it, not yet formulated.”(St Joseph des Carmes, June 5, 2012)

Was it not the fact that they passively observed the interfaith meeting of Assisi III without vigorously condemning it, even asking some members of the Society not to do so, also a revealing sign?

And, what is of more concern is that their minimization of the errors of the Council seems to come from a while back… as Bishop Fellay already stated back in 2001 (!) in an interview that: “To accept the Council, we do not have a problem. ..This gives the impression that we reject all of Vatican II. However, we keep 95% of it.”(Swiss newspaper La Liberté, 11 May 2001)

Instead of listening to the repeated warnings, asking them not to sign a practical agreement, they contemptuously replied to the letter of the three Bishops with harsh words... insinuating that these fellow Bishops were “sede-vacantists,”“schismatics “and were transforming the errors of Vatican II into “super heresies.”

The list would be too long to enumerate the other statements of Menzingen, which move in the direction of a weakening on their doctrinal positions; the same weakening is found among other members of the Society who support the agreement. I have seen how some confreres, who I knew as once being firm in their condemnation of the Council and of the post-conciliar Popes, hold now “softer” positions and are very supportive of a rally to Modernist Rome...

Grave errors against prudence

In addition to the errors in their principles, we can also note serious errors of judgment, which were also the cause of the most serious internal division, in depth and extension, which the Society has ever known.

By imprudent actions, they have preferred to sacrifice the unity and the common good of the Society to follow the agenda of the modernist Rome, as they have stated in their answer to the letter of the three other Bishops of the Society: “For the common good of the Society we would prefer by far the current solution of the status quo, but obviously Rome does not tolerate it anymore.” (14 April 2012)

Bishop Fellay has also stated that it was almost "inevitable" that a part of the Society would not follow in case of an agreement with Rome: “I cannot exclude that there might be a split [within the Society].”(Interview to Catholic News Service). And thus he took the risk of gravely dividing the Society.

Therefore, they preferred to ignore all the warnings coming from the three other Bishops, from some superiors and members of the Society and even from our fellow Traditional communities who asked them not to sign a purely practical agreement.

This attitude has deeply shocked many members of the Society and created an internal division that has seriously undermined the leadership’s credibility to govern it, and among friendly communities undermined a confidence that has not been restored.

Who duped whom?

When we hear their explanations (excuses?) during the last months concerning the supposedly “real reasons” which have led them so far in the concessions to Modernist Rome, we see that it is not so much the Roman authorities who have deceived them, but rather that they have deceived themselves! For if they have decided, imprudently, to ignore the answers they got from the official Vatican channels about the true thinking of the Pope and to favor other channels, so-called “informal” ones, such a decision does not improve their reputation as prudent superiors...

Thus they refused to see that everything these “unofficial” channels said to them was either gossip or manipulation, because their desire to reach an agreement became so much an “obsession.” So they finished by believing everything! Who’s guilty? They alone!

How is it possible that they could act so carelessly in a such a serious matter? In any institution, even a secular one, such an act leads inevitably to the resignation of the person responsible, because too much trust has been lost. “We will take the responsibility,” as Fr. Pfluger threatened to do if the agreements will fail.

Actually, if they have not resigned, it is because they continue to believe in an agreement. They have not yet learned a lesson from their actions! It is obvious that, despite some obstacles, Menzingen and the Vatican will do everything to “resuscitate” the talks. The expulsion of Bishop Williamson appears clearly as a “telltale sign” that the talks will resume, because the expulsion was, at least for the Vatican, a sine qua non condition in favor of a deal.

In addition, we find in Bishop Fellay a grave lack of practical judgment about the Pope’s false ideas. How could he think that Benedict XVI would be ready in recognizing us “to put aside our acceptance of the Council,” as he wrote to him in June 2012? Did he not know that the Council is “non-negotiable” for Modernist Rome? Is this naivety on his part, or is he simply believing his desires to be reality? In any case, in this he shows that he gravely lacks prudence in doctrinal matters.

Unjust persecutions

Finally, to complete their blindness and their stubbornness on the path of “reconciliation” with modernist Rome, they have undertaken persecutions in order to suppress any opposition, both inside and outside the Society. Since then we have seen a series of intimidations, admonitions, mutations, delays in Holy Orders, expulsions of priests and even of one of our Bishops!


Whoever does not agree with me will be put out

They relentlessly persecute and expel people who oppose their reunification with Modernist Rome, and at the same time they say cynically that they intend to continue their opposition ... inside the Official Church once they have been recognized!

In the final analysis, they have established an authoritarian government, a real dictatorship, in the Society, in order to remove any obstacle opposing their plans of reuniting with Modernist Rome.

Thus, Bishop Fellay and his two assistants have radically changed the fundamental principles and objectives of the Society established by our Founder. They have also ignored major decisions of the General Chapter of 2006, which forbade a practical agreement with the Official Church without previous doctrinal agreement. They wittingly ignored the warnings of prudent people who counseled them not to make any practical agreement with Modernist Rome. They have jeopardized the unity and the common good of the Society by exposing it to a danger of compromising with the enemies of the Church. And finally, they contradict themselves by saying the opposite of what they affirmed only a few years ago!

Therefore, they have betrayed the legacy of Arch. Lefebvre, the responsibilities of their positions, the trust of thousands and even of those who, deceived by them, continue to trust them.

They have shown a resolute willingness to lead the Society, at all costs, to rally to our enemies.

Regardless of whether the agreement with the Conciliar Church has not yet been done, or will not take place immediately, or perhaps never... a grave danger remains for the Society, because they have not retracted the false principles that have guided their destructive actions.

I see now sadly that, by wanting somehow to identify abusively their judgments and their decisions with the Society itself, they have ultimately confiscated it as if it were their personal property, forgetting that they were only appointed to serve for a determined time.

May God have pity on the Society!


Posted December 14, 2012
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 08:47:26 AM
Forum:

These are the letters, posts, etc. that spring to my mind.

Please feel free to post additional docuмents/arguments from resistance priests.

But let's keep the thread a mere compilation of source materials.

No commentaries please.

The purpose of this thread is to compile a cuмulative body of docuмentation that can be easily accesses and read by those seeking an understanding of the current struggle within the SSPX.

Pax.
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: PAT317 on January 01, 2013, 11:01:14 AM
I hope this fits; I didn't see it posted in the thread yet.  I think it's worth keeping in mind that Fr. Hewko got in trouble with Fr. Rostand for this sermon.  


Quote
Sermon of Fr. David Hewko in Winona, Minnesota (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=post&s=reply&t=19473&f=19&qu=199652)
June 17, 2012

This day is a great joy for the Catholic Church, a great joy for the family of Fr. Reuter and all the families of the priests today offering their first Masses. What a great grace, what a great happiness for the Catholic Church of all time, the Catholic Church of Tradition!

Ten years ago on June 29th, Fr. Reuter and I were there present for the death of Fr. John of the Cross, who was a model monk and priest. He taught us many things. He said many things. Among some of the pearls of wisdom he left us was, “monks (and we could add priests and probably nuns, too), monks, when they’re young they look holy, but they’re not. And when they’re middle aged, they don’t look holy, and they’re not. And when they’re old and bent over and feeble, they don’t look holy, but they are!” And that defines the life of holiness. It’s an everyday battle for the sanctification of our own soul as priests. To drink everyday from the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, the King; there we draw our strength. And to fulfill the one request, as Bishop Sheen says, the one request He asked of His priests… and, Fr. Reuter, I am sure you probably do already, and I encourage you to do this your whole priestly life; aside also from your Breviary, which is very powerful; aside also from the Holy Mass you will offer every day, is the Holy Hour. “Will you not spend one hour with Me?” And it’s there you will find your light, your strength, your wisdom, your romance, your love, your death, your glory. Because Jesus Christ the King dwells there for us in the Blessed Sacrament. And for the priest and for all religious and for the faithful that is our strength!

And this shows the outpouring of the love of God. “Deus caritas est,” says St. John. “God is Charity.” And He pours out His love to souls like a second flood, over the human race, to drown us, as it were, in the incredible love of God. He gives us today a beautiful day, the sun, the gravity, the planets in perfect mathematical  circulation. He gives us the air we breathe. And He gives us His life in our soul by grace and gives us His own Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist, a great Treasure. And this is the great motto of our Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, Credidimus Caritati.  We have believed in the Charity.

And you good fathers and good mothers, you know, as you grow spiritually, you know what this means. Charity is in sacrifice. The life of a priest is a continual self giving. “He is an eaten man,” says St. John Vianney. The sisters and our dear brothers and monks submit to a Holy Rule, and through this, and their sacred vows, they become sanctified. And their life is the life of Charity, to be crucified as a victim with Jesus on the Altar, out of love for Him. So this is the real love. It’s not the love as many Novus Ordo bishops today are preaching in many churches throughout the world, l-u-v, a false charity; that we must acknowledge all the false religions, we must embrace the Jєωs and the Protestants and Lutherans and have ecuмenical services. This is not the true Charity, not at all! That has been condemned by the Church.

Christ tells us, “My sheep hear My voice.” My voice. Whose voice is that? It’s the voice of God Himself, Jesus Christ the Eternal God made flesh, the King, the High Priest. And that voice, how do we know the truth, the knowledge, with all the tidal wave of confusion, with all the lies? Where do we find, where do we hear the Truth? Where do we go? Archbishop Lefebvre gives us the answer when he gave the Episcopal Consecrations in 1988. He said in his sermon, “I hear the voices of all these popes since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, telling us, ‘What will you do with our teachings? What will you do with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Do not abandon the Church.’” “And what we,” then he said, “what we condemned in the past, the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing.” The condemnations, where are these condemnations? Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Modernism, Zionism, they’ve all been condemned. And all the modern errors. And he said in his sermon, “I hear these voices echoing the voice of the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, echoing the voice of the Blessed Trinity, ‘Do something about it or all will be lost! Souls will be lost!’” And that defines the fight that we’re in.

Let me give a quote from the Archbishop himself. “And it is striking to see,” this is three years after the consecrations, “it is striking to see how our fight is now exactly the same fight as was being fought then by the great Catholics of the nineteenth century in the wake of the French Revolution. And by the popes, Pius VI, Pius VII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and so on, Pius X, down to Pius XII, their fight is summed up in the Encyclical, Quanta Qura, with the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, and Pascendi of Pius X. These are the two great docuмents, sensational and shocking in their day, laying out the Church’s teaching in the face of the modern errors, the errors appearing in the course of the Revolution, especially the Declaration of the Rights of Man. This is the fight we are in in the middle of today. Exactly the same fight.”

And Fr. Reuter, that’s why I am addressing you as a priest of the Society of St. Pius X. This is the founder speaking, this is our father speaking, echoing the words of the infallible authority of the constant Magisterium of the Catholic Church.  And as you know, the enemy is always about, and he seeks to destroy the Spouse of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. Listen to Mr. Prelot in his book, Liberal Catholicism. He was a senator in France. In 1969 he wrote this. Listen to his words, “We struggled for a century and a half to make our ideas prevail inside the Church, and we did not succeed. Then came the Second Vatican Council, and we triumphed. Ever since, the theses and principles of liberal Catholicism have been definitively and officially accepted by the Holy Church.”

What are these principles that the Freemasons since the French Revolution have so brazenly and boldly raised up in the Declaration of the Rights of Man against the Rights of God? What are these, summed up? Archbishop Lefebvre speaks about them all the time. Read his books, read his sermons to keep clear in this confusion of our times. And he sums them up into three: Religious liberty. Religious liberty, which is a very serious sin, a very striking, bold attack against Jesus Christ in His Kingship in society. And it is not small. This error is huge. And it’s been condemned by the Church over and over and over again. And it triumphed at Vatican II. And in the name of religious liberty, you realize, dear faithful, dear Fathers, what happened in the name of religious liberty. Small effects? No. The smashing , literally the smashing of the great Catholic countries. One by one they fell. And it was the Vatican itself who made the political moves to tear off the crown of Jesus Christ, to tear off the Catholic constitution of Ireland, Spain, Colombia, Philippines, just to name a few, and Italy in 1984. And do you realize what this means? It means the flooding in of the false religions. That means the state cannot profess the True Religion, cannot acknowledge Jesus Christ as King. And this is, as Archbishop Lefebvre often, very often said, repeating the popes of all time, this is public apostasy. This is putting Man in the place of God.

And Fr. Reuter, this is our fight, this is it: To stand opposed to the whole wave of apostasy, standing on the rock-solid shoulders of the great popes. We have nothing to fear, nothing to worry about. There’s no confusion in their encyclicals, that’s for sure.

Also, what else triumphed in the Vatican Council was ecuмenism. The false ecuмenism which is prevalent today, prevalent today! Listen to a high-up Freemason in France. He said, “One can say that ecuмenism is the legitimate son of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Israelites, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Freethinkers, Free-believers, to us they are only our first name. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is our family name.”

And, of course, collegiality. Collegiality is the democracy within the Church. And the principle of religious freedom, that is, freedom of conscience, but the error is: “I can believe what I darn well please and still go to Heaven.” That’s condemned by the Catholic Church, by Jesus Christ Himself. “Who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.” Christ is not an option. He is our God, He is our King, He is our Redeemer and there is no other!

And that is why Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly said we have to reject the Vatican Council in her errors. And the errors are not small, little misconceived values. They are errors condemned by the Roman Catholic Church of all time with no ambiguity and with very clear and strong language. For example, the popes will call religious liberty “insanity.” St. Pius X will call it “delirium.” And listen to our Founder again, listen to him, because his words still ring true:

“What have the liberal Catholics been seeking for a century and a half? To make a marriage between the Church and the Revolution.” And this, Bishop Tissier mentioned at the ordinations two days ago. “To wed the Church and subversion. To wed the Church and the forces that destroy society, all societies, families, civil and religious. This wedding of the Church is described in the Council. Take the schema, Gaudium et Spes; that’s a Vatican II docuмent.” So let nobody tell you it’s just a false interpretation or an exaggerated interpretation after the Council. The errors are built right into the Council. And if you have any doubts on that, read I Accuse the Council, by Archbishop Lefebvre. “It is necessary,” says the docuмent, “to marry the principles of the Church with the conceptions of modern man. What does that mean? That means that it is necessary to wed the Church, the Catholic Church, the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ with principles that are contrary to this Church, that undermine it and which have always been against the Church. Precisely it is this marriage that was attempted in the Council by men of the Church and not the Church. For the Church can never permit such a thing. For a century and a half, all the Sovereign Pontiffs have condemned liberal Catholicism, have refused this marriage with the ideas of the Revolution, those who adored the goddess of reason. The popes had never been able to accept such things.”

“And during this Revolution priests were sent to the scaffold, their heads chopped off. Nuns were persecuted and also executed. Remember the pontoons of Nantes in France where faithful priests were assembled onto boats and were then sunk to drown. That is what the revolution did. And well, dear brethren what the revolution did is nothing compared to what the Second Vatican Council is doing, nothing! It would have been better for the thirty, forty, or fifty thousand priests who have left their cassocks and violated their vows and their oaths made before God; it would have been better for them to have been martyred or sent to the scaffold. At least they would have saved their souls!”

And Archbishop Lefebvre is consistent always, every decade, every year in the battle for the Faith. So read, read what he says. And Fr. Reuter, deep in your mind, deep in your soul, already in the seminary the good priests here have trained you in all the great doctrines of our Holy Faith. And you know the acts of the Magisterium. You know these great encyclicals. You studied them. And now you must meditate on them, pray on them!

And all of us, all of us, as we were told in the seminary and Archbishop Lefebvre himself admitted it, “I was a liberal, I believed in separation of Church and State, I believed in the modern errors.” We’re all liberals in some way. We’ve got to wash it out, we’ve got to soak it out, we’ve got to fight it out, dig it out, pull it out every day. It’s in us, it’s in our blood, it’s in our society, it permeates, as Gregory XVI said, like a black fog out of Hell, the smoke seen by St. John in the Apocalypse has spread all over the earth which are the liberal errors of Modernism, Communism, Socialism, and all those errors.

Three times Archbishop Lefebvre said in the sermon of the Consecrations, “We have to wait. We have to fight on and wait until Tradition finds its rightful place in Rome.” Three times he said this. Now I ask you, dear faithful, dear Fathers, and all of you, do we see Tradition back in Rome? Go down to your local diocese,  go down to your local parish church. Has Tradition come back, with all the charismatic dancing and altar girls and irreverence and sacrileges and goofy priests saying goofy things? Is that Tradition come back?

And let’s look at Rome. And let’s look (obviously with respect and with filial respect and love even), at the Holy Father, the Pope. We are not sedevacantists. He is the pope. He is our father. But like a president, he can be a ‘so-and-so’ but he is still the president. And the pope is the Holy Father, he is. He’s the Vicar of Christ. But what are his actions? What have you seen? Everyday there is something new. And we can’t be deceived by the pro multis, a few crumbs to Tradition. When he visited the mosque, he took his socks off, faced Mecca. He has visited the Jєωs’ ѕуηαgσgυєs over and over again. The meeting of Assisi, the horrible scandal of Assisi. And Archbishop Lefebvre said about the spirit of Assisi, we must reject this because it will undermine our Faith, undermine the Faith of your families and your children. The spirit of Assisi is this ecuмenical spirit, based on the instructions of the Council of Vatican II. You’ll find it right in the texts.

And lest we be deceived, dear faithful, lest we be deceived, I have in my hands the Summorum Pontificuм. Now I was a little naïve, too. When this came out, I thought, well, that’s great, the Latin Mass is finally freed; it’s been declared that it’s never been abrogated. This is great! But then I read the text and it’s quite shocking. And, Catholics, we have to oppose the errors in here. Yes, it is a concession, it is a concession. The Latin Mass is free, no one can hinder the priest from saying it. But listen to a few words of this. “It must be said that the Missal published by Paul VI,” that is, the New Mass, made with the help of six Protestant ministers, written by a Freemason, which attacks the Kingship of Christ, attacks the Real Presence, and as Fr. Zigrang told me, (he is a priest of the Galveston diocese, a Canon lawyer for fourteen years; he joined the Society of St. Pius X down in our priory in Texas). Fr. Zigrang told me the New Mass is most dangerous to the priest himself, to make him lose his Faith. And here’s what it says, “This Mass of Paul VI obviously is and continues to be the normal form, the ordinary form of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council (that’s our Mass, the Tridentine Mass) and used during the Council will now be able to be used as an extraordinary form of the liturgical celebration.” In other words, it is okay to be used and we’ll tolerate it. It’s not hindered anymore. It never was. “It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites.” Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of the one and the same rite.” You can’t mix water and oil. I read out a little more, “The new Missal will certainly remain, (the New Mass) will certainly remain the form of the Roman Rite not only on account of the juridical norm but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.” What if the faithful have lost their Faith and the priests have misled them all these years since the Second Vatican Council?  And they want bands and rock music and bouncing and dancing. That’s what the democracy wants. And I finish here, “There is no contradiction,” he says, (this is the Holy Father), “there is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.” No contradiction? What are the fruits? Archbishop Lefebvre said look at the fruits! You know, one time Rome told Archbishop Lefebvre, “Look, everything will be solved between us, this drama, if you accept the New Mass and just say it once in your seminary. Just say it once. No problem, everything over, politics done.” Archbishop Lefebvre, (a rock he always was, thank God), he said, “No, I cannot accept the New Mass, not even once, because it is a direct attack against the Faith, with its subtle phrases and subtle formulae.” So when we see the pro multis put back in the Consecration, alright, that’s great, hoorah for Tradition. But what is veiled in this? Archbishop Lefebvre and our superiors of the Society of St. Pius X, they say obviously we can’t accept that. Obviously, it’s unacceptable.

The lifting of the excommunications, well, we’re still waiting for our Founder, for his excommunication to be lifted. But let me just draw another text from March of this year just in case any of us might be thinking, “Well, you know, this pope, is, he’s kinder to Tradition, it looks like things are going great, it’s another springtime.” We must not be deceived. We must pray, we must pray. Listen to this. This is the Letter for the Clergy, a letter to the priests from the Congregation for the Clergy, March of this year, not ten years ago, not thirty years ago, this year. And the pope calls for a celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, October 11, 1962, fifty years ago, (have mercy on us!). He says further about the new evangelization for the transmission of the Christian Faith. I read: “We will therefore be expected to work in depth on each of these chapters (all the priests will have to work in depth on this, what is it?) on (here we go again) on the Second Vatican Council, so that it may be accepted once again as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century, a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the new century now beginning, increasingly powerful for the ever-necessary renewal of the Church.” And so, Vatican II all the way. Vatican II, dying? You see, it’s not. Second point: “On the Catechism of the Catholic Church (this is the New Catechism permeated with the liberal errors), “that it may be truly accepted and used as a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and sure norm for the teaching of the Faith.” Is that a sign of Rome coming back to Tradition, dear faithful? It’s in black and white.

Remember what happened last October. You know, in the first Assisi, Archbishop Lefebvre sent to the Holy Father, (of course with all respect; he always had respect for the authorities). But he always spoke up for the Truth. And he sent to the pope those pictures, you remember the drawings? Pope John Paul II at the gate having the ecuмenical Assisi meeting and Christ the King and Mary saying, “No entrance into Heaven, no, ecuмenists can’t enter here.” And the devil is on the side whispering, “Over here, buddy.” It’s a frightening image, but it’s very real, very true. How serious this matter is! The Assisi meetings are an attack against Jesus Christ as God, Jesus Christ as King. It’s a very serious sin against the First Commandment. And Archbishop Lefebvre, seeing this, he said, “We have to absolutely refuse this apostasy.” And this pope, again, he’s our father and with all respect, what do we do? He has all the world religions and (more than that), invited the voodoo doctor, sorcerer, to perform some who-knows-what ceremony invoking the devils at the pulpit. And the atheist woman stood there, and she said, “I want to thank the Holy Father for inviting me to speak at this Assisi meeting to represent all the nonbelievers.” Dear faithful, it’s frightening and it’s real. It’s happening, it’s happening! Be under no illusion. It’s happening before our eyes!

Two weeks before Assisi something also unheard of, in the history of the Council, but another step of degradation and apostasy, the docuмent that came out from Rome, calling for the one world religion, a one world government, a one world authority. What do you think that’s going to be? St. Pius X warned, in his Apostolic Mandate on the Sillon “these enemies of Christ are working for a one world government, a one world religion, where there will be no dogmas, no morals.” You can believe what you want as long as you accept to be part of this supra-Ecuмenical Church. It is very frightening to read the texts of Vatican II and the words of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, and of this pope, and of Paul VI. It’s frightening, though we can’t be under illusion.

And we wonder why the Virgin Mary begged us to pray the Rosary that the pope consecrate Russia? Dear faithful, look at the results of those who have gone under Rome. I’ve had to talk to two priests personally. I battled with one, 7 hours long, not to go with Rome, to not compromise the Faith. And seven hours we battled. And he is saying the same thing about the popes, Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre. We can’t compromise, I told him. But then I asked him, “What about Religious Liberty?” He said, “Well, we have to dialogue about that with  Rome.” And another one, with St. Peter’s, said, “Well, we have to accept, we have to obey.” And they were told not to be polemical. And St. Peter’s has become totally neutralized, St. Peter’s Society. Look at Le Barroux. Archbishop Lefebvre said in five years they’ll have the New Mass. He was right. Look at Campos, glorious Campos under Bishop de Castro Mayer! It crumbled. The Redemptorists in Scotland, what happened? They’re neutralized, they can’t do anything. And the most recent: the Good Shepherd Institute. They were told to accept Vatican II and teach it in their seminaries. This happened this March! So the greatest service we can do to the Church, as our superiors know so well, is to oppose these errors and never compromise.

And that is, Fr. Reuter, we have to stand as brothers, as brothers with all the Society priests, with all our four bishops, opposed to this onslaught against the Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre himself told Pope Paul VI, he said, “Holy Father, either I follow the 262 popes before you and therefore go against you and John XXIII, or I have to follow you and obey you, and therefore disobey all of Catholic Tradition and all the 262 popes before you. What do I do? I have to stay with the Faith of all time.” And you know, the poor Archbishop, the badges of honor he had: suspension, excommunication, being smashed by the media, being turned away from so many friends of his. And he did not waver. And that’s what we must imitate, us priests. Again, the words of the Archbishop. This is Archbishop Lefebvre, this is two years after the Consecrations, “While we find ourselves in the same situation, we must not be under any illusions. Consequently, we are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting the fight guaranteed by a whole line of popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as ‘Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?’ Yes, if Rome and the pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the popes of the nineteenth and of the first half of the twentieth century, of course, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it’s a new stage in the Church’s life, entirely new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point, they say it themselves, it is clear. I think that we must drive this point home with our people in such a way that they realize their oneness with the Church’s whole history, going back well beyond the Revolution. Of course. It is the fight of the City of Satan against the City of God. We must not worry. We must trust in the grace of God!”

Dear faithful, just a little flashback, a little reminder of the glorious fight of our forefathers. At the French Revolution, the same principles that are being forced on us by Vatican II for the last forty years, the same liberal principles: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. At the French Revolution, you had the great Vendee. What was the Concordat between the Vendee and the Revolution? The Revolution crushed them. They fought hard, they fought nobly, they died noble in battle, like the Maccabee brothers. “Better to die in battle than to see the laws of our fathers trampled on and our sanctuary” turned into a dancing hall. Better to resist, and they did, and how much blood! How many mothers, children in the Vendee were slaughtered. If you want to hear a very good talk on that, listen to Mr. Christopher Check’s talk on the Vendee.

And let’s look at Mexico, 1926-1930. Do we make peace treaties with the enemies of Christ? Do you know what kind of “peace treaties” they make? In 1930, I think it was July 29th (N.B. The actual date was June 21st). The pope told the Cristeros, because he believed his bishops who informed him that “the war was useless, useless bƖσσdshɛd.” And the good pope, Pius XI, he had to believe his bishops, but these bishops were liberals. And he believed them. He believed them. And he told the Cristeros, on that day, “Make a contract with the Freemasons, with the government, and the war will be over.” Useless bƖσσdshɛd? No. They were winning the war! All they had to do was take Mexico City, and they would re-establish a Catholic government. But what happened? That day they all were lined up in the town squares, all these great Cristeros, little boys standing next to their dads, with their Winchester .30-30s, and they obeyed. “Okay, we’ll obey the pope.” One by one, they threw down their weapons, down on the ground, one by one, whole troops of hundreds. And these Freemasons, do they keep their treaty, their word? They lifted their .30-30s and pistols and opened fire. It is a fact of history, faithful and dear Father, a fact of history that on that day, more were killed than the four years of the war. And Archbishop Lefebvre said many times in his sermons, “You don’t dialogue with the devil, with the enemies of Christ. You can’t.” And we must imitate these great fathers before us!

So Fr. Reuter, to sum it up, obedience. The priest must be obedient, truly obedient to Tradition, truly obedient to the Catholic Faith of all time, and obedient to our superiors so long as they are protecting the Faith and upholding our holy statutes. But there was a time in history, not too long ago, when the priests should have been disobedient  and not let their parishes accept the New Mass and the new catechisms. So we have to be, Fr. Reuter, truly obedient, always.  Blind obedience is not Catholic! True obedience is founded on humility of heart to the voice of Our Lord the Good Shepherd and submits the mind and the heart to Him, speaking through one’s superiors, for the common good, and the lawful orders that go according to the Faith. Secondly, dear Fr. Reuter, study. You’re going to be very busy as a priest, but do make time to study; spiritual reading. Bishop Williamson used to tell us in the seminary, “An article a day keeps the modernists away. An article of the Summa of St. Thomas keeps the modernists away.”

So soak yourself, continue, all of us priests, all these good priests here who came to ordinations battle scarred, wounded by the battles with Hell and the salvation of souls, working hard, up late at night sometimes, going to sick calls in the middle of the night, tending to the poorest of the poor and the most sinful of the sinful. Be like Fr. John of the Cross who told us, “Be a living Heart of Jesus. Let people see in you the sweetness of the Sacred Heart of Jesus,” that you will lay down your life for your sheep. And never tell someone, “I can’t come to the sick call this week, I’m too busy.” Or if they’re dying, “I’m too busy.” You will never do that. But it happens a lot. We hear a lot of that in the Novus Ordo. And so, they call us (SSPX) priests.

And with sinners, as Fr. John of the Cross told us priests in the monastery, and Fr. Cyprian, “Love above all the greatest sinners.” Not their sins, but love their souls that Christ shed His Blood for. And in Confession, raise them to the hope of being washed in Christ’s Blood and living in God’s grace and of saving their souls! You will have this many times. Please, never be one of those priests, (and the Archbishop mentioned this also once), “Be firm in the confessional, but be very gentle and never severe,” never rude, never reckless with these souls. Every soul that comes to Confession and for spiritual advice, is a soul bought by Christ’s Blood, and we have no right to be not the Good Shepherd. We must be the Good Shepherd!

And lastly, and I promise, this is the last point, only She can help us now, the Virgin Mother! And you are a priest, you were ordained a priest two days ago, and you share the priesthood, a quasi-hypostatic union. What incredible words of St. Thomas Aquinas! You are “another Christ”, born in the womb of the Virgin Mary. You were ordained a priest like Christ was in the cathedral of the womb of the Virgin Mary. Your priesthood is directly connected to Mary, the Virgin Mother. So give Her your priesthood! Live in the Virgin Mary. As Fr. Le Roux said last week in Auriesville, “Priests must not only be devoted to Mary, be in Mary, live in Her.”

So, stand strong and souls will turn to you, and never compromise. In 1937, when all of Spain was being recklessly destroyed by the Communists, in Barcelona alone, the priests were arrested, 400 of them, martyred. Not one of them apostasized. Not one! They were good priests. One of them stood before the firing squad of the Communists, and the Communists said, “Alright, do you have any last words before we blow your brains out?” He said, “Yes, I do.” He said, “Firstly, I don’t need, (when offered) a handkerchief around my eyes.” He said, “When I was a boy, I prayed for three things. One: That I might be a priest. Two: That I might die a martyr. And three: If I die a martyr, I take a soul with me. God has granted me two of my wishes. What more can I ask of so loving a God?” And right then, one of the Communists soldiers, moved by grace, threw down his rifle, walked up to the priest, stood by him and said, “Father, you’ve got your third wish!” Both of them were executed, and their souls flew straight to Heaven. That is our model for this battle.

So let’s pray the Rosary, dear faithful, that the pope consecrates Russia. That’s the real solution! Negotiations,… all that, the real solution is that the pope consecrate Russia. And let’s go, Fr. Reuter, right now, you are going to go to the altar and re-enact the great Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Let’s adore Him. And pray for Fr. Reuter in his first Mass that he be a faithful priest with all his brothers ordained together, that they fight all the way to the end. And like that priest, die ready for battle, die with your battle boots on and attain Heaven, and join our dear Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre!

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee!
O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee!
O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee!

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.


Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: PAT317 on January 01, 2013, 11:10:05 AM
Again, an older item, but hopefully still fits, and I did not see it in the collection of Fr. Chazal items on a previous page:



https://docs.google.com/docuмent/pub?id=19K...w3WDGcka-0OXB8o (https://docs.google.com/docuмent/pub?id=19Kxk5-wKDr1CHPerqfllvC0TCgdzw3WDGcka-0OXB8o)

WAR ON

FIRST PRELUDE

THREE BISHOPS DECLARE THAT THE WAR AGAINST THE NEW ROME IS STILL ON

AND

BEG BISHOP FELLAY NOT TO SIGN ANY PRACTICAL AGREEMENT WITH IT



SECOND PRELUDE

BISHOP FELLAY AND HIS TWO ASSISTANTS ANSWER THAT THE WAR AGAINST THE NEW ROME IS OVER

AND

THAT THEY ARE GOING TO PROCEED TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW ROME REGARDLESS OF THEIR WARNING

THOSE TWO LETTERS ARE FOUND EASILY ON THE INTERNET


Bohol 18 May,
OLVC, Manila 20 May,
Seoul, 27 May 2012.


My dear faithful,

Part I

The Fornicating New Rome


Last week I woke up reconciled with the new Rome - I thought for 12 years that it would never come to this, but while I was napping, the Vatican II of the SSPX got on its way and now it is the windows of the Society that open themselves to the New Rome, through the lever of false obedience.

But the New Rome is to be destroyed; she is Carthage to us. We have nothing to do with it; We have no canonical structure to do with it, we have no practical agreement to do with it, we have no point of doctrinal convergence to do with it. If Our Lady said “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist”, Rome will indeed lose the faith and become the seat of antichrist, despite all the beautiful diplomatic fixes we can think of, with the help of the Pontifical & Cardinal Regalia, Palaces, Sacred monuments, purple cassocks and fringed cinctures, smooth roman talk and skilled efforts of reconciliation, permission to say masses, trappings of tradition and peanuts of cardinal Hojos.

The new Rome remains death, not for us who have not joined it, but for millions and millions of souls who, for now 50 years could have gone to heaven by staying Catholic or by entering the Catholic Church.

And since what is proposed to us; to be directly under the Pope; (nothing new by the way, since it was always proposed to all those who ended up recycled to modernism); Let us look carefully at the one to whom we wish to entrust ourselves, Pope Benedict XVI, mysteriously and validly reigning over the official church.

Pope Benedict XVI, previously Cardinal Ratzinger, is our most consistent, rational, methodical, organized and effective enemy. He has studied our case for decades; he has almost trapped Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.While sharing the same heretical theology as the other heretic leaders, he has groomed a perfectly conservative & reassuring image. The man has never thrown anyone into prison; he has never fought us with any weapon but his pen (and sweet melodic voice), and has been most successful.“The power of the horses are in their mouth” (Apoc. IX,19).

“But father, how can you condemn such a man, the very head of the visible church, like that, a priori and with such vehemence?”“Why such a hardening?”
A priori condemnation is bad, but if condemnation comes after a huge mountain of evidence, past & present, such condemnation needs to be strong. Wolf is wolf. If wolf is, wolf thinks as wolf, acts as wolf, and kills as a wolf.

Think as a wolf: After his bad seminary training, Fr. Ratzinger became an adviser of Karl Rahner, maybe the worse “peritus” of Vatican II and revealed his core thinking in the book so traditionally entitled “Principles of Catholic Theology” which I read. His established thinking is that there is no established and stable concept in anything religious BUT ONE MAY NOT GO TOO FAR INTO MUTATING DOGMATIC CONCEPTS. People’s minds work at different speed; we need an adaptable and multispeed modernism.Pascendi denounced modernism in 2D; Benedict XVI is modernism in 3D.

This great skill of his seduced many of his modernist confreres, and so it came to pass that Cardinal Ratzinger became the architect of the New Catechism, the Declaration on justification, the Declaration of Balamand, the whole Assisi project… Almost all the disastrous pronouncements of Pope John Paul II can be retraced to him, and can we say that he has changed his mind today? Absolutely not, for when he read his own recent decree of “Beatification” of John Paul II, he stated at length that the main sign of John Paul II sanctity is the council and its strenuous application to the church throughout his pontificate.

That is why it is so important to look if Benedict XVI acts as a wolf now, not yesterday but now; for the big temptation is to believe that things have changed and that Benedict XVI is really leaning towards us, in such a wise as to became almost one of us… How beautiful and hopydopyful, isn’t it?

But no; 4 times no at least: as to Hinduism, Islam, Judaism& Protestantism.
Hinduism: When I was in Bombay around 2006, I got to read what Benedict XVI had to say about inculturation in India. He praised it, but with reservations. Isn’t that nice and traditional, reservations about inculturation? Well, except for the fact that he reproached the Indian bishops to insert only the Hindu elements into Catholic worship, instead of putting enough of the Buddhist culture; and this is very sad because the Buddhist religion originated from India and Buddhism is a great religion…

Note well: No Indian plumes & feathers, no kumkum on the forehead, but a more consistent and intellectual approach.

Islam: There again, Benedict XVI didn’t kiss the Koran, that goes too much against his Bavarian categories of the sensibility. But when he went the Mosque of Istanbul, he took off his shoes, went to the Mirhab, folded his hands in the Moslem position, turned towards Mecca and prayed with the other Moslems surrounding him. The whole thing lasted a few minutes, never to be repeated again; but there again, one can see the same consistency of practice. Benedict XVI is a little like the tape of a surveillance camera; quite boring to watch except on a few horrific frames.

Judaism: The lack of assiduity for Paganism & Islam in Benedict XVI,isclearly compensated by his fervor and admiration for the Jєωιѕн religion. Almost every year, the Pope goes to the ѕуηαgσgυє and makes long speeches whose main idea is “The Old Covenant is still valid and not revoked”.

How can one be more clearly opposed to the Catholic faith? To the Epistles of St. Paul? This is so grave that the Ecuмenism of Benedict XVI seems to suggest that one religion is above the others, namely Judaism.And the choice for Judaism is judicious, because Judaism is the worse false religion, in that it denies so perfectly and vehemently the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Protestantism: The above is not to suggest that Benedict XVI does not understand the profound spirituality of Martin Luther. But there again, Benedict will go beyond John-Paul. He will enter the protestant temple in full Pontifical Regalia, (not just in white cassock) and participate in the first part (remember, Benedict XVI is a conservative, only half way bad) in a protestant service. His praise for Luther is more detailed and profound; spiritually and theologically motivated: how could it be otherwise; he is a German Pope.

Let us not forget that he is the First Pope to have breached the Catholic Doctrine on Artificial Contraception or to invite Atheists at the prayer meeting of Assisi, or to meet a female Bishop in Bishopess’ attire, or to give communion to a protestant (Brother Roger of Taize) etc.

The recent interview called “The Salt of the Earth” shows a completely confused mind, incapable of stable concepts & dogmas, a mind without Faith say bishop Tissier De Mallerais (whose book could not be published for some time by Clovis for technical reasons; and is not going to be translated by the Angelus out of respect for the sensitivities of the American District). Benedict XVI still sees renewal in the face of destruction. He has made the prowess to write a book on Jesus without mentioning, even once, his divinity. He is completely obstinate in his thinking, therefore any doctrinal discussion with his experts were bound to fail.

Kills as a wolf. If one is so obstinate in his ideas, there is no reason why he should change his actions. Benedict XVI, as far as we know, does not say the True Mass. He did say a mass facing the Orient in the Sistine Chapel but explained immediately that it was because the place doesn’t have an altar facing the people and that the text he recited was the text of the new mass, that mass that sends so many people to Hell.

Nevertheless, Cardinal Ratzinger said the true mass in the past, but that was to set up the Fraternity of St. Peter (That great antechamber for priests before being recycled back into the local diocese) or in Fongombaultin order to lead the meetings to discuss the “Reform of the Reform”.

Per se Benedict XVI does not believe in the True Mass; for him it is a museum piece. Just recently I read in the Wall Street Journal, in the plane, about his visit in Cuba. Very surprisingly, Fidel Castro asked him when he met why did the Church had to change the liturgy. Benedict snapped back immediately: “For renewal”.This is the typical answer of a diehard progressivist.

His obstinacy in error leads him to support all those neo Christian and protestant tainted charismatic contraptions, because these create the false idea of restoration of things, like the Opus Dei, and rehashes whatever is left of the piety of the people back into the sewer of all heresies. Benedict XVI is a genius.

If you want to know who a leader is, you also have to look at whom he appoints, for to govern is to delegate. The three topmost positions in the church are that of Secretary of State, Congregation for the Faith, and Congregation for Bishops.

Cardinal Bertone is Secretary of State and a clear delinquent. Unlike Benedict XVI, he is an open modernist, like his famous predecessors Cardinal Villot and Cardinal Casaroli. He has the bad temper of Villot and the maneuvering spirit of Casaroli and he sees to it that their legacy be maintained, namely that all civil governments remain separated from the Church in Catholic countries and encouraged to be run according to Masonic principles. The Ten Commandments of the Secretariate of State are the rights of man based on the dignity of the human person. Hence world peace requires that no serious steps should be taken to stop the persecution of Catholics in antichristian countries and that the efforts of those who still want to remain Catholic over there be discreetly thrown into disarray, like in China, in Russia, and in the Muslim world.
Cardinal Bertone got our good friend, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, excommunicated. He is mainly known to us for the burial of the message of Fatima, even if he was not he who engineered it in 2000.Such a task belonged then to the Master: Cardinal Ratzinger.

Next in line is Cardinal Levada, a close friend and successor of Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He does not seem to be doing much but a vital dossier has been placed on his desk: The dealing with the SSPX . . . .  But look how good he is tearing us to pieces.

Cardinal Levada’s past is not well known to us and that’s a pity. When he was bishop of San Francisco he had parishes for gαys and lesbians; so told me our faithful of the Bay Area. It is also well known that he tried to get the late Fr. Heidt back into the diocese, sitting in majesty in his office; flanked by canonical experts & theologians ready to fire. Fr. Heidt was unfazed: “Ok, I’m in, take me back, but on one condition” – “which is?”– “ I don’t want to see any gαy priest even near me in my parish and in my parish activities” – “I’m sowyfoatha, I can only say no” – “same here” replied the old warrior and he left the room. Fr. Heidt is right; what are we doing with those people?

Only a few people know much about Cardinal Ouellet the Prefect for the Congregation for Bishops. Like the other two above mentioned Congregations, his Congregation is busy in maintaining the Church in her desolate state at every local level or diocese. Indeed it would be a big disaster for the novusordo, if out of 4000 bishops or so, just one would turn out to be entirely traditional. Not only that, but the Congregation looks to it that there is no bishop saying the correct mass, coming from the rank of the Ecclesia Deigroups.And if one can be found in Campos, he has to try to govern his followers under the leadership of another Bishop, that is, the official Bishop of Campos.

Souls are sent to hell by the failure of the local clergy to teach their flock the faith and lead people to do penance for their sins.There is no better way to do that than by giving them consistently bad Bishops, some less bad and less aware of what they are doing than others, I agree, but all of them bad without exception.

One could go through all other lesser congregations and see the same pattern of organized liquidation of the Catholic Church, but I will retain only one for the sake of brevity: the Ecclesia Dei commission. While the new Rome wishes to embraces us so tenderly with one arm (Cardinal Levada), with the other arm (MgrPozzo), within the same month, it is strangling to death the Institute of Good Shepherd. This Institute is requested to fall in line with Vatican II for its preaching, seminaries, for the occasional saying of the new mass and for an entire collaboration with the local diocese, contrary to assurances made five years earlier. How on earth are we going to believe that the new rome is not going to make the same request after five or six years… the little SSPX, it is said, thinks that it can wed the official church without losing the virginity of its Faith.

Part II

The Adultery from the Truth


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part III

The Thwarted & Tempting Treason
(Situation as of May 25, but in need of periodic reassessment)


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

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

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

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


TODAY’S SITUATION

That will very soon become out of date

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

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

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

Nothing is happening, then

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

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

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


HOW WE DID GET HERE

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

-1 LOSS OF CLARITY

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

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

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

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

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

-2 LOSS OF FORM OF DUE PROCESS

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

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

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

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

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

-3 FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORD AGREEMENT

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

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

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

-4 A DRAMATIC INCREASE OF GULLIBILITY

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

 - don’t attack the new mass?

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

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

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

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

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

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

-5 BELIEF IN GRADUAL EVOLUTION

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

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

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

-6 SIGNS OF DOCTRINAL FLAKING

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

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

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

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

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

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

-7 GRADUAL & AUTHORITARIAN COERCION OF RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

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

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

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


PLOT COUNTERED

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fighting
Bishop   Williamson / Tissier de Mallerais / de Gallareta

Symbol   
(big) Cat / Lamb / Dove

Main Weapon   
Big mouth / Big speculative intellect / Big practical intellect

Main Target   
Bishop Fellay / Benedict XVI / Link betwixt the 2

Angle of attack   
Hard and Hot / Cold / Soft

Weakness   
+Fellay too angry / +Fellay too indifferent / +Fellay not angry enough

Effect on Bishop Fellay   
Would like to expel but can’t / Would like to refute but can’t / Would like to  disagree but can’t

Effect on the new rome   
Can’t even smell the SSPX / Can’t debate successfully with the SSPX / Can’t ever bring about a practical deal with the SSPX

RESULT   

THE NEW ROME AND THE SSPX REMAIN SEPARATE UNTIL THE PAPACY CONVERTS

VICTORY   

   
In the end one wonders why Bishop Fellay chose to press on regardless of the opposition of the three bishops, and the degree of impreparation of the new rome itself. In the SSPX, the three bishops carry and enormous weight, despite the fact that they are not in control of the administrative machinery of the SSPX. Many priests remain at first silent on the whole question, some are scared for their future, some resist openly but maybe clumsily(yours truly), and one should not blame them for not having the same grace of Confession as a bishop, but as the faithful sense more clearly the danger with their sensus fidei, the shifting lines of battle are gradually pushing back the idea of a false peace with the new rome. What shall happen in this hot summer of 2012 will determine the nature of our war for many years to come.


My dear faithful,

we are in the thick of the storm, much shaken and fearful, but with Our Lady, comfortably resting in our hearts, until the head of the SSPX adjust itself to reality and the visible head of the Church returns to Tradition:

War is on, and when war is upon us, war on.
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 12:13:10 PM
Fr. Ludovic Barrielle (so highly revered by the Archbishop) commented in 1982:

Quote:
I am writing this to serve as a lesson for everyone. The day that the SSPX abandons the spirit and rules of its Founder, it will be lost. Furthermore, all our brothers who, in the future, allow themselves to judge and condemn the Founder and his principles, will show no hesitation in eventually taking away from the Society the traditional teaching of the Church and the Mass instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.


Quoted by Fr. Hewko in his Open Letter to His Excellency Bishop Fellay, Society Priests, Religious and Faithful, dated November 8, 2012.
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 12:31:29 PM
Bishop Fellay (2003) vs Bishop Fellay (2012): Condemnation of the Campos Sellout is a Condemnation of the SSPX Practical Accord!



Dear Friends and Benefactors,

OUR RELATIONS WITH ROME

Once again our Letter to Friends and Benefactors is reaching you a little late. Once again we hesitated to write to you sooner for fear of leaving out an important development in our relations with Rome, especially after the Campos-Rome agreement. In the eyes of Rome, obviously, what happened in Campos was merely meant to be the prelude to our own "regularization" in the Society of St. Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us.

Generally speaking, Rome means, all things being equal, to come to an agreement with the SSPX. On all sides we hear that the pope would like to settle this matter before he dies. Alas, our fears roused by the Campos agreement have proved to be well-founded, and the evolution we observe of the Campos Apostolic Administration, contrary to Roman expectations, leaves us distrustful.

Of course we are dealing with a volatile situation capable of sudden and surprising changes, like in times of political instability. And in such a situation, nobody can be certain of what turn it will take. Also we do behold in the Vatican offices a certain questioning of the way things have gone for the last few decades, and a desire on the part of some officials to put an end to the downhill slide.

However, it is clear that the principle governing today's Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years. Neither official docuмents nor general policy show any fundamental re-thinking of this principle, on the contrary, we are always being told that what the Council set in motion is irreversible, which leads us to ask why there has been a change of attitude with regard to ourselves. Various explanations are possible, but it is primarily because of the pluralist and ecuмenical vision of things now prevailing in the Catholic world. According to this vision, everybody is to mix together without anybody needing any longer to convert, as Cardinal Kasper said in connection with the Orthodox and even the Jєωs. From such a standpoint there will even be a little room for Catholic Tradition, but for our part we cannot accept this vision of variable truth any more than a mathematics teacher can accept a variable multiplication table.

The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome's own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos. For this purpose, let us emphasize two points in the evolution of the Campos situation: firstly, how their attitude to Rome has changed since the agreement and secondly, how Campos is moving further and further away from ourselves, with all the upset that that implies.

CHANGES IN CAMPOS

Campos, through its leader, Bishop Rifan, is crying out for all to hear that nothing has changed, that the priests of the Apostolic Administration are just as Traditional as before, which is the essence of what they have been granted, and why they accepted Rome's offer: because Rome approved of the Traditional position.

For our part, let us begin by noting that we are well aware that in any disagreement one tends to discredit one's adversary. For instance in the case of our former friends in Campos, there are certainly false rumors circulating to the effect that "Bishop Rifan has concelebrated the New Mass", or, "Campos has completely given up Tradition". However, that being said, here is what we observe:

The Campos website lays out the Campos position on the burning question of ecuмenism: they claim to follow the Magisterium of the Church, past and present. There are quotes from Pius XI's encyclical letter Mortalium Animos, next to quotes from John Paul II's Redemptoris Missio. We cannot help observing that there has been a careful selection process: Campos quotes John Paul II's traditional passages while other passages introducing a quite new way of looking at the question are passed over. We read, "Being Catholics, we have no particular teaching of our own on the question. Our teaching is none other than that of the Church's Magisterium. The extracts which we publish here from certain docuмents old and new, bear especially on points of Catholic doctrine which are in greater danger today".

The ambiguity implicit here has become more or less normal in the new situation in which they find themselves: they emphasize those points in the present pontificate which seem favorable to Tradition, and tip-toe past the rest. Say what we will: there took place in Campos on January 18, 2002, not only a one-sided recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but also, in exchange, an undertaking by Campos to keep quiet, And how could it be otherwise? It is clear by now that Campos has something to lose which they are afraid or losing, and so in order not to lose it they have chosen the path of compromise: "We Brazilians are men of peace, you Frenchmen are always fighting". Which means that, in order to keep the peace with Rome, one must stop fighting. They no longer see the situation of the Church as a whole, they content themselves with Rome's gesture in favor of a little group of two dozen priests and say that there is no longer any emergency in the Church because the granting of a traditional bishop has created a new juridical situation...They are forgetting the wood for a single tree.

Bishop Rifan, in the course of a brief visit to Europe, went to see Dom Gerard at Le Barroux Abbey in France to present his apologies for having so criticized him back in 1988 when Dom Gerard condemned Archbishop Lefebvre's consecrating or four bishops. In a lecture he gave to the monks, Bishop Rifan pretended there were two phases in the life or Bishop de Castro Mayer: up till 1981 he was supposedly a docile bishop respecting the rest of the hierarchy, from 1981 onwards he was a much harder churchman... "We choose to follow the pre-1981 de Castro Mayer", said Bishop Rifan to the monks, some of whom were surprised at such words, and one of them was scandalized to the point of coming over to the SSPX.

Within this way of thinking even the Novus Ordo Mass can be accommodated. Campos forgets the 62 reasons for having nothing to do with it, Campos now finds that if it is properly celebrated, it is valid (which we have never denied, but that is not the point). Campos no longer says that Catholics must stay away because the New Mass is bad, and dangerous. Bishop Rifan says, by way of justifying his position on the Mass: "So we reject all use of the traditional Mass as a battle-flag to insult and fight the lawfully constituted hierarchical authority of the Church. We stay with the traditional Mass, not out of any spirit of contradiction, but as a clear and lawful expression of our Catholic Faith (…)". We are reminded of the words of a Cardinal a little while back: "Whereas the SSPX is FOR the old Mass, the Fraternity of St. Peter Is AGAINST the New Mass. It's not the same thing". That was Rome's argument to justify taking action against Fr. Bisig of the Fraternity of St. Peter at about the same time that Rome was cozying up to the SSPX. The cardinal's curious distinction is now being put into practice by Campos, as they pretend to be for the old Mass but not against the new. Likewise for Tradition, but not against today's Rome. "We maintain that Vatican II cannot contradict Catholic Tradition", said Bishop Rifan quite recently to a French magazine, Famille Chretienne. Yet a well-known cardinal said that Vatican II was the French Revolution inside the Church. Bishop de Castro Mayer said the same thing....

So little by little the will to fight grows weaker and finally one gets used to the situation. In Campos itself, everything positively traditional is being maintained, for sure, so the people see nothing different, except that the more perceptive amongst them notice the priests' tendency to speak respectfully and more often of recent statements and events coming out of Rome, while yesterday's warnings and today's deviations are left out. The great danger here is that in the end one gets used to the situation as it is, and no longer tries to remedy it. For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted.

LEAVING THE SSPX BEHIND

Besides this wholly foreseeable evolution of minds by which the Campos priests have, whatever they say, given up the fight, we must note another occurrence, the increasing hostility between us. Bishop Rifan still says that he wants to be our friend, but some Campos priests are already accusing us of being schismatic because we refuse their agreement with Rome.

A little like one sees a boat pushing into mid-river, drifting down-stream and leaving the bank behind, so we see, little by little, several indications of the distance growing between ourselves and Campos. We had warned them of the great danger, they chose not to listen. Since they have no wish to row up-stream, then even while inside the boat things carry on as before, which gives them the impression that nothing has changed, nevertheless they are leaving us behind, as they show themselves more and more attached to the magisterium of today, as opposed to the position they held until recently and which we still hold, namely a sane criticism of the present in the light of the past.

To sum up, we are bound to say that the Campos priests, despite their claims to the contrary, are slowly being re-molded, following the lead of their new bishop, in the spirit of the Council. That is all Rome wants —for the moment.

One may object that our arguments are weak and too subtle, and of no weight as against Rome's offer to regularize our situation. We reply that if one considers Rome's offer of an Apostolic Administration just by itself, it is as splendid as the architect's plan of a beautiful mansion. But the real problem is the practical problem of what foundations the mansion will rest on. On the shifting sands of Vatican II, or on the rock of Tradition going back to the first Apostle?

To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today's Rome clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday. When the Roman authorities have re-stated with actions speaking louder than words that "there must be no innovations outside of Tradition", then "we" shall no longer be a problem. And we beg God to hasten that day when the whole Church will flourish again, having re-discovered the secret of her past strength, freed from the modern unthought of which Paul VI said that "It is anti-Catholic in nature, Maybe it will prevail. It will never be the Church. There will have to be a faithful remnant, however tiny".

LIFE INSIDE THE SSPX

Let us also tell you of life inside the Society, to give you a little share in our apostolic joys and labors. And let us make use of this letter to tell you a little of our activity in missionary countries. It is true that today almost all countries, especially in our old Europe, are again becoming missionary countries. Priests, in their apostolic travels, visit over 65 countries, some of them still today suffering direct persecution of the Faith. But as this letter is already long, let us confine ourselves to two new areas of our apostolate. We had been visiting them off and on for a number of years, but just recently we think they are opening up in an astonishing way: Lithuania and Kenya.

In order the better to organize our apostolate in Russia and White Russia, we have established a bridgehead in Lithuania, a country which suffered much under Russian Communist persecution and where it took heroism to keep Catholicism going. Once the Iron Curtain fell, the Eastern countries put their trust in the novelties from the Vatican, being persuaded that anything coming from the West had to be good… These countries swiftly caught up on the state of disaster inflicted by the reforms. Any reaction is rather passive than visible, so we do not see them taking action. But once our priests got over the language difficulty, they are discovering ground that promises to be fertile for Tradition, more so than our first fruitless attempts had given us to expect. Welcomed with a severe warning from the local bishops to Catholics to stay away from us, our priests nevertheless discovered numerous priests wishing to join us. These explained their bishops' severity: it was out of fear that Catholics would come to us in large numbers. For instance we have been approached by a little congregation of sisters, founded by Cardinal Vincentas Sladkevicius, Archbishop Emeritus of Kaunas. Before he died on May 28, 2000, he left orders with the sisters: "When the Society of St. Pius X comes, you must join them. They will restore the Church in Lithuania". May God with His grace enable us to live up to the Archbishop's expectation! The main cities now have their little Mass center where interest is slight for the moment, but becomes more pressing each day.

Kenya has been receiving sporadic visits from Society priests for the last 25 years, but we have only just discovered the existence of a group of 1,500 faithful organizing their struggle for the Faith with their refusal of communion in the hand and standing. Our first contacts with them show very clearly that they are battling not only for the right way to receive communion but also for a whole traditional attitude. We are discovering also a number of nuns who have left their different Congregations or been chased out of them because they refused the Vatican II reforms. Living in the world they remained faithful to their vows. Now 16 of them are coming over to us in the hope of being able once more to live in community.

A young priest said to us, "If you set up a chapel here, it will empty out the cathedral. When I visit the faithful they say to me: 'Why have you changed our Church? Say Mass like it used to be!' But I don't know the old Mass, I don't know how the Church was before. When I ask older priests, they send me packing. Can you teach me to say the old Mass? Can I visit you to learn?" Another priest, also young, said in a tone of voice that spoke volumes. "I will note down in my diary for this evening: my first Tridentine Mass".

How can the Church authorities not heed the cry of these souls thirsting for grace and the Catholic life? Beneath the ashes and ruins left by Vatican II, there are still traditional Catholic embers glowing, needing only to blaze up again. The Church does not die. God watches over it. May He grant us to be His docile instruments to spread the fire that His Heart burns to spread throughout the world!

But you in particular, dear faithful, are well aware that we cannot manage to do all we would like to do; how we need priests! Pray, pray the master of the harvest to send numerous workers into his apostolic field.

At the beginning of this new year, full of gratitude and warm thanks for all your unfailing generosity, we entrust you with praying for priests, for the sacrifice of the Mass. God bless you and all your families with an abundance of all His graces.

+Bishop Fellay
January 6, 2003
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 02:03:48 PM
Most Reverend Bishop Fellay                                                                                                                

Mendoza, 12 October 2012
         
Your Excellency,

Through this, I express to be, with all due respect, my deep concern about the current state of our congregation, and for the future of it.

Since the middle of this year, the SSPX is in a state characterized, internally, by a deep division and a serious crisis of confidence in the authority, and, externally, by a noticeable weakening of our defense forces in of faith and a growing disrepute. They breathe, indeed, other air in the congregation, very different from the usual, as we see around us is installed confusion, discord, fear, suspicion and accusation.

This internal breakdown reaches the entire congregation, from our bishops to the laity, the most general and profound ever in the 42 year life of the SSPX. The fracture is due to the way it conducts ongoing talks with Roma liberal. The secret that has fallen on the talks, has meant a series of obviously foreseeable dangers, but has not decided SER effective means to counter them. In these circuмstances, some members of the congregation, tired from the long fight or yielding to the dominant liberal tendencies, approving an agreement with the idea modernist Rome, while others fail because they think that it is reasonable to assume that the Church will come out the terrible crisis being experienced since the fateful Vatican Tradition subjecting the Liberals to power. The question: What would be the use of an adjustment in the current context? Are we at fault in the eyes of God, to remain for four decades outside the official structure, no counterweight dominated by modernists any? Is it realistic to think that we could get that balance? Is it reasonable to undergo a stubborn liberal authorities whose aim is to bring to Vatican II? Does such a thing is clearly not suicidal? Or is that the current pope is no longer a true liberal? Certain appointments recently made by the Holy Father, as the Card. Müller, does not prove that it is irrational to put in the hands of the current Rome?

No matter that the initiative has come from the Vatican agreement or our superiors, since the mere acceptance of the possibility of a peace-necessarily false and unfair-that continue to destroy the Church, constitutes a clear and dangerous illusion . It is intended that the 1988 would be a precedent in favor of this agreement, but rather what happens contrary, for if it is to follow examples, should imitate the holy men in their successes, not their mistakes, and we know that Archbishop Lefebvre prompt and expressly retracted his erroneous and fleeting intention to regularize the congregation subjecting the power of the modernist hierarchy (cf. letter to the Holy Father of 02/06/88). We must stick to his final will, not a temporary desire was explicit, unambiguous and finally revoked.

As part of the negotiations with Rome, it has resorted to the use of expressions often ambiguous. Ambiguity has acquired, with that citizenship rights in the SSPX. This new way of talking to the modernists and the world is causing, among other evils, grave scandal to many traditionalists. No doubt about it, in the present circuмstances of gradual extinction of faith, defend the truth with clear and precise words with the destroyers of the Catholic religion and to all men, is a serious duty. The first charity is the truth. The devil used the ambiguity for that big win hers called Vatican II, and now we will fight with more ambiguity ambiguity? His Excellency, however, has chosen to dilute with weasel words several truths, including precisely the categorical and unequivocal condemnation that for 42 years we have made the council, the main cause of the current disastrous state of general apostasy and consequent condemnation many souls. The ambiguities were generated, as was perfectly predictable, a lot of rumors, but what HE dispusiera relevant to dissipate promptly.

There is now in the SSPX, and not only at the level of words, a "new style" whose characteristic features are the ambiguity, diplomacy, secrecy, hesitation and timidity. This major change is undermining our fight against the errors that poison the Church and against wolves in sheep's clothing that broadcast, and yet, we are discrediting the basis: we are no longer the Congregation of the Priests of that "yeah yeah, no no "that Christ commanded, that of calling things by their name, no matter what happens and no matter what happens. The driving mode, SER, in addition to the above, is authoritative for the subjects and too soft and yielding to the enemy, is impacting disastrously at all levels of the life of the SSPX.

The soldiers, for better or worse, follow their General, hence the old attitude of direct, manly and resolute belligerence against the enemies of Christ, who is admired in our priests, has given way to the diplomatic calculation, the fear, the discouragement and even cowardice. So the statement in Chapter July, at a time when the whole Church we looked closely, it was not without some ambiguity and some weakness. The six conditions for regularization, recently released, are clearly insufficient and equally demonstrative of some weakness before the modernist Rome.

In this unfortunate scenario, trust among members of the congregation is particularly wound. How can you trust a Superior discarded the advice and warnings of all other bishops and our Founder? In May we read a correspondence between the four bishops, in which BE is trying to impose its own opinion to the latter, in order to reach an agreement with Rome. By letter dated April 7, the other three Bishops warn the General Council: "Monsignor, Fathers, pay attention, you lead the fraternity to be a tipping point, a deep division no turning back, and if you come to a such agreement, to powerful destructive forces that she will not support. If up until the bishops of the Fraternity have protected it is precisely because Archbishop Lefebvre rejected a practical agreement. Since the situation has not changed substantially, since the condition issued by the Chapter of 2006 has not been made (change of course by Rome to allow a practical agreement), listen back to its founder. "Despite these words His Excellency went ahead in the attempt to reach an agreement with Rome.

Several months earlier, Bishop de Galarreta also warned His Excellency, equally clear, foreseeable consequences that would continue with the fact that intent: "Moving towards a practical agreement would deny our word and our commitments our priests, our faithful, Rome and against everyone. Such a procedure would manifest a serious diplomatic weakness by the fraternity, and indeed, more than diplomatic. It would be a lack of consistency, honesty and firmness, which would impact the loss of credibility and moral authority that we enjoy. But not listened to Bishop de Galarreta.

No case was His Excellency the warnings of his peers, but continued to lead our ship into the rocks of the agreement. If finally it was not signed, was solely due to the Pope, surprisingly, the demands raised over what was willing to accept (cf. conference Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of 09/12/16) Today we suffer the predictable, serious and perhaps irreparable consequences of such stubborn attitude incompressible.

Excellency is highly surprising if you have opted to discard the apparently unanimous and warnings from their peers, much worse and more worrying is the fact that BE has said that the will of the Roman modernist outweighs the good of the SSPX: "For the common good of the fraternity, by far prefer the current solution of intermediate status quo, but obviously not tolerate Rome more" (response to 3 Bishops, 4/14/12). Read: the liberals and modernists in Rome not tolerate more.

Therefore, considering the above, and considering the first-to-the SSPX is in a serious crisis caused by a very poor exercise of authority, by failing to take steps to bring it to prevent the evils which today easily foreseeable regret, and-second-that this situation persists, we will gradually destroying without any agreement with Rome, as a member of this congregation, respectfully beg Your Excellency that for the good of the Church, for the good of the SSPX and for its own sake, the sooner resign the office of Superior General. Only the replacement of existing authorities by other farsighted, really diligent about the essential duty to ensure our unity, and to retain the spirit that has always characterized our congregation, will enable the SSPX back into righteous and holy way by that led Archbishop Lefebvre.

Sincerely in Christ,

P. P. René Miguel Trincado Cvjetkovic.
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 02:13:45 PM
Letter of Fr Joseph Pfeiffer to Fr Couture:


Dear Fr. Couture,
In Answer to the Second "canonical monition" and after taking counsel from a Canon Lawyer, and other priests, it is necessary to note the following:

1. It is soley within the competence of the Superior General to give Monitions of expulsion to the members of his order. Lower authorities do not have the competence. (e.g District Superiors can punish only within their districts in regard to their district) Hence the Superior General is the correct authority to both admonish and expel his subjects according to Justice and the law.
Therefore, the two "canonical monitions" sent from the District of Asia go beyond the competence of the District. Expulsion of members, especially perpetual members of the SSPX belongs to Superior General alone. To date, I received no communication either of praise or correction from the Superior General. Therefore I remain, according to the law, a member in good standing in the SSPX.

2. No specific crime is indicated in the monition, hence no delict exists since "odiosa sunt adstrigenda." no one can be punished for "scandal and spiritual damage" as you claim in your second monition, but only for specific acts which can thus be exposed by the prosecution and answered by the defendant before an impartial tribunal--which tribunal does not exist.

The 2 "canonical Monitions" are invalid on the grounds of exceeding the competence of the one issuing it and on the grounds of lack of clear accusation of crime. On either ground the case of expulsion should not only be thrown out of court, but should not be allowed to be tried.

3. I have received a positive command from you to be completely silent on anything that either is or may be perceived to be a criticism of the Superior General and his current direction. This last week, Bishop Fellay seems to have reversed his current and now says that he was deceived and erred in a dangerous way in the past few months. Does this mean that those in favor of the current that flows to Rome should now be silenced? Does this mean that now I can criticize compromising with Rome? Now I can say no deal with Rome until Rome converts? (Yesterday this must have been wrong since yesterday the SG had a different idea. But today it is true since today the SG has changed his mind.) Does Truth evolve? Your answer must be "Not so but distinguo in the Superior YES in the subject NO" This is mitigated modernism, Truth evolves for the modernist period, but for you and the neo-SSPX truth cannot evolve in mere mortals or mere popes, but only in "the Superior General." Your place in the fight for Tradition is thus undermined and completely unstable since it rests on the cult of a man instead of the Divine Cult of God in His Church and in His unchanging Faith.

4. Fr. Chazal and myself made no predictions about the deal with Rome. Fr. Schmidtburger and Fr. lombardi announced it for the end of May. Then The Vatican for June 13, We only repeated what they said, so that the faithful would know. We are not the prophets of doom. We only preach what we SSPXers, including yourself, have consistently preached for the last 40 years. (i.e VII =Bad, eternal Rome=Good: Compromise=evil: Fidelity to unchanging Truth=Good: Deal with Rome before Rome converts=Bad: Deal with Rome w/o conversion=Wicked betrayal etc. cf. ABL ubique)

We let our yes be yes and our no be no. We operate in the open and resist Modernism and its protaganists "to the face." Our fight is not with men nor even Menzingen, but with the Devil and his host.

If you were secure in your position of turning to Modernist Rome to make the SSPX another Novus Ordo appendage as the FSSP et alii, you would be able to defend this position in the light of day with clear arguments, and proofs of the supposed change of Rome, and of the clear difference of Rome today with the Rome of Vatican II errors. If you stood on Truth, you would not need to resort to threats and defamation to discredit those who disagree with the neo-SSPX.

Further our problem, Fr. Chazal and myself, is not only with a deadly wicked deal with non converted Conciliar Rome, but more importantly, our problem with the neo-SSPX is its modernist tendancies, promoted by the official organs of the SSPX such as Dici.org and SSPX.org which have mixed Novus Ordo and Traditional things together, (e.g. present banner of Dici.org showing Novus ordo ordinands then SSPX ordinands as if they are the same! article on bishops criticizing lack of Religious Liberty in Afganistan, explaining away the popes promotion of condoms for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and so on) without any clarifications, condemnations of the various selected acts of Modernist Rome.

Fr. Chazal and I are not disturbed by the threats of excommunication from our Order or from any unjust treatments connected thereto. We are not upset with those who malign and condemn us, many do so with good will, unaware of the danger to Faith, now present within the SSPX ranks and pews throughout the world. We also have happily worked under your direction over the past 6 years for myself, and 10 years for Fr. Chazal. You have been in so many ways good to us. Our problem is only with the danger to souls presented by the present unstable modernist direction of the SSPX

We continue "as we are," priests of the SSPX at war with Modernism. We continue "as we are" loyal sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, following his clear non-compromising Catholic plan of action for our times. We continue "as we are" in the work of spreading the Gospel with the Caritas Christi which urget nos.

in Christ,

Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
London Airport Sept. 13, 2012
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 02:26:50 PM
Fr Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin speaks out
From http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Declaration-by-Fr-Eric-Julien-Laurent-Jacqmin  Downloaded on July 5, 2012
===
Arguments.
Like all my colleagues in the SSPX, I certainly would like, as I have done so far, to obey my superiors, but in the current case, I have serious doubts that the Common Good would be served.


A. Bishop Fellay gives as the reason for his decision to go forward with an agreement with Rome, in the introduction 'Word of the Superior General' in "Cor Unum" March 2012): p.8 "We can no longer believe that this is a 'steamroller' .. " but the steamroller is still moving forward: recent evidence is the letter of Mgr. Pozzo to Father Laguérie: IPB (Institute of the Good Shepherd) must accept the New Mass (for priests who are members; and they do not have the Tridentine Mass as their "own rite"), they must not criticize Vatican II so much and they must teach the new catechism in their seminary.  p.6-7: the younger clergy is open to Tradition, we could catch them more easily: considerations: but there is a long way to go: they have little formation, they have suffered a deep deformation and they are difficult to convert completely (proof, the contact with young priests I've had recently: they are of good faith, I hope, and have admiration for tradition, but are steeped in error).

 

B An admission is proof. Mgr. Fellay admits that for the good of the SSPX it would be better not to make an agreement with Rome. That says everything. We would like to choose for the common good of the SSPX, obviously, this is the final cause of every society. But inexplicably, Bishop Fellay prefers the desire of the Pope, against what he knows to be the common good of the SSPX: 14 April 2012 letter of Bishop Fellay to the three bishops: "Let it be noted in passing that we have not sought a practical agreement. This is false. But we have not rejected a priori, as you request, to consider the offer of the pope. For the common good of the Fraternity, we would by far prefer the current status quo, though obviously Rome is not prepared to put up with that any longer."

C Mgr. Fellay said May 11th, 2012 to CNS "I cannot exclude that there might be a split (in the SSPX)." According to Aristotle unity is one of the greatest assets of a society.

D Even if Mgr. Fellay were right, then a good leader still does not advance until he has checked that he is being followed by a good majority: that is not the case now ... a very large part do not agree with him, including three bishops.

E Rules of 'Discernment of Spirits': This decision causes confusion and disagreement within the SSPX. It's a bad sign.

F After this pope, who is 85 years old, there will be another; the post-conciliar Hegelian pendulum will probably swing to the other side: progressivism. And then who will protect us?

F Bishop Fellay has said repeatedly that the Pope is so good and well intentioned towards tradition. Apart from the fact that this is a subjective argument and therefore weak, it is especially dangerous. The current pope, favoring tradition but not condemning progressivism (see list below *), operates in effect as a perfect modernist:

First proof: Proof let's read "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" St Pius X (September 8, 1907):
"Nr.36 ... So let us say, summing up modernist thought, that an evolution results from the conflict of two forces, one pushing for progress, while the other tends to conservatism. The conservative force in the Church, it is tradition, and tradition is represented by religious authority (A). This is so in law and fact: in law, because the defense of tradition is like a natural instinct of authority, in fact, because, hovering over the contingencies of life, authority does not feel, or very little, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, is one that meets the needs, and ferments in individual consciences, and especially in those who are in more intimate contact with life. You can clearly see here, Venerable Brethren, this pernicious doctrine that wants to make the laity, a factor of progress in the Church. Now it is a sort of compromise and agreement between the conservative and the progressive force that gradual changes and progress is made (B) ... "
Conclusion: According to the modernists is quite normal that the Pope supports Tradition.
See text in bold (A) – IN ORDER TO advance modernist trends in the Church: see bold text above (B).
This is evident in the life of the present Pope. As a theologian, Josef Ratzinger was in the "progressive party" neo modernist, and now, as authority (Prefect and then Pope) he must needs promote tradition, this modernist is acting according to the rule above. Indeed, the pope has not converted to Tradition, as he has reissued all his works from when he was an erroneous theologian when he was elected pope without correcting them and he has just refused our arguments for Tradition in the theological discussions. He favors Tradition, only to advance his Hegelian progress. Absit!

The pope has not converted: the list of facts that prove it is long:

21.10.2007: Interfaith Meeting of Naples;

28.04.2008: Visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє of New York;

15.07.2008: World Youth Day Sydney with its liturgy "enculturated" and pagan rituals;

12.05.2009: Visit to the Dome of the Rock of Jerusalem;
12.05.2009: Jєωιѕн Ritual at the Wailing Wall;
17.01.2010: Visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Rome;
14.03.2010: Active participation in the Lutheran worship in Rome;
01.05.2011: Beatification of John Paul II;
27.10.2011: Reiteration of the scandal of Assisi;
2012: theological discussions demonstrate the contradiction between the thoughts of Rome and Tradition.
Remember also:

common prayer with the imams in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul on 30 November 2006

his cordial meeting with a "woman priest" at the Anglican Westminster Abbey 17 September 2010,
the invitation to the Vatican of a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ group called "gαy Circus" December 15, 2010, who performed before him a choreography of perverts.
Benedict refused to kiss the crucifix on Good Friday, during the liturgy of the "adoration" of the cross, in 2009, 2010 and 2011 (we do not know what will happen in 2012).
"L'Osservatore Romano" (French) No. 3229 of March 29, 2012, p.17: Pope Benedict XVI in his homily at the Mass on Revolution Square in Havana (Cuba), 28-03, was still advocating religious freedom for all "believers" who "nourish the hope for a better world" (...) "When the Church emphasizes this right (religious freedom), it does not claim any privilege for itself. "
Bishop Fellay in the same way. said that the solution proposed by Rome is not a trap (letters to the bishops p.3), but there is evidence to the contrary:

Second proof: Admissions
2001: A legal maxim says that "an admission is proof."
In two interviews, the "Il Giornale" and the "Avvenire" - on the occasion of the presentation of his book "The Spirit of the Liturgy" - Cardinal Ratzinger argued that there was still a long way to go towards an agreement, and he attributed the blame for the delay in the ending of the discussions from the side of the Society.
See DICI No. 2 of April 6, 2001, which gives the text of an interview with Cardinal R. to the Italian newspaper "Il Giornale" Monday, April 3, 2001. I give only the gist of the text:

1) Cardinal Ratzinger said about the SSPX: "The road is still long. I must say there is a strong hardening in the # # # # movement, I notice that they are turned in on themselves, and this makes problematic the reconciliation process, at least in the short term."
"The followers of Archbishop Lefebvre have resented the post-conciliar liturgical reform (...)" ...

2) Question of IG: "What steps have the # # # # es to make to get closer to the Holy See? "
Cardinal Ratzinger replied: "Recognizing that the liturgy of the Council is still the same liturgy of the Church, it is not something else. Recognize that the church renovated by the Council is not another Church, but is still the same Church that lives and grows. "
The goal of negotiations is that we accept the NOM, post conciliar liturgy, and the new ecclesiology ("subsists in" etc..). The aim is downright bad. Numquam possumus.

3) Question of IG: "What can we do to meet them?"
Cardinal Ratzinger's response:
"We must do our best to attract these brothers and sisters, to give them the confidence they have lost. Inside the church a wound heals better: if the confrontation takes place outside, we shall grow further apart. "
"We must recognize that by the traditional liturgy of Saint Pius V, they are still inside the common church tradition. We must be generous to allow that the common Christian tradition is expressed in different ritual forms. It is a difficult path of reconciliation, as often happens in a family dispute. We need to provide a starting point in the reconciliation process. "
The means to achieve the goal is by means of generosity. Being generous, that is to say: open your heart, recognize, allow, provide a starting point, the reconciliation process.
In practice: the creation of an apostolic administration etc. .. are the generous practical means to attain the goal.
Conclusion: Frankly, to try to achieve a bad goal (this goal is confessed: to make us accept the errors of Vatican II) by means of generosity, this is called a maneuver.
At the time, Archbishop Lefebvre had already seen this with the Fraternity of St. Peter, he gave them ten years ( of "generosity")
Shame that Campos etc. .. have fallen into this same trap. In the IPB it seems already after 5 years ..

3rd Ad confirmandum: another confession of Pope Benedict XVI, "the Motu Proprio is simply an act of tolerance"
September 12, 2008, on the plane that took him to France, Benedict XVI publicly confirmed its intention: "the Motu Proprio (" Summorum Pontificorum "of July 7, 2007) is simply an act of tolerance" .. "There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by Vatican II and the old ".... On their side friends of the old liturgy can and should know the new saints, new prefaces of the liturgy, etc. ..... In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our times. Thank you. Source: Zenit

4th Lourdes September 14, 2008 before all the bishops of France,
Benedict-Ratzinger has continued to clarify his thoughts, before the bishops of France, following the same guiding principle: that of the absorption of traditionalist splinter group within the conciliar church, in the name of the same tolerance ". . I was led to state in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм, the conditions for exercise of this office, regarding the possibility of using both the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962), that of Pope Paul VI (1970). I know your difficulties, but I do not doubt that you can achieve in reasonable time, satisfactory solutions for all so that the seamless tunic of Christ be not further torn ... Let us therefore always be servants of unity!

Let's be careful. This is the "unity in Vatican II ...": there are two masses, because there are two groups, the conflict should lead to progress and evolution (nr cfr.Pascendi 36 above): the reform of the reform, "the Mass of St. Thesis [synthesis]" (that is to say, according to Hegel, the conflict between a useful and necessary thesis and an antithesis produces a "synthesis" that makes progress and evolves).
"Personally, I am mistrustful ... I've always had a feeling of distrust and I must admit I've always thought that all they do is to get us to accept the Council and to accept the post-conciliar reforms "(Lefebvre, 1988).

5th We will not do what we want
Proof: 08/06/2012 Dici:
DICI: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you have indicated in recent statements. .. Are you willing to accept that future works are possible only with the permission of the bishop in the dioceses where the Society of St. Pius X is not currently present?
Mgr: ".... It remains true - as is the law of the Church - that to open a new chapel or found a work, it would be necessary to have permission from the local ordinary. We have of course presented in Rome how our current situation was difficult in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here and there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? .. "

6th note:
Since the common good is at stake (the unity of the Society, preserving of the deposit of faith), it seems useful to ask some fundamental principles on this subject:

1) Quote "Cor Unum" nr 85, page 26:
"Motions [and decisions] of the General Chapter - I.1. Relations with Rome"
"If an agreement with the Holy See were seriously considered, an extraordinary general chapter would be convened to address the issue."

2) Quote of Raoul Naz "Treatise of Canon Law", T 1, nr 816,
"Chapters":
"General Chapter has more power than the superior general.
It can make laws or at least take steps that must remain in effect until the next chapter. "
Naz does not place restrictions on these two principles. He gives a reference to the Dictionary of Canon Law which confirms the history of religious families in the Church through the centuries.

3) Conclusion absolutely clear:
Of the supreme authority of the SSPX and a chapter must be held to address the issue of a possible imminent agreement with Rome.

The text box is checked and approved by an official of the SSPX.
Tradition gives this principle which can be summarized thus: "A General Chapter has supreme powers in a society of law of the Church. Therefore it has the powers and the grave duty to elect or to remove any person of authority as required by the common good and to verify and sanction fidelity to the founder, to the Rule, the Constitutions and Statutes of the General Chapters past ".

7th "Mortalium Animos"
An agreement of "SSPX with Rome without conversion" is entirely under the doctrine of Vatican II, which advocates a "ministry of unity with everyone without conversion" (Nostra Aetate, the "spirit of Assisi", the new ecuмenism) condemned by "Mortalium Animos".

8th Archbishop Lefebvre

Conference in Flavigny, in December 1988 Preview Fideliter No. 68 (March 1989) p. 16

"We must be free of compromise both with regard to sedevacantists as well as those who absolutely want to be subjected to ecclesiastical authority. We remain committed to our Lord Jesus Christ. But Vatican II was dethroned our Lord. We want to remain faithful to our Lord, the king, prince and ruler of the world. We cannot change this course of action. So when we get asked the question when will there be an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: when Rome recrowns "Our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot agree with those who uncrown Our Lord. The day they recognize again our Lord King of peoples and nations, it is not us who shall have rejoined them , but they who come back to the Catholic Church in which we live. "
+ Marcel Lefebvre, Flavignv, December 1988

Conference in Sierre (Switzerland) on 27 XI 1988 fideliter Extract from No. 89 (September 1992) p.12:

"This is a general apostasy, which is why we resist, but the Roman authorities would have us accept it. When I discussed with them in Rome, they wanted me to recognize religious freedom like Cardinal Bea. But I said no, I cannot. My faith is that of Cardinal Ottaviani faithful to all the popes, and not this new doctrine which has always been condemned. That's in what consists our opposition, and that is why we cannot agree. It's not so much the question of the Mass, the Mass is precisely one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism and thus transform the worship, sacraments, catechism, etc. ... The real fundamental opposition is the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ. "Opportet regnare Illum," says St. Paul. Our Lord came to rule. They say no. And we say yes, with all the popes. Our Lord came not to be hidden inside houses without coming outside. Why the missionaries, of whom so many were slaughtered? To preach that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God, to tell the pagans to convert. Then the pagans wanted to make them disappear, but they did not hesitate to give their lives to continue to preach Our Lord Jesus Christ. And now we should do the opposite, saying to the Gentiles "your religion is good, preserve it, provided you are good Buddhists, good Muslims or good pagans! "This is why we cannot get along with them, because we obey our Lord saying to the apostles:" Go and teach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. "
That is why we should not be surprised that we did not manage to make an agreement with Rome. It will not be possible until Rome returns to the faith in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as long as it gives the impression that all religions are good. We clash on a point of Catholic faith, clash as Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani, and as all popes clashed with liberalism. This is the same thing, the same current, the same ideas and the same divisions within the Church. "
Ave Maria, ora pro nobis.


Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on us.
Father Eric Julien Lawrence Jacqmin +
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 03:06:36 PM
Rivarol
Quoted from Rorate Coeli
June 1, 2012 Interview with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
Last Public Words of Opposition
He Became an Accordista 1 Month Later After the 2012 SSPX General Chapter:



R: What do you say to those who believe that Rome has changed with Benedict XVI?

Bp. T: It is certain that Benedict XVI has made some gestures in favor of Tradition. Especially by declaring that the Traditional Mass has never been suppressed and, in second place, by suppressing the so-called excommunication that had been declared regarding us following our episcopal consecration by Abp. Lefebvre. These two positive gestures drew bitter complaints from the episcopates towards Benedict XVI. But Pope Benedict XVI, while he is Pope, remains Modernist. His programmatic address of December 22, 2005 [on the hermeneutic of continuity and reform] is a profession of the evolution of the truths of faith according to the dominant ideas of each time. Despite his favorable gestures, his real intent by integrating us in the conciliar orb cannot be other than to lead us to Vatican II. He had said it himself to H.E. Bp. Fellay in August 2005, and a confidential note by himself, published fraudulently, has confirmed it recently. (Rorate note: the reference here is to a note attributed to Pope Benedict XVI and referring to the SSPX that was among those publicized in the Vatileaks affair.)
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 03:23:56 PM
Lesser Publicized Earlier Letter and Sermon of Fr Ringrose
Appeared in St Athanasius Weekly Bulletin


Fr Ringrose
St Athanasius Church
23 Aug 2012

It Is Not Father Ringrose Against the Society...yet.


It has been said that Fr. Ringrose “sets his face against the Society.” ( I am not quite sure what that means. This is not a commonly used expression in English, so I suspect that originates with someone whose native language is not English.) Let me state that I have been a “friend of the Society” for over 30 years, and I do not see myself as anything less today. But when one's friend is taking a course that is dangerous and possibly self-destructive, a true friend must at least attempt to help his friend back to the right path. That is why I signed, for lack of a better term, the Declaration of Vienna.

The Society seems to be on a dangerous path of compromising with Modernist Rome. This has become very clear to me only in the past year, although in retrospect I can see that this has been the case much longer.

Those who are against an accord with Modernist Rome are accused of making Vatican II into a super-heresy. Well, it is! If Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies, then Vatican II is Modernism on steroids. Many things that were condemned by St. Pius X are now brought “inside the Church,” and made official doctrine. For this reason, Vatican II is far more dangerous than even the original Modernism.

The “anti-accordistas” are accused, in not so many words, of a practical sedevacantism. Whether Benedict XVI is pope or not, isn't really the issue. He cannot be followed. He may at times say things that sound orthodox, but look at his actions -- visiting ѕуηαgσgυєs and Protestant temples and convoking Assisi III! The only safe course is to follow the popes of Tradition (i.e. the pre-Vatican II popes). This is what Archbishop Lefebvre did, and this is why we followed him. It is not that the truth can never be uttered by Benedict XVI, it is the mixture of truth and error that creates the danger. One false statement makes the whole sentence false. Any high school test-taker should know this much. The reason we cannot follow Protestantism is not that Protestantism contains no truth at all (most Protestants believe in the Trinity), but that Protestantism, along with whatever truth it may retain, also contains error. For this same reason we cannot follow Benedict. He mixes truth with error, and his deeds tell us very clearly what he is about.

The anti-accordistas are said to be lacking a supernatural spirit. We should not mistake naivety for a supernatural spirit. Our Lord told us to be wise as serpents!

They are told only the superiors have the grace of state to guide the Society. That is true when the superiors are upholding the Faith, but Vatican II has shown us that superiors cannot be followed when they work against the Faith. The Archbishop said that the master stroke of Satan was to use obedience to superiors to get us to be disobedient to the Faith. In Vatican II there was a separation of faith and obedience. We seem to be witnessing something similar in the Society today. Before Vatican II we could safely follow our superiors. After Vatican II we could not. Before “accord-fever” took over, the Society superiors could be safely followed. Now we have to be more cautious.

During and after Vatican II there was an attempt to silence or marginalize anyone who was against this “new Pentecost,” as it was called. Anyone who was around then surely remembers this. The same tactics seem to be used against those who oppose a Society-Modernist Rome accord today. Those within the Society are expelled, or threatened with expulsion. If not that, they are banished to some position where they have little ability to influence anyone. Those outside the Society are said to have “turned their face against the Society,” and that those who take their guidance from the Society should not attend their Masses. One begins to wonder whether it is prudent at all to take one's guidance from the Society while it is on its present course. It seems like Vatican II all over again – a sort of Vatican II within the Society.

It is foolishness to think that Modernist Rome has changed for the better and is now on a path back to Tradition. Just look at the actions of Benedict XVI. Even recently he appointed a man to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who should himself be investigated by it. It is because I am a friend of the Society that I, poor little nobody that I am, appeal to them to wake up! See what is happening! See what you are doing! See what a dangerous path you are on! Realize, as the Archbishop came to realize in 1988, that Rome can only be trusted once Rome wants the true Faith as much as we do. We wait for this day, and we pray for Our Lady's help to make this day come soon! Until then, we follow the true Rome of 2000 years, and we oppose the false Rome of Modernism.
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Nadir on January 01, 2013, 03:31:52 PM
Posted by Quo Vadis Petre on http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Another-Religious-Community-Speaks-Out

Quote
Public Profession and Resistance of the Familia Beatae Mariae Semper Virginis, Candeias, Salvador, Brazil

http://fbmv.wordress.com/

To those who maintain and, with God’s help, seek to continue maintaining the Sacred Deposit of the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Faith: Pax Christi in Regno Christi.



See how His Lordship Bishop Richard Williamson the dauntless and serene warrior of the Faith, one of the bishops bequeathed by Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre to continue his valuable work in defence of the Faith and sanctity of the Church – this admirable Msgr. Richard Williamson has been expelled from the Society of Saint Pius X by the still respected General Council of this body, that is, by Msgr. Bernard Fellay and his Council.



Immediately after the punishment we indirectly heard of the serene, firm, just and charitable reply which the wronged prelate gave to this.



The event recalls another similar. It is reported that, when word came to him that he had been declared excommunicated by decree of the Roman authorities during the unfortunate reign of John Paul II, His Grace Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre declared that the decree was of no significance, since he had never belonged to the Modernist Church, born of Vatican II. It was expulsion from a body of which he had never been part.



Our wronged and illustrious prelate, with ample reason, said the same thing in the Open Letter that he published in response to the deplorable decree of expulsion which he received from Msgr. Fellay: “… the exclusion will be more apparent than real. I have been a member of the Archbishop’s Society ever since my perpetual engagement. I have been one of its priests for 36 years. I have been one of its bishops, like yourself, for nearly a quarter of a century. That is not all to be wiped out with one stroke of a pen. Member of the Archbishop’s Society I therefore remain, and I wait”.



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



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



With these moving words, full of faith and charity, the admirable Bishop Williamson – defamed and, as others are courageous enough to say, a marked man – concludes the Catholic monument that is his admirable Open Letter, in response to the wretched Bishop Fellay. It is so mysterious but evident that the Good Lord transfered the Sceptre of Truth from the hands of Msgr. Lefebvre to Msgr. Richard Williamson. Behold England which, in the sixteenth century under Henry VIII, betrayed her Mother the Holy Church, now, through another Englishman make amends to the same Mother. Blessed be God!



In the face of world-wide havoc which Catholic Liberalism has unleashed on the Church, beginning with its ruling hierarchy, Bishop Williamson perseveres, faithful to the sacred legacy of the founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.



The bishop continues to follow the final resolve of Archbishop Lefebvre not to accept any sort of practical agreement with the Roman authorities so long as they do not repudiate the errors they have professed and declare themselves in perfect communion with the condemnations and doctrinal warnings given by the last popes antecedent to John XXIII, that is, from Gregory XVI to Pius XII.



The continual betrayal implemented by the governing authorities of the Society of Saint Pius X in the last twelve years is now exposed world-wide before friends and enemies by the publication of Bishop Fellay’s response to the other three bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. The letter, dating from April of this catastrophic year, 2012, is of the highest importance and reveals the revolutionary spirit of the leadership of the former Society of Saint Pius X. The most tragic aspect in all this is the way in which things are being conducted. Slyly retreating from the immediate signing of a practical agreement last June (“… Rome will put up with it no longer” – Bishop Fellay), an agreement at variance with the recommendations of the Chapter held by the Society, a new and much more effective tactic was adopted; a general poisoning and paralysis of minds.



Accordingly, instead of a hasty agreement which would have split the Society into two distinct and opposing factions, the leadership begins by an apparent change of face to reassure those who are dissatisfied, an attempt unfortunately only too successful, gently leading them in a liberal or semi-liberal direction.



Contrary to what might be expected – how mysterious – the other principal leaders conspicuous in the Catholic Resistance within the Society, which was the vanguard of Catholic vitality in all things against the Evil One, themselves appear unperturbed, agreeing to live in harmony with the new enemies, now unequivocally unmasked. Likewise, friendly groups here and there, who have rendered glorious services in the cause of Truth now, perhaps for the sake of lesser though not negligible concerns, are laying down their arms. This unquestionably raises the danger of their being tainted, at last, little by little, quite apart from the gravity of the mission.



How painful! It is utterly disheartening to see admirable bishops silent or inactive in the face of the increasing success of the internal encroachment by the enemy, preaching obedience to a traitorous and exquisitely artful leader, who should be ejected from power with his assistants by a sensible [General] Chapter. And this when all of us understand that the foundation of obedience is the Holy Will of God: so solidly real that, for many years now, we have resisted even orders from the Pope, who is immovable by us, so how cannot we disobey the superior of a religious order, who can be removed quite easily, when there is a true necessity?



The Chapter of July 2012 was cowardly enough to approve the exclusion of Bishop Williamson, and to alter the directions of the Holy Founder by accepting the possibility of new conditions for an agreement with Modernist Rome, instead of maintaining faithfully the single acceptable condition laid down by Archbishop Lefebvre, namely, the conversion of Modernist Rome to the bimillenary integrity of Profession of Faith in the fullness of Catholic orthodoxy.



The demoralisation that has descended on the Society, especially after the passive attitude displayed by leading figures of the hitherto universally respected structure, in the face of manoeuvres, many of them quite blatant, by the leader and his closest supporters, has brought the situation to such a state that, even if Bishop Fellay is replaced by someone else, trust will not be restored. Nothing but the inauguration of a Reform, like the one made by St. Teresa in the Carmelite Order, can begin slowly to raise the crumbling masterpiece of Archbishop Lefebvre.



I cannot conclude without fulfilling the grave obligation of making an appeal to those faithful Fathers who, though in fear, have spoken and continue speaking anonymously, often with admirable good sense, against this tragedy which has befallen Catholic traditionalists, particularly the Society of Saint Pius X.



Forgive me, Reverend Fathers, but you will pay dearly before God for your cowardice and dereliction. Are you waiting for Society leaders yet to come? But why not take the initiative, if the fire is spreading, especially in the present process of erosion, which has served only to destroy or immobilise resistance and energies? Is it fear of punishment? You are the sons of martyrs. Remember! Stand up, even if you have to die for the Faith.



In any case, I wish also to fulfil here a serious obligation of gratitude. In the name of our little community; of souls faithful to Catholic Tradition; in the name of the Church and the world, I desire to proclaim as loudly as I can our profound gratitude to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his wise, chaste, virtuous and zealous priests for their precious contribution in promoting the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and truth. How can we forget the episcopal visits, the ordinations and confirmations, or what he did? How can we fail to see, still around us, admirable figures of true Catholic bishops, seminaries, the precious, solid books and magazines and, particularly for us lesser brethren, the ease with which we obtain Mass intentions, entrusted to us by the generous faithful, in a word, all the immense good that the great Archbishop fostered, which can be neither exhaustively recorded here nor forgotten.



Msgr. Williamson, who obviously wishes to be saved, cannot fail to respond to the sign which the Lord of the Faith gave him by his expulsion.



And I hope fervently that all those who have not bowed the knee before Baal will adhere firmly to him, since he is a bishop. Can there be a Church without a bishop? Ours are hard times, yet the Good Lord still raised up a bishop to preserve the Church. And when, some decades later, his work now crumbles, the Good Lord in His admirable Providence sees fit to raise up another for the tireless task of beginning again, just as does the individual who fights against his own misfortunes. Never lose heart. Begin again, and again, and again.



May the Immaculate Heart receive ever more from us the fifteen mysteries of the Holy Rosary, and thus lead us safely to the Heart of her Son.



I declare before God, Who will judge me, that this public profession of faith of Catholic resistance, and rejection of the Revolution is made here in my name and in the name of every member of our little community, the Familia Beatae Mariae Virginis.



From the Monastery of Our Lady of the Faith and the Rosary, Candeias, Brazil, on 14th November 2012, memorial of the martyrdom of Saint Serapion, a Mercedarian religious and glorious English martyr for the Catholic Faith.



Father Jahir Britto de Souza, and Religious Brothers.

Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 01, 2013, 05:54:18 PM
Last Public Words of Opposition of Bishop de Galarreta
Only a Couple Weeks Before He Became an Accordista at the 2012 SSPX General Chapter
Taken from the Crusaders of the Immaculate Heart of Mary website (6-28-12):



REFLECTIONS AROUND THE ROMAN PROPOSAL

ROMAN TEXT

To limit myself to the "Preliminary Note" and "doctrinal Preamble", I must say straight away that they are confusing, misleading, false and bad in essence. Even the apparent openness to criticism of the Council is enigmatic and cunning, well-trained trap (... self {?} Thread... expressions or formulations... as "interpretive criteria of Catholic doctrine necessary...", that is to say, according to" Preamble" II and III, 2, especially in fine). This docuмent is substantially unacceptable. It is worse than the 1988 Protocol, in particular in relation to the Council and the post-conciliar magisterium.

Archbishop Lefebvre said:
Our true believers, those who understand the problem and we have just helped to continue the straight and firm and the Tradition of faith, feared the steps I made in Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute in Rome have to testify a little bit of loyalty. You can not blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have stayed (Fideliter no. 79, p. 11).


Fideliter said:
What do you think of the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger establishing an oath of fidelity and that includes a profession of faith?


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
First is the Creed, which poses no problem. He remained intact. The first and second paragraphs do not raise difficulties. These are things in common theologically. But the third is very bad.

This is practically align what the bishops from around the world now believe. In the preamble it is also clear that this paragraph was added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-remote teaching today is that of conciliar. He should have added: as this magisterium is in full compliance with the Tradition.

As this formula is dangerous. This shows the spirit of these people that it is impossible to agree. This is absolutely ridiculous and false as some have done-to make this oath of allegiance as a resurgence of anti-modernist oath removed from the, Council. While the venom is in the third paragraph that seems purposely to force those who have rallied to this sign of faith and assert their full agreement with the bishops.

It is as if the time of Arianism had been told, now you agree with all that think the Arian bishops.

No I am not exaggerating, it is clearly stated in the introduction. This is disingenuous. One may wonder if we did not want to Rome, thereby correcting the text of the Protocol. Although it does not satisfy us, it seems too in our favor in Article 3 of the doctrinal statement, because it does not express enough the need to submit to the Council.

So I think they are catching up now. They are likely to sign these docuмents to the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and priests of the Fraternity, which will then be obliged to make an official act of rallying to the conciliar Church.

Unlike the protocol, these new texts we submit to the Council and all the conciliar bishops. It is their spirit and we do not change (Fideliter, no. 70, p. 16).


Fideliter said:
Do you think the situation has deteriorated further since you had before-the sacred-initiated conversations that led to the drafting of the Protocol of 5 May 1988?


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
Oh yes! For example the fact of the profession of faith which is now claimed by Cardinal Ratzinger since the beginning of 1989. This is a very serious matter. Because it asks all those who joined or could do to make a profession of faith in the docuмents of the Council and the post-conciliar reforms. For us it is impossible (Fideliter No. 79, p. 4).


PRINCIPLE OF JUDGMENT

In fact it fits perfectly with the thought and the Roman position that the Commission has expressed all along the doctrinal discussions. It is essential to the current issue to bear in mind the unmistakable conclusion that we just did on this occasion: they are not ready to give up Vatican II Council, nor the liberal doctrines of it, and their intention , their obvious desire, it brings back is to us. At most, Rome would accept a rebalancing and better formulation, again as part of the "hermeneutic of renewal in continuity". And then we can discuss and we are very useful... to endorse the revival of the reform with continuity.

AGREEMENT IMPOSSIBLE

The proposed docuмent does confirm that it is illusory and unrealistic to believe that we could reach an agreement good practice, appropriate and warranted, and even just acceptable to both parties. Given the circuмstances, it is certain that at the end, after long parliaments, we arrive at absolutely nothing. So, why we get involved?

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

Following the proposal Roman, the real question, crucial, is: should we, can we, we take the path of a "possible" agreement first practice? Is it prudent and appropriate to maintain contacts with Rome to such an agreement?

For me the answer is clear: we must reject this path because we can not do a wrong to a property arrives (though also uncertain) and because this will necessarily lead to pain (very certain) for the good common that we have, for the Fraternity and the Family Tradition.
The following summarizes some of the reasons for my point of view:

OBEY WHOM, WHAT?

I. How to submit and obey authorities who continue to think, to preach, and to govern by modernists? We have goals and purposes contrary, even different ways, how to work under them?

The problem is not the subjective intentions, but objective, clear, the observation that we have just made their desire: Vatican II acceptance of the Council and its liberal principles. Essentially nothing has changed, there is no "return".

Archbishop Lefebvre said:
These are things that are easy to say. Get inside the church, what does this mean? And First Church of what your talking about? If this is the conciliar Church, that we should have fought against it for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we were back in the conciliar Church to supposedly make it Catholic. It is an illusion total. These are topics that are pa superiors but the superiors who are the subjects (Fideliter No. 70, p. 6)


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
I do not think this is a real return. It's like a fight, when one has the impression that the troops v.ont a little too far, they are kept, it slows down a little momentum of Vatican II, because the advocates of the council will too far. Besides these theologians were very wrong to be excited. These bishops are all acquired at the Council and the post-conciliar reforms, ecuмenism and charismatic.

Apparently they do something a little more moderate, some traditional religious sense, but it is not deep. The fundamental principles of the Council, the mistakes of the Council, they receive them, they put them into practice. This is no problem. Rather, I would say it is they who are the hardest with us. It is they who most require that we submit to the principles of the Council (Fideliter No. 70, p. 12).


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
It was perfectly clear, and this illustrates their mindset. There is no question of them abandoning the new mass. On the contrary, and this is obvious. Therefore what can be appears as a concession is actually a ploy to reach away from us as possible to the faithful. It is in this perspective that they seem to always give a little more and go very far. We absolutely need to convince the faithful that it is a maneuver, that is a danger of getting into the hands of bishops and conciliar modernist Rome. This is the greatest danger that threatens them. If we fought for twenty years to avoid errors conciliar, this is not to put us now in the hands of those who profess (Fideliter No. 70, p. 13-14).


AFFECT THE CONFESSION OF FAITH

II. How then do not go against the defense and public confession of faith, against the public need protection the faithful and the Church?

In this regard, if we make an agreement we are purely practical, in the present circuмstances, already in the duplicity and ambiguity. The very fact is a public testimony and a message: we cannot be in "full communion" with the authorities who remain modernists.

We can not do it either ignores the context, that is to say, events and constant teachings in the life of the Church today: repeated visits to Protestant churches and ѕуηαgσgυєs, beatification (soon to be canonized) by Jean Paul II, III Sitting, preaching time and inconvenience of religious freedom, and a long etcetera.

Moreover, if we make an agreement we will lose freedom of speech, we must mute our public criticism of the facts, authorities and even some texts of the Council and the post-conciliar magisterium.

To understand and illustrate the points 1 and II, just look what happened with all the rallies, from F. St. Pierre to the IBP: they are inevitably confronted with the choice to surrender or betray their commitments... and this is the first to arrive.

Fideliter said:
When we see that Dom Gerard and the Fraternity of St. Peter got to keep the liturgy and catechism, no-they say-they have nothing conceded, some who are troubled to find themselves in difficult situations with Rome, may be tempted to join the long turn by lassitude. "They come well, they say, to agree with Rome without having nothing dropped. "


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
When they say they did not give up, it's wrong. They dropped the ability to counter Rome. They can not say anything. They must remain silent given the favors granted to them. They are now impossible to denounce the errors of the conciliar Church. Slowly they join, if only by the profession of faith that is requested by Cardinal Ratzinger. I think Dom Gerard is about to publish a little book written by one of his monks, on religious freedom and that will try to justify it (Fideliter No. 79, p. 4-5).


Fideliter said:
Since the coronations there is more contact with Rome, however, as you told, Cardinal Oddi called you saying: "We need things work out. Have a little forgiveness to the Pope and it is ready to welcome you. " So why not try this last approach and why you think it impossible?


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. principles who now run the conciliar Church are increasingly openly contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Before the Commission on Human Rights United Nations, Cardinal Casaroli said recently: "I wish to dwell a little on a specific aspect of the fundamental freedom of thought and act according to conscience, therefore free to religion... The Catholic Church and her Supreme Pastor, who has made human rights one of the major themes of his preaching, did not fail to recall that in a world made by man and for man , the whole organization of society has meaning insofar as it makes the human dimension of central concern. " Hear it in the mouth of a cardinal! God does not talk about it!


For his part Cardinal Ratzinger, by presenting a river on the relationship between the Magisterium and theologians, says he says "for the first time with clarity" that "decisions of the Magisterium can not be the last word on the matter as such" but "a kind of interim arrangement... The core remains stable but the particular aspects which have an influence on the circuмstances of time may need further corrections. In this regard it may be noted the declarations of the popes of the last century. Decisions antimodernist have done a great service... but they are now outdated. " And now, the page of modernism is turned! These reflections are absolutely insane.

Finally the Pope is more than ever ecuмenist. All misconceptions of u Council continue to flourish, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They hide less. It is therefore absolutely inconcevabl e that we can agree to work with a similar hierarchy (Fideliter No. 79, p. 3-4).


Fideliter said:
You said, pointing to Dom Gerard and others: "They betrayed us. Now they give out to those who demolish the church, the Liberals, the modernists. " Is not that a bit harsh ?


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
But no. They appealed to me for fifteen years. It's not me who went to pick them. It is they themselves who came to me and ask for support, to ordinations, the friendship of our priests along with the opening of our priories to help financially. They all used us as they could. We did a good heart and even generously. I was pleased to make these ordinations, to open our homes so they can benefit from the generosity of our benefactors... And then, suddenly, I phone: we no longer need you, it's over. We will go to the Archbishop of Avignon. We are now in agreement with Rome. We signed a protocol.

This is not a light heart that we had trouble with Rome. It's not for fun that we had to fight. We did it for principles, to keep the Catholic faith. And they agreed with us. They collaborated with us. And then suddenly we abandon the fight for true ally with demolition under the pretext that they be given some privileges. This is unacceptable.

They have virtually abandoned the fight of faith. They can not attack Rome.

This was also the Father of Blignières. He changed completely. He who had written a whole volume to condemn religious freedom, he now writes in favor of religious freedom. This laugh is not serious. We can no longer count on men like these, who did not understand the doctrinal question.
I think in any case they commit a grave error. They have gravely sinned by acting as they did, knowingly and with a casualness implausible (Fideliter No. 79, p. 6).


QUESTION DOCTRINAL, ESSENTIAL PROBLEM

III. We must look at the context in which they intend to incorporate us. An agreement is, like it or not, we integrate into their system in a thinking and reality data that do not depend on us but who depend on their thinking, their theology and their action. And this is how they will be presented (see Campos, text signed by Mgr. Licinio).

But we have just seen in doctrinal discussions what is their design: pure modernism revised and corrected.

In particular there will be implied that we would accept three principles implicitly:

1. Relativism of truth, even dogmatic, need for pluralism in the Church. For them we have the experience and charisma of Tradition, good and useful to the Church, but only partial truth.

System and their modernist dialectic (claiming the contrary) allows them to integrate ourselves in the name of "unity in diversity", as positive and necessary Il1ême, provided we are in full communion (obedience to authority and respect for others and ecclesial) and that we remain open to dialogue, always looking for the truth.

Proof of this is that they are ready to accept after the statement, both sides, a doctrinal opposition to faith-and essential-land.

How implicitly accept this principle, by explicit integration in their system and the official interpretation they give, then it is the foundation of modernism and is destructive of all natural and supernatural truth?

It is accepting the relativism of Tradition, the only true faith.

2. Can be interpreted in accordance with any Vatican II Tradition. We can help find, if necessary, the "right" interpretation. This is the "hermeneutic of continuity". "The hermeneutic of rupture" (while it is true) must be rejected, because neither teaching nor the post-conciliar Vatican II major have been mistaken. After the discussions and the proposed docuмent, it is only too clear, they would accept us as part of the first and reject the second.

This is Vatican II endorsement.

Archbishop Lefebvre said:
The response to our objections which have been sent from Rome by intermediaries, all tended to show that there was no change but a continuation of the Tradition. These are statements that are worse than those of the Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom. This is the real official lie.

As long as we remain attached to Rome conciliar ideas: religious freedom, ecuмenism, collegiality... will be wrong. This is serious because it goes into practical achievements. This is what justifies the Pope's visit to Cuba. Pope visits or receives Communist leaders torturers and murderers with blood on the hands of Christians, as if they were as worthy as decent people (Fideliter No. 70, p.10).


3. The truth of faith is changing, as dogmas, formulas and dogmatic definitions of faith are only significant approaches to the mysteries of faith. The core remains, everything else evolves with time, culture, historical circuмstances, experience and the experience of God's people.

Therefore Tradition is alive, Tradition is Vatican II, condemnations of liberalism and modernism are exceeded.

Archbishop Lefebvre said:
That's why they wanted Vatican II is a pastoral council and not a dogmatic council, because they do not believe in infallibility. They do not want a definitive truth. Truth must live and must evolve. It may possibly change over time, with history, science, etc.... Infallibility, she never fixed a formula and a truth that no longer change. That they can not believe it. It is we who are with infallibility, it is not the conciliar Church. It is against the infallibility, it is absolutely certain.

Cardinal Ratzinger is against the infallibility of the Pope is against the infallibility of its philosophical training. Whether one understands us, we are not against the Pope as he represents all the values of the apostolic see, which are immutable, the See of Peter, but against the Pope is a Modernist who does not believe in his infallibility, which makes ecuмenism. Obviously we are against the conciliar Church which is practically. schismatic , even if they do not accept it. In practice it is virtually a Church excommunicated, because 'it's a modernist church. They are the ones ql: i you excommunicate us, then we want to remain Catholic. We want to stay with the Catholic Pope and the Catholic Church. That's the difference (Fideliter No. 70, p. 8).


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
But specifically, we are not in the same truth. For them the truth is progressive, the truth changes with time, and Tradition: Vatican II is today. Tradition for us is what the Church has taught since the apostles to the present. For them, no, it's tradition Vatican II resumes itself all that was said earlier. Historical circuмstances are such that now we must believe that Vatican II did. This has happened before, here no longer exists. It belongs to the time spent. That is why the Cardinal did not hesitate to say "The council is an anti-Vatican II Syllabus." One wonders how a Cardinal of the Holy Church can say that the Council of Vatican II is an anti-Syllabus, very official act of Pope Pius IX encyclical Quanta Cura in. It is unimaginable.
I said one day to Cardinal Ratzinger: "Eminence, it is necessary that we choose: either religious freedom as in the Council, or Ie Syllabus of Pius IX. They are contradictory and should be chosen. "Then he told me:" But my Lord we are not at the time of the Syllabus. - Ah! I said, then truth changes with time. So what you say Today?, Tomorrow it will no longer true. There is no way to agree, it is in continual evolution. It becomes impossible to speak."

They have that in mind. He repeated: "There is more than a church is the Church of Vatican II. Represents Vatican II-Tradition." Unfortunately, the Church opposes Vatican II Tradition. This is not the same (Fideliter No. Occasional -29 to 30 June, p. 15).


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
Certainly the question of the liturgy and the sacraments is very important, but it's not the most important. The most important is that of faith. For us it is resolved. We have the faith of all times, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of St. Pius X, of all councils and all the popes before Vatican II.
For years they tried to Rome to show that everything in the Council was fully compliant with the Tradition. Now they are discovered. Cardinal Ratzinger had never spoken with such clarity. There is no tradition. There is more deposition to be transmitted. Tradition in the Church, that is what the Pope said today. You must submit to what the Pope and the bishops said today. For them this is the tradition, the famous tradition alive, the only ground of our condemnation.

Now they no longer seek to prove that what they say is consistent with what was written Pius IX promulgated to what the Council of Trent. Not all this is over, it is exceeded, as the cardinal says Ratzinger. It is clear and they could have said so sooner. It was not worth PARLET us to discuss. Now is the tyranny of authority, because he no longer any rule. We can no longer refer to the past.

In a sense the thing now becoming clearer. They always give us more reason. We deal with people who have a different philosophy than ours, another way of seeing, which are influenced by all philosophers and modern subjectivist. For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is changing. This is an absolutely Masonic design. This is really the destruction of faith. Fortunately, we, we continue to build on the tradition! (Fideliter, no. 79, p. 9).



Archbishop Lefebvre said:
The Pope wants to unity outside the faith. It is a communion. Communion to whom? What? What?, It is no longer a unit. This can be done only in the unity of the faith. This is what the Church has always taught. It is. Why there were the missionaries, to convert to the catholic faith ic. Now you must not convert. The Church is no longer a hierarchical society, it is a communion. Everything is distorted. It is the destruction of one (1 notion of the Church, Catholicism. This is very serious and this explains why many are Catholics who abandon the faith, (Fidelitei, no. 79, p. 8).


THE REAL BATTLE DOCTRINAL

In all revolutions, "the frenzy" and "terror" there is a time of consolidation in the new situation, a period of institutionalization. On the other hand it is foreseeable that, if returned there, it is gradual. So we know in advance that there will be phases - more confusing: next to a best in practice and perhaps the intention, a little more order (all relative to the worst ) there. will necessarily worsen over the clarity of things, the error will be misleading , and seductive, less obvious and more subtle, in short, much more dangerous... able to deceive even the elect. The error is more ambiguous and dangerous when it collects more to the truth, such as counterfeit currency.

So we know in advance that our struggle and our position will be less and less understood, more difficult to explain, justify and maintain. Things will necessarily evolve like that: it is necessary to a proper response from us, so to speak, inversely proportional to the confusion.

The three reasons cited above show that we are in this phase of a false restoration, of a false return. The attitude of the Pope and the Roman Curia, much more confused, contradictory, seductive and has the appearance of Tradition.

One must distinguish the good aspects of the current pontificate, incidental or occasional, education and leadership doctrine.

But our fight is doctrinal. This is the field of doctrine that is played in victory or defeat of faith and therefore of all church property.

Cardinal Pie said:
One would think that some men do not want some order in the facts as to revive the disorder with impunity in their minds, and they require some physical security in the sky that to have the right to again, without too much danger, the old fabric of their lies for a moment interrupted by fear? fools, for not yet understood that it is ultimately the field of doctrine that is won or lost the battles that decide the future! No, a whole portion of society can not keep it longer this attitude in which we are still condemned to painting: the pen still in hand to teach the same principles, under arms for exterminate the consequences down the happy evening in the street to shoot the acts caused by the doctrines and by the examples in the morning. Contradiction constantly renewed, and that will continue only so long as men who have some authority and some influence over their fellows, sincerely embrace the Christian truth and practice (Works, Vol. II, p. 170-171).


Fideliter said:
Cardinal Oddi said recently: "I am convinced that the break will not last long and that Archbishop Lefebvre regain the early Church of Rome." Also there be ready for the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger felt that "Lefebvre" is not over. In your last letter you said the Holy Father to wait more time for the return of Rome to Tradition. What do you think of a possible resumption of talks with Rome?


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
We do not have the same way of thinking about reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees in the direction of reducing us, bring us back to Vatican II. We, as we see a return from Rome to Tradition. It does not get along. It is a dialogue of the deaf. I can not speak much for the future, because mine is behind me. But if I live a little and assuming that by some time Rome will make a call, we want to see us again, resume language, at that time it was I who would pose conditions. I will not accept as being in the situation we found ourselves at conferences. It's over.

I would ask the question in terms of doctrine: Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you. Is - that you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei, Libertas Leo XIII, Pius X Pascendi, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Pius XII, Humani Generis? Are you in full communion with the pope and with their claims? Do you still accept the anti-modernist oath? Do you support the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is unnecessary to speak. As you will not have agreed to reform the Council in considering the doctrine of the Popes who preceded you, there is no possibility of dialogue. It's useless.

The positions would be clearer as well.
This is not a small thing between us. It is not enough we are told: you can tell the old Mass, but we must accept that. No, it's not that we object to is the doctrine. It is clear. (Fideliter, NiO. 66, p. 12-14).


ENTER THE CONFLICT

IV. Move towards a practical agreement would be to deny our word and our commitments to our priests, our faithful, and Rome in front of everyone. This would have hugely negative consequences ad intra and ad extra.

There is no change in the doctrinal point of view from Rome that would justify ours. On the contrary, the discussions have shown they will not accept anything in our criticisms.

It would be absurd for us to go in the direction of a practical agreement after the result of discussions and findings. Otherwise, one would think that Msgr. Riffan and Father Aulagnier were right.

Such an approach would show a serious diplomatic weakness on the part of the fraternity, and indeed, more than diplomatic. It would be a lack of consistency, honesty and firmness, which would have effects like loss of credibility and moral authority we enjoy.

IMPLOSION OF BROTHERHOOD

V. The mere fact of us down this path will lead us in doubt, dispute, distrust, parties, and especially the division. Many superiors and priests have a legitimate problem of consciousness and will oppose it. The authority and the very principle of authority will be questioned, undermined.

We can not go to the trailer in our contacts with Rome, we must keep the commands, mark the time and conditions. So we need a line defined in advance, clear and firm, independent of stress and possible maneuvers Roman.

Accordingly, it is not the moment to change the decision of the Chapter of 2006 (no practical agreement without resolving the doctrinal issue) and it is not right or prudent to embark on preparing for the senses otherwise, before there is in us the conviction, consensus and the decision to change, otherwise the only cause division and, by reaction, a little war, anarchy.

WARNING ALLOWED

VI. The warning of RP Ferrer, secretary of the Cardo Cafiizares: "Do not agree with Rome, she can not keep it promise you." We received other warnings similar to Rome.

KEEP THE LINE

So what to do, what to say?

What we have better to do this is to keep the line that has ensured the cohesion and survival of the Brotherhood and gave lots of fruits vis-à-vis Rome to the Church. They hesitate, they begin to sell their building collapses, they can not live without us... Remain steadfast in our policy and expect that there are clear conditions secure and guaranteed. As reported Bishop. Lefebvre after the coronation, it will be, unfortunately, the situation worsens at home... until they are ready to release Vatican II.

We could answer that views the outcome of the discussions, for faithfulness and loyalty to God, to our consciousness, even to the Church and to the Holy See, we can not engage in a practical way first, but as we have already said, we remain open to cooperate or participate in a study and doctrinal criticism of the Council.

FOLLOW THE PROVIDENCE

If they then cut us a break from the constant voltage means that the contacts for the Brotherhood, would be welcome and, in my view, providential. Anyway, knowing they would soon long to talk with us.

In conclusion, we must not get ahead of Providence, it is she who will solve the crisis. We must be very careful about the temptation sub specie boni , avoid the rush, wait, and only go down that path when there will be no one doubts that Rome (the Pope) wants the Tradition, they have a fair idea of it, it is prudent and that it is the will of God. We need more reasons to change that line to stay in safe and proven that we have. However, the opposite happens.

Archbishop Lefebvre said:
Without dwelling on the fact that many things were not, the focus was on the high expectations that give rise to the charismatic and Pentecostal. In Rome, they want to be convinced of that. They stubbornly closed their eyes to the catastrophe of the Council and they are trying to accomplish , on the ruin to which they are currently leading the Church. And they want us to enter into this current. If we take a step in that direction, if we submit to authority without warranty, more or less long term, two, three or five years, we will lose the tradition. But we do not want to lose it. We therefore can not submit ourselves to authorities who want us to lose the tradition.

As I have already stated, if I went to Rome to discuss, it is because I wanted to try to see if we could reach agreement with the ecclesiastical authorities, while putting us away from their liberalism and safeguarding Tradition. Force me has been clear that no agreement could be reached that gives us both warranties and the belief that Rome wanted to sincerely contribute to the preservation of tradition.

I waited until June 5 to write to the Pope: "I'm sorry, but we can not hear us. You do not have the same goal as us. By this access, ord your goal is to bring us back to the Council. Mine is rather to be able to maintain outside the Council and its influences" (Fideliter, no. 68, p. 15).


BEWARE OF DANGER!

For the good of the Brotherhood and Tradition, must be closed as quickly as possible "Pandora's box", to avoid the stigma and the demolition of the authority, disputes, dissensions and divisions, perhaps no return.

In this sense, the real question to be answered laquelie esfla: what are the other requirements, ad intra and ad extra, in the hypothetical case of a proposal "good", totally acceptable in itself, to try to make an agreement?

The authorities cited by Archbishop Lefebvre allow us to spread it with clarity and firmness.

+ Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 06, 2013, 04:27:28 AM
Source thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Father-Pfeiffer-Letter-to-Friends-and-Benefactors):

Quote from: Bernardus
From December 7, 2012

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?iqg59erkf9h3gy5






Our Lady of Mount Carmel
1730 N. Stillwell Rd., Boston Ky 40107

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

The Mayan Calendar predicts that the world will end on December 21,
2012. According to the Agence France-Press, Pope Benedict XVI’s
approach to the consummation of the world is more encouraging:

During his weekly Angelus address from the window of his Vatican
apartments on St. Peter’s Square, Benedict spoke of extracts from
the Bible that speak of ‘‘the sun and moon going out, the stars falling
from the sky’’. Several films and docuмentaries have promoted
the idea that the ancient Mayan calendar predicts that doomsday is
next month, on December 21, 2012.

But Benedict said that Jesus ‘‘does not describe the end of the world,
and when he uses apocalyptic images, he is not acting the prophet.
On the contrary, he wants to stop his disciples of every epoch from
being curious over dates, forecasts, and wants to give them the key
to ... the right road to walk today and tomorrow to enter into the
eternal life,’’ he said.

As many as 90,000 people are expected to attend a massive event in
Guatemala City on December 21, just in case the world actually does
end, while tour groups are promoting doomsday-themed getaways.
(Agence France-Presse:
 http://www.theage.com.au/world/pope-dismisses-december-doomsday-20121119-29l4q.html )

Did the Mayans have a better understanding of the world’s end than
our present Holy Father? How has it happened that the head of the
Catholic Church has said, "Jesus is not acting the prophet.”?

At least the Mayans knew the world would end in a calamity.  Pope
Benedict XVI did not affirm the teaching of the end of the world, an
essential Truth in our Credo!

2012 will not be the year of the end of the world. But was it the year
that has marked the most pivotal time in the history of our beloved
Society of St. Pius X? Has it been the year that ushered in a new era
for Tradition? Or, has it been the year in which the SSPX World of
Archbishop Lefebvre came to an end?


In the March 2012 edition of the SSPX internal publication Cor Unum,
SSPX Superior General Bishop Fellay communicated to the members of
the Fraternity that the SSPX must have a new attitude towards Rome
because things in Rome have changed. (cf. Cor Unum March 2012).

On fourteenth day of July in 2012, the General Chapter of the Society
of St. Pius X issued a Statement that was a startling departure from
the clear position of both Archbishop Lefebvre and the previous
General Chapter of 2006. The new Chapter declared: "The novelties
of the Second Vatican Council remain tainted with errors... we find
our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium.’’ Does this
‘‘Magisterium’’ include Vatican II or not? Is this not ambiguous
language? This Neo-SSPX also declared that it was ‘‘waiting for the
day when an open and serious debate [with Rome] will become
possible.’’

In the Old-SSPX world of Archbishop Lefebvre, there was not even a
thought of waiting for a ‘‘serious debate to become possible.’’ The
Old-SSPX did not wait; it condemned Vatican II and its wicked spirit
boldly, publicly, and clearly in the face of popes, bishops, priests, and
the entire world, without respect of persons. The Old-SSPX of
Archbishop Lefebvre declared Vatican II to be the fruit of a New
Conciliar Magisterium containing heresies and errors. In the Old-SSPX,
we did not "find our sure guide in (Ed. note: New Rome's)
uninterrupted Magisterium which by its teaching authority transmits
the revealed deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that
the entire Church has professed always and everywhere’’.  We simply
repeated the teaching of our Founder who said in his 1974
Declaration: ‘‘It is . . . impossible for any conscientious and faithful
Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way
whatsoever.’’ (Archbishop Lefebvre Declaration Nov. 21, 1974).

2012 was the year in which that Old-SSPX world ended in
Menzingen
(SSPX Headquarters).

The Neo-SSPX world, born officially on July 14, 2012 brought to our
chapels ambiguous language, mixing the two opposed
Magisteria into a two-in-one Magisterium — ‘‘two in one flesh.’’  The
Neo-SSPX looks at the battle between Tradition and Modernism as
a fight between spouses in a rough marriage, whereas the
Old-SSPX simply saw Modernist Rome as something "we refuse
and have always refused’’ (ABL 1974 Declaration) since such a union
was an unthinkable adultery.

The Neo-SSPX gave us new conditions to accompany its new
doctrine. ‘‘We have determined and approved the conditions for
an eventual canonical normalization.’’ It had to replace the old
condition of Roman conversion before any submission to it.
Hence six new conditions accompanied the July 14 Neo-Charter of
our Neo-SSPX including requesting of Rome the ‘‘freedom
to preach the truth’’ —  a freedom that no martyr ever asked for
(1st condition), and a willingness to submit our sheep to the
Modernist wolves (2nd ‘‘wishable’’ condition).  2012 was the year
that these new conditions of compromise replaced the Catholic
combat of Archbishop Lefebvre who considered it a most grave
obligation to preach the truth with or without permission
and
would not allow the sheep begging him for the bread of the pure
Faith to be placed under the authority of Modernist wolves.

Archbishop Lefebvre expected and hoped for nothing less than the
complete conversion of the Conciliar Rome of Modernist
Evolutionism back to the Eternal Rome of the Unchanging Holy
Roman Catholic Faith of her forefathers.

2012 marked the end of the Old-SSPX unity in the Doctrine of the
Faith which it replaced with a new unity found in the Person
of its Superior General; ‘‘united with its Superior General’’ (July 14,
2012 General Chapter Statement).

2012 was the first year of visible division within the ranks of the
SSPX. It was the year of division even among its four Bishops.
Three were against one and one against three. (April 7 and April 14
letters of the bishops to each other). This division was on the very
nature of the ongoing battle of Catholics against the modernist
heresy. The most grave sign of this division was the expulsion of
Bishop Richard Williamson, and the sidelining of Bishop Tissier, now
in unofficial ‘‘exile’’ in Chicago. It was the year of refusals of
ordinations, refusals of Communion, expulsion of priests, new
declarations, threats to the faithful, confusion in the souls of some,
fear in the souls of many, and a sorrow in the hearts of all who love
the work of the holy Archbishop Lefebvre.

2012 was the year of the adoption by the SSPX leadership of a new
language of ambiguity, and an entirely new direction. 2012
marked the year in which SSPX pulpits warned the faithful, not
against the errors and heresies of the Council, but against applying
themselves to the study of the crisis within Tradition.
2012 marked
the year when the pulpits of the SSPX were turned into organs
of dissemination of a party line, which calls for the faithful to do no
more than to trust and obey the Superiors, who have the ‘‘grace
of state’’ to know better what is the right path for all.

The pulpits of the SSPX once instructed the faithful to study the crisis
in the Church, in order to comprehend the evils of Modernism and
the New Mass, as well as to know and love the answer to
this crisis — the True Faith, the True Mass, the True Sacraments,
and the True fulfillment of Our Lady’s request at Fatima, which will
usher in the reestablishment of the Catholic social order.
In the glory days of the SSPX, chapels were opened in basements
and garages. In those basements, Grandma, her little grandchildren
and the few wayward souls in attendance would agree with the
priest’s preaching on the Only Faith which matches the world
God made; though in a Mass with the non-matching vestments.
When what the priest had said was repeated to Grandpa, whose
hearing aid wasn’t working — though all at Mass could hear its
whistle — he too would heartily agree and dream of the future of
Tradition returning to the Church in which he was baptized . . . of the
victory of Mary. . . into every corner of the world.

What happened? ‘‘I have this against thee, that thou hast left thy
first charity’’
(Apoc. 2:4).  The Lord cautioned the church of Ephesus:
‘‘Remember therefore, from whence thou hast fallen, and repent
and do the former works: or else I will come to thee, and will move
thy lamp stand out of its place, unless thou repentest.’’
(Apoc. 2:5).

What are we to do? We must continue to ‘‘work out our salvation
in fear and trembling’’ remaining true to the Faith of all time waiting
for the day of Rome's conversion through Our Lady's victory
prophesied at Fatima.

We now have a fledgling web site sspxmary.com which will be
updated as much as possible with latest Mass schedules and so on.
Another web site inthissignyoushallconquer.com will also try to keep
you up to date. Enclosed are two flyers, one ‘‘Introibo ad altare
Dei’’
on our present SSPX crisis with a look at what we must do,
namely, persevere without change in the work and line of our holy
Founder; and the other with some quotes of our Founder on ‘‘The
Roman Question.’’

There are now five priests living in the ‘‘priory of expelled padres’’ at
Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Please keep Frs. David Hewko, Francois
Chazal (from France), Arturo Vargas (from Mexico), Richard Voigt,
myself, as well as the 30 or so other priests, independents and
SSPXers, who are staying faithful in the firm line set out by Archbishop
Lefebvre for our ongoing battle against an ever-increasing Modernism
in our world,

In Christ,
[signed: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer]



Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 21, 2013, 03:49:28 PM

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+
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 23, 2013, 12:52:44 PM
Suppressed Letter of Fr. Paul Morgan
British District Superior
November, 2011

(Removed from the British SSPX website the following day)


The meeting of the Society’s superiors took place at Albano on 7-8th
October as announced in last month’s newsletter, and Bishop Fellay
did indeed use this opportunity to discuss the ‘Doctrinal Preamble’
text as received from Cardinal Levada on 14th September.
The first day of the meeting covered three issues: an overview of
the contacts with Rome since 1987; a summary of the doctrinal discussions;
and an oral exposition of the Doctrinal Preamble docuмent
itself.
With regard to the doctrinal talks it was disappointing to note that
the Roman commission failed to acknowledge the break between
traditional and conciliar teachings. Instead it insisted upon the
5
‘hermeneutic (interpretation) of continuity,’ stating that the new teachings
included and improved the old!
It was interesting to learn that the 14th September meeting had not
touched upon the doctrinal talks at all, but rather was dedicated to expounding
possible practical solutions for the Society.
So it was perhaps not surprising to learn that the proposed doctrinal
basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements
which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of
the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism.
Indeed, the docuмent itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis
in the Church...
Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal
Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly
not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal
issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should
continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts
with the Roman authorities.
In many ways we can see the hand of Providence in this meeting, falling
as it did on the Feast of the Holy Rosary, given the clarification of
Rome’s persistence in the modern errors, and the consequent necessity
of continuing with the fight against modernism through fidelity to
Catholic Tradition.
The second day of the meeting was dedicated to its original theme, that
of communications and the media.
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 03, 2013, 11:25:45 AM

      7     0     
Mosteiro da Santa Cruz
Nova Friburgo , RJ Brasil
DECLARATION
UT FIDELES INVENIAMUR

29 January 2013
St. Francis de Sales

Following the example and teachings of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as well as of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer:

We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary
to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth. We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused
to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and,
aft er the Council, in all the reforms which issued fr om it. (Archbishop Lefebvre Declaration November 21, 1974)

These words of Archbishop Lefebvre defi ne our attitude towards the Conciliar Church that beatifi ed Pope John Paul
II and declares that Pope Paul VI practiced heroic virtue. This Conciliar Church that renewed the scandal of Assisi and
reaffi rms the teachings of Vatican II is wanting to insert them into the Tradition of the Church, disregarding the teachings,
defi nitions, and condemnations of all the Popes before the Second Vatican Council. For this reason we make our own the
demands made by Archbishop Lefebvre that would verify and constitute the return of Rome to Tradition:

We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We
see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me,
but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the
position where I was put during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: Do you agree with the great
encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII,
Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and
their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council,
in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless. Th e positions will then be made
more clear. (Mgr. Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 66, November-December 1988, pp. 12-13).

Therefore, recalling the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, “without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment,” we
intend to continue our work for the defense of Tradition using all the means that Providence allows, working for the salvation
of souls, in forming candidates for the Priesthood, forming Religious, maintaining Catholic schools, helping Catholic
families and working for the return of society to submit to the sweet yoke of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of all nations
and the universe.

We appeal to all those who share the same ideal to unite with us, so that the movement going toward a disastrous submission
to Modernist Rome may not prevail in the bosom of Tradition. This direction toward Modernist Rome has been
clearly manifested in the letters, declarations, and other docuмents from the actual superiors of the Society of St. Pius X
in recent months.

With the Grace of God and the help of the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we determine to remain faithful to
the Roman Catholic Church and all the successors of St. Peter as well as Archbishop Lefebvre, in order to continue to be
“faithful dispensors of the Mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the Holy Ghost. Amen.” (I Cor. 4:1 et seq.)

(Present in Brazil)
Dom Tomas de Aquino, OSB (Brazil)
Dom Jahir Britto, FBVM (Brazil)
Fr. Ernesto Cardozo, FSSPX (Argentina)
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, FSSPX (USA)
Fr. David Hewko, FSSPX (USA)
Fr. Joaquim Daniel Maria de Sant’Ana, FBVM (Brazil)
Fr. Rene Trincado, FSSPX (Chile)

(in Absentia)
Bishop Richard Williamson, FSSPX (Great Britain)
Fr. Jean Michel Faure, FSSPX (France)
Fr Ronald Ringrose, (USA)
Fr. Richard Voigt, SDB (USA)
Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz, FSSPX (Columbia)
Fr. Brendan Dardis, (USA)
Fr. Arturo Vargas, FSSPX (Mexico)
Fr. Dominic Mary of the Pillar, OP (USA)

Attached file: Jan 29 2013 Declaration Monastery of Santa Cruz Nova Friburgo Brazil.pdf (4 downloads, 68 KB)
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 10, 2013, 01:39:39 PM
THE CURRENT CRISIS

I) DOCTRINAL TREASON


CONSIDERING


1) a) What Archbishop has said about the greatest danger to traditionalists was to put themselves in the hands of modernist Rome and b) Bishop Fellay recently saying those who want the good of the Church want also the Society of St. Pius X to be officially recognized by modernist Rome (which is the same as being put in the modernist's hands);

2) a) What Archbishop said about Rome preparing a trap by offering us every advantage we could desire to settle our situation and b) Bishop Fellay saying that to currently think this way is a lack of realism and supernatural spirit;

3) a) What Archbishop said about Benedict XVI (then Cardinal still) looking to deschristianize the world and b) Bishop Fellay saying Pope Benedict XVI takes very seriously the situation and life of the Church;

4) a) When Archbishop said he could not get along with Benedict XVI (then Cardinal) and b) Bishop Fellay getting along quite well with Benedict XVI;

5) a) When the Archbishop said that we should not put ourselves under the authority of those who do not profess the integrity of the Faith b) Bishop Fellay said that not want to put ourselves under the authority of Pope Benedict XVI (who does not profess the integrity of the Faith ) is to have schismatic and sedevacantist spirit;

6) a) What Archbishop said about a conspiracy of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ against Holy Church, in which she was infiltrated by this sect to the highest levels of the hierarchy even in Rome and b) that Bishop Fellay does not believe or does not take seriously enough these conjurations, saying that it is a too human vision of the Church, too fatalistic; seeing only the dangers, difficulties and cօռspιʀαcιҽs;

7) a) That Archbishop Lefebvre made a public manifest repudiating the ecuмenical meeting in Assisi, a grave sin of the Pope against the first commandment of God and b) that Bishop Fellay did not do the same when the current Pope repeated this sin in "Assisi III"[1];

8) a) That Archbishop has said that religious freedom sponsored by Vatican II is the height of impiety, equivalent to the principle of the state's secularism, considering the atheistic state and not taking into account the difference between truth and error and b) that Bishop Fellay has said that Vatican II presents a very limited religious liberty;

9) a) That Archbishop has said that the docuмents of Vatican II are a total perversion of the spirit and that this council was the biggest disaster of all centuries since its foundation and b) that Bishop Fellay has said that Society of St. Pius X was exaggerating Vatican II's heresies;

10) a) What Archbishop Lefebvre, in view of his experience and contacts with members of the Vatican, took from 1988 a more uncompromising position in regards a possible canonical recognition of the Society and b) that Bishop Fellay quoting Archbishop Lefebvre has been silencing this last position of his, implying that the thoughts of Archbishop Lefebvre has always been on his pronouncements before 1988.


WE JUDGE


That the way of speaking and acting of Bishop Fellay is a betrayal of the doctrinal legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre in regards the attitude to take on the current crisis in the Holy Church, and a refusal to recognize, accept and assimilate the experience of Archbishop Lefebvre in his contacts with Rome.


ON THE OTHER HAND


Some will say that Bishop Fellay recanted saying he has been deceived.


WE ANSWER


Bishop Fellay was not very clear on what he was wrong and his attitude toward those who were not deceived nor deceived him makes us think he keeps essentially the same positions as before.



II) A SPIRIT THAT IS NOT GOD


CONSIDERING


1) What has been noted in more than one occasion (as we have said in response to the objection the topic above) Bishop Fellay has spoken and acted in a contradictory manner to accomplish his purposes;


2) That this way of behaving with duplicity does forfeit the due credit of those who behaves likewise.



WE JUDGE


1) That the spirit animating Bishop Fellay is not the spirit of God, therefore we can and should judge before putting our trust and our salvation (in a certain way) in the hands of someone;


2) That he is unworthy of this confidence we normally would have for him as the highest authority within the Tradition.


III) THE MASTER BLOW OF SATAN


CONSIDERING


a) That Archbishop has said the masterstroke of Satan was to cast all Catholics in disobedience (towards the Church, Tradition and, ultimately, to Our Lord) through obedience (to the Conciliar Popes) and b) that Bishop Fellay is conducting all those associated with the SSPX to disobey Archbishop Lefebvre (and, ultimately, the Holy Church, Tradition and Our Lord) by obedience to himself.


WE JUDGE


We must resist and, moreover, publicly denounce his doctrinal deviations in order that people do not continue to be deceived, following the false path by which he is leading the Society: a spirit of sympathy towards the present Pope; of decreased aversion of Vatican II; of desiring to join the "Conciliar Church", identifying it with the Holy Catholic Church; the decrease in fighting the progressivists.


IV) REBELLION? NO. JUST RESISTANCE? YES!


CONSIDERING


1) That the members of the SSPX who publicly oppose the new orientation and doctrines of Bishop Fellay are being expelled from the Society for this very reason;


2) This being the cause, the so called expulsion is unfair because the attitude of these members are just;


3) That being unfair, this expulsion is invalid;


4) And being this expulsion invalid, by right and before God they remain true members of the Society of St. Pius X.


WE JUDGE


That these members of the SSPX should not be considered as rebels but on the contrary, as faithful children of Archbishop Lefebvre, who before the Conciliar Popes had the same attitude that they are now having towards Bishop Fellay.


V} THE ACTUAL AND VERY GRAVE SITUATION OF HOLY CHURCH


CONSIDERING


1) That lately on the doctrinal talks, we witnessed the incompatibility of Church doctrine with the doctrine of the current holders of authority in Rome;


2) That Benedict XVI renewed in 2011 the ecuмenical meeting in Assisi;


3) That Benedict XVI beatified Pope John Paul II;


4) That Benedict XVI said in 2012 that any renewal of the Church should be based on the deepening of the docuмents of Vatican II;


5) That Benedict XVI signed in 2012 the decree of "heroic virtues" (?) of Paul VI;


6) That the Principality of Liechtenstein in late 2012 was in the process of ceasing to be an officially Catholic State due to the pressure from the doctrine of the Council on Religious Liberty;


7) That the two signals in which Archbishop Lefebvre recognized he should consecrate bishops without the Pope's permission were an ecuмenical meeting in Assisi and the reaffirmation of the errors of Vatican II on religious freedom by Rome.


WE JUDGE


That the current situation of the Church is very serious, similar (or worse) of that we found ourselves in 1988, contrary to what Bishop Fellay affirm.


VI) A DRASTIC REMEDY FOR A DRASTIC EVIL



CONSIDERING


1) That those who remain in the SSPX are in tremendous need to choose between remaining silent or being expelled for opposing the current direction imposed by Bishop Fellay;


2) That the work of Archbishop Lefebvre should not become extinct because of this new direction;


3) That Bp. Williamson alone is unable to meet all the appeals of the priests and faithful throughout the world, to administer the sacraments and give them sound doctrine, as received from the Archbishop;


4) That the same reasons that led the Archbishop to make the consecrations of 1988 exist today and therefore currently justify new episcopal consecrations for Tradition without permission of the Pope.


WE JUDGE


That is most convenient that Bp. Williamson proceeds in a timely fashion to these consecrations, for the good of the Church, waiting for better days, when things will normalize.


It's up to him to set the most convenient time and to do it.


Arsenius



[1] Please note that these meetings have taken place regularly after 1986, almost every year in different places with the participation of members of the Conciliar Church.

The Current Crisis
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 10, 2013, 01:40:12 PM
THE CURRENT CRISIS

I) DOCTRINAL TREASON


CONSIDERING


1) a) What Archbishop has said about the greatest danger to traditionalists was to put themselves in the hands of modernist Rome and b) Bishop Fellay recently saying those who want the good of the Church want also the Society of St. Pius X to be officially recognized by modernist Rome (which is the same as being put in the modernist's hands);

2) a) What Archbishop said about Rome preparing a trap by offering us every advantage we could desire to settle our situation and b) Bishop Fellay saying that to currently think this way is a lack of realism and supernatural spirit;

3) a) What Archbishop said about Benedict XVI (then Cardinal still) looking to deschristianize the world and b) Bishop Fellay saying Pope Benedict XVI takes very seriously the situation and life of the Church;

4) a) When Archbishop said he could not get along with Benedict XVI (then Cardinal) and b) Bishop Fellay getting along quite well with Benedict XVI;

5) a) When the Archbishop said that we should not put ourselves under the authority of those who do not profess the integrity of the Faith b) Bishop Fellay said that not want to put ourselves under the authority of Pope Benedict XVI (who does not profess the integrity of the Faith ) is to have schismatic and sedevacantist spirit;

6) a) What Archbishop said about a conspiracy of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ against Holy Church, in which she was infiltrated by this sect to the highest levels of the hierarchy even in Rome and b) that Bishop Fellay does not believe or does not take seriously enough these conjurations, saying that it is a too human vision of the Church, too fatalistic; seeing only the dangers, difficulties and cօռspιʀαcιҽs;

7) a) That Archbishop Lefebvre made a public manifest repudiating the ecuмenical meeting in Assisi, a grave sin of the Pope against the first commandment of God and b) that Bishop Fellay did not do the same when the current Pope repeated this sin in "Assisi III"[1];

8) a) That Archbishop has said that religious freedom sponsored by Vatican II is the height of impiety, equivalent to the principle of the state's secularism, considering the atheistic state and not taking into account the difference between truth and error and b) that Bishop Fellay has said that Vatican II presents a very limited religious liberty;

9) a) That Archbishop has said that the docuмents of Vatican II are a total perversion of the spirit and that this council was the biggest disaster of all centuries since its foundation and b) that Bishop Fellay has said that Society of St. Pius X was exaggerating Vatican II's heresies;

10) a) What Archbishop Lefebvre, in view of his experience and contacts with members of the Vatican, took from 1988 a more uncompromising position in regards a possible canonical recognition of the Society and b) that Bishop Fellay quoting Archbishop Lefebvre has been silencing this last position of his, implying that the thoughts of Archbishop Lefebvre has always been on his pronouncements before 1988.


WE JUDGE


That the way of speaking and acting of Bishop Fellay is a betrayal of the doctrinal legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre in regards the attitude to take on the current crisis in the Holy Church, and a refusal to recognize, accept and assimilate the experience of Archbishop Lefebvre in his contacts with Rome.


ON THE OTHER HAND


Some will say that Bishop Fellay recanted saying he has been deceived.


WE ANSWER


Bishop Fellay was not very clear on what he was wrong and his attitude toward those who were not deceived nor deceived him makes us think he keeps essentially the same positions as before.



II) A SPIRIT THAT IS NOT GOD


CONSIDERING


1) What has been noted in more than one occasion (as we have said in response to the objection the topic above) Bishop Fellay has spoken and acted in a contradictory manner to accomplish his purposes;


2) That this way of behaving with duplicity does forfeit the due credit of those who behaves likewise.



WE JUDGE


1) That the spirit animating Bishop Fellay is not the spirit of God, therefore we can and should judge before putting our trust and our salvation (in a certain way) in the hands of someone;


2) That he is unworthy of this confidence we normally would have for him as the highest authority within the Tradition.


III) THE MASTER BLOW OF SATAN


CONSIDERING


a) That Archbishop has said the masterstroke of Satan was to cast all Catholics in disobedience (towards the Church, Tradition and, ultimately, to Our Lord) through obedience (to the Conciliar Popes) and b) that Bishop Fellay is conducting all those associated with the SSPX to disobey Archbishop Lefebvre (and, ultimately, the Holy Church, Tradition and Our Lord) by obedience to himself.


WE JUDGE


We must resist and, moreover, publicly denounce his doctrinal deviations in order that people do not continue to be deceived, following the false path by which he is leading the Society: a spirit of sympathy towards the present Pope; of decreased aversion of Vatican II; of desiring to join the "Conciliar Church", identifying it with the Holy Catholic Church; the decrease in fighting the progressivists.


IV) REBELLION? NO. JUST RESISTANCE? YES!


CONSIDERING


1) That the members of the SSPX who publicly oppose the new orientation and doctrines of Bishop Fellay are being expelled from the Society for this very reason;


2) This being the cause, the so called expulsion is unfair because the attitude of these members are just;


3) That being unfair, this expulsion is invalid;


4) And being this expulsion invalid, by right and before God they remain true members of the Society of St. Pius X.


WE JUDGE


That these members of the SSPX should not be considered as rebels but on the contrary, as faithful children of Archbishop Lefebvre, who before the Conciliar Popes had the same attitude that they are now having towards Bishop Fellay.


V} THE ACTUAL AND VERY GRAVE SITUATION OF HOLY CHURCH


CONSIDERING


1) That lately on the doctrinal talks, we witnessed the incompatibility of Church doctrine with the doctrine of the current holders of authority in Rome;


2) That Benedict XVI renewed in 2011 the ecuмenical meeting in Assisi;


3) That Benedict XVI beatified Pope John Paul II;


4) That Benedict XVI said in 2012 that any renewal of the Church should be based on the deepening of the docuмents of Vatican II;


5) That Benedict XVI signed in 2012 the decree of "heroic virtues" (?) of Paul VI;


6) That the Principality of Liechtenstein in late 2012 was in the process of ceasing to be an officially Catholic State due to the pressure from the doctrine of the Council on Religious Liberty;


7) That the two signals in which Archbishop Lefebvre recognized he should consecrate bishops without the Pope's permission were an ecuмenical meeting in Assisi and the reaffirmation of the errors of Vatican II on religious freedom by Rome.


WE JUDGE


That the current situation of the Church is very serious, similar (or worse) of that we found ourselves in 1988, contrary to what Bishop Fellay affirm.


VI) A DRASTIC REMEDY FOR A DRASTIC EVIL



CONSIDERING


1) That those who remain in the SSPX are in tremendous need to choose between remaining silent or being expelled for opposing the current direction imposed by Bishop Fellay;


2) That the work of Archbishop Lefebvre should not become extinct because of this new direction;


3) That Bp. Williamson alone is unable to meet all the appeals of the priests and faithful throughout the world, to administer the sacraments and give them sound doctrine, as received from the Archbishop;


4) That the same reasons that led the Archbishop to make the consecrations of 1988 exist today and therefore currently justify new episcopal consecrations for Tradition without permission of the Pope.


WE JUDGE


That is most convenient that Bp. Williamson proceeds in a timely fashion to these consecrations, for the good of the Church, waiting for better days, when things will normalize.


It's up to him to set the most convenient time and to do it.


Arsenius



[1] Please note that these meetings have taken place regularly after 1986, almost every year in different places with the participation of members of the Conciliar Church.

The Current Crisis
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: MaterDominici on February 11, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
In reference to the above post:
Quote from: Chiara
Arsenius is a monk of Holy Cross Benedictine Monastery in Brazil
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 16, 2013, 08:55:47 AM
Eleison Comments:
Bishop Williamson Condemns Menzingen Treachery
Contact Information for all Society Priests Given to Rome!



DI NOIA, ANNOYER

Two months ago the Vice-president of Rome’s Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei addressed to the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X and to all its priests a letter of several pages, accessible on the Internet, which Fr. Lombardi as spokesman for the Holy See called a “personal appeal”. The letter has been raising comments ever since. It is clearly the latest move in Rome’s campaign to bring the SSPX to heel, and put an end to its 40-year resistance to the Conciliar Revolution. As Bishop de Galarreta said in October of 2011, even if the SSPX turns down Rome’s offers, still Rome will keep coming back. Sure enough. But let us see briefly what Archbishop Di Noia has to say to “Your Excellency and dear Priestly Brothers of the Society of St Pius X”:--

He begins by admonishing Society leaders, notably Fr Schmidberger, Fr Pfluger and Bishop Fellay (in that order) for giving interviews so critical of Rome as to call in question whether the SSPX really wants reconciliation with Rome. Moreover, doctrinal differences are as intractable as ever between the SSPX and Rome. So he calls for a new approach, focusing on unity instead.

Church unity is hindered by four vices and promoted by the four opposing virtues of humility, mildness, patience and charity. Dividers of the Church are enemies of God. All we need is love. Away then with “harsh and unproductive rhetoric”. Let the SSPX fulfil its charism of forming priests, but priests who will be docile to the official Magisterium, who will preach the Faith and not polemics, and who will treat theological problems not in front of untrained layfolk but with the competent authorities in Rome. The Pope is the supreme judge of such difficult questions. In conclusion, Benedict XVI does want reconciliation. Bitterness must be healed. In Our Lord’s words, “Let them be one.” (End of the Archbishop’s letter.)

Notice in passing how, typically for modern man and for modernists, the Archbishop brackets out the essential question of doctrine, but this letter’s main interest lies elsewhere : how could the Archbishop have dared to address it to all SSPX priests without prior collusion with SSPX HQ ? It served him by forwarding the letter to all SSPX priests ! Here is one indication amongst many others that there are contacts between Rome and SSPX HQ that are kept from public view. But the question then arises, what motive can SSPX HQ have had to give to the modernist Archbishop such privileged and dangerous access to all SSPX priests ? Does it want them to become modernists also ? Surely not ! But it may well want to help Rome towards “reconciliation”.

By transmitting the Archbishop’s loving appeal, SSPX HQ gets the sweet message through to all SSPX priests without anybody being able to accuse HQ itself of going soft. On the contrary, the Roman letter makes them all see how nice the Romans are. True, there is a gentle rebuke to the SSPX leaders for not being nice, but that will serve to show how these are standing firm in defence of the Faith ! Above all, the letter will have served as a trial balloon, to test the priests’ reactions. What are they thinking ? Both Rome and Menzingen need to calculate at what point to go ahead with a “reconciliation” such as will carry with it a large majority of the priests, and not alienate so many that organized resistance to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr religion will continue.

Dear SSPX priests, if you do not want to be swallowed alive by New Order Rome, I gently advise you to react. Let your Superiors know, as discretely as you like but in no uncertain terms, that you want nothing, but nothing, to do with Conciliar Rome, until it clearly abandons the Council.

Kyrie eleison.

Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 28, 2013, 07:57:44 PM
Letter of 37 Priests of the French District
Biggest bombshell since the "Letter of the Three Bishops"
Translated by new Cathinfo member "Vincent" on 2-28-13


Here is my translation : I think English-speaking people might well understand it. English is not my mother tong, but French. The SSPX might be at the eve of the biggest earthquake of its history. Funny that this letter is written just when Pope Benedict XVI resigns. The Providence is watching on us and "everything is grace", even when everything seems lost. Regards.

To Bishop Bernard Fellay

Your Excellency,

As you wrote it recently: "the links which unite us are essentially supernatural". However, you rightly reminded us that the requirements of nature must nevertheless not be forgotten. "Grace does not destroy nature". Among these requirements, there is truthfulness. Yet, these last months, we notice that a part of the problems with which we were confronted come from a grave negligence to this virtue (truthfulness).

Ten years ago, as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, you said:
"Never shall I agree to say: "in the Council, if we interpret it well, if we make it match with Tradition, we could find an acceptable sense." Never shall I agree to say that. That would be a lie; it is not allowed to tell a lie, even if it was a question of saving the Church." (Gastines, September 16th, 2012).

But since then, you changed:
"The whole Tradition of the catholic faith has to be the criterion and the guide to understand the teachings of the Vatican II Council, which in its turn enlightens certain aspects of the life and the doctrine of the Church, implicitly present in her, not formulated yet. The assertions of the Vatican II Council and of the Papal Magistery relative to the relation between the Roman Catholic Church and the non-Catholic and Christian confessions must be understood in the light of the whole Tradition." (St-Joseph-des-Carmes, June 5th, 2012).

At Brignoles, in May 2012, you spoke about this docuмent which "suited Rome" but that "will need to be explained to us because there are statements which are so much on the ridge line that if you have an apprehension or following you put dark or pink glasses, you see them as this or that". Since then, you justified your position in the following way:

"If we can accept to be “condemned" for our rejection of modernism (which is true), we cannot accept being so because we would subscribed to the sedevancantist theses (which is false); it is what led me to draft a "minimalist" text which took into account only one of both statements and which, therefore, could leave misunderstanding in the SSPX." (Corn Unum 102) "Obviously, when I wrote this text, I thought it was clear enough, that I did enough to avoid - how to say? - the ambiguities. But the facts are there; I am well obligated to see that this text had become a text which divided us, us in the Society. I naturally remove it." (Ecône September 7th, 2012).

You are thus a misunderstood person who, by condescension, remove a very delicate text which narrow spirits were incapable to understand. This version of the facts is skillful but is it fair? Removing a docuмent and retracting a doctrinal error are not formally the same things. Furthermore, to call the sedevancantist "theses" to justify this "minimalist" docuмent which "suited Rome" seems very well out of place, when at the same time, and for more than thirteen years, you let a priest not quote the name of the pope in the canon, confiding him you understand his choice in front of the scandalous signature of a common docuмent between Catholics and Protestants.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais confided a colleague that this "Letter of April 14th" should never be published because, according to him, you would be "definitively compromised and probably forced to the resignation." Which confirms Bishop Williamson's charitable warning: "for the glory of God, for the salvation of souls, for the peace of mind of the Society members and for your eternal salvation, you’d better resign than exclude me." (London, October 19th, 2012) Nevertheless, you took it for an open and public provocation.

But when Bishop de Galarreta declared, on October 13th 2012 at Villepreux this incredible sentence we can hear but not read because La Porte Latine omitted the on-line transcription: "it is almost impossible that the majority of the Superiors of the Society - after frank discussion, complete analysis of all the aspects, all the ins and outs - it is unthinkable that this majority makes a mistake in a prudential material. And if by chance, it happens, too bad anyway,we are going to do what the majority thinks", in Menzingen, the General Secretary, Father Thouvenot, wrote that he "explained the events of June 2012 with recoil and rise".

How was the Society able to fall so low? Archbishop Lefebvre himself wrote: "in the day of the judgment, God will ask us if we were faithful and not if we obeyed unfaithful authorities. The obedience is a virtue related to the Truth and to God. It is no longer a virtue but a vice if it submits itself to the error and to the evil." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter of August 9th, 1986), And Father Berto wrote in 1963: "we have to ‘see further than the end of our noses’, and not imagine that we believe in the Holy Spirit and follow him as far as we believe in the Council ".

During the conference of November 9th, 2012 in Paris, a prior asked you: "at the end of the priestly retreat, two colleagues accused me of being in revolt against your authority because I showed some satisfaction about the text of Father de Cacqueray against Assisi III. What do you think?" Your answer was: "I ignored that there were such things in the Society. I did ask for this statement (of Father de Cacqueray). Moreover, it was published with my permission. I completely agree with Father de Cacqueray." Yet, during the sisters’ retreat at Ruffec, you confided six priests that you did not agree with the text of Father de Cacqueray. Moreover, you complained to him about the criticism that cardinal Levada, for 20mn, did to you about that subject. If you gave him the permission to publish it, it was, did you explain, not to look partial, but you personally disapproved of the contents which you considered excessive. Your Excellency, who does use "fundamentally subversive" means? Who is revolutionary? Who does harm the common good of our society?

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

Your language has become endlessly vague. This ambiguous way of expressing oneself is not praiseworthy as Father Calmel wrote: "I always loathed the soft or elusive expressions, which can be pulled in all directions, which each one is capable of having meant what he wants. And those expressions are in horror to me, as they cover themselves with ecclesiastical authorities. These expressions appear to me a direct insult to the one who said: "I am the Truth … You are the light of the world. Let your word be yes if it is yes, no if it is not … "

Lord, you and your Assistants were capable of saying everything and its opposite without fear of the ridicule.

Father Nély, in April 2012 in Toulouse, declared to several priests that "if the doctrinal relations with Rome failed, it is because our theologians were too pushy" but he said to one of these theologians:" you would have been able to be more incisive."

Yourself, on November 9th, 2012, you asserted us: "I am going to make you laugh, but I really think that us, four bishops, share the same opinions." Whereas six months before, you wrote them: "about the crucial question of the possibility of surviving in the conditions of a recognition of the Society by Rome, we do not arrive at the same conclusion as you."

In the same retreat conference at Ecône, you declared: "I don’t think that I did not to go against the chapter of 2006 by doing what I did." A short moment after this statement, about the Chapter of 2012: "if it is the Chapter which sets the rules, it is this law which is valid until the next Chapter." When we know that in March 2012, without waiting for the next Chapter, you destroyed the law of that of 2006 (“no practical agreement without doctrinal solution”), we wonder about the sincerity of the comment.

In Villepreux, one of your brothers in the episcopate invited us "not to dramatize. The tragedy would be to to give up the Faith. One should not ask for a perfection which is not of this world. You should not quibble over these questions. It is necessary to see if the essentials are there or not. "

It is true, you did not become Mohammedan (1st commandment), you did not take woman (6th commandment), you simply maneuvered the reality (8th commandment). But are the essentials always here when the ambiguities touch the combat of the faith? Nobody asks you for a perfection which is not of this world. We can well conceive that we make a mistake in front of the mystery of iniquity, because even the chosen ones of God could be deceived, but nobody can accept a double language. Certainly, the big denial, predicted by the Holy Writings, can only disturb us. Who can claim to be unhurt from the traps of the devil? But why deceive us? To every sin mercy, of course. But where are the acts which show the conscience, the regret and the repair of the errors?

You said in front of the priors of France: "I am tired of those quarrels of words". Maybe there lies the problem. Who does prevent you from going to rest at Montgardin and enjoy the joys of hidden life there? Rome always used a clear language. Mgr. Lefebvre too. You too in the past. But today, you maintain a confusion by identifying illegally "the Roman Catholic Church, eternal Rome"and"the official Church, modernist and conciliar Rome". Yet, on no account, you can’t change the nature of our combat. If you do not want to fulfill this mission anymore, you have to, as well as your assistants, give up the responsibility that the Society entrusted you with.

Well, Father Pfluger says he personally suffers from the canonical irregularity of the Society. He confided a colleague in June 2012 "to have been shaken by the doctrinal discussions". At the end of his conference at Saint Joseph des Carmes, he said in a contemptuous way to whom wanted to hear him: "amazing that there is still some people who do not understand it is necessary to sign!". On April 29th 2012 in Hattersheim, after admitting that "the past events proved that the differences concerning the doctrinal questions cannot be filled", he said that he feared "new excommunications". But how can we be afraid of the excommunication of modernists already excommunicated by the Church?

At Suresnes, Father Nély, on the occasion of a meal for the benefactors announcing that " the Pope had put an end to the relationship with the Society by asking for the recognition of the Mass and the Vatican II Council" added that "Bishop Felay was on his small cloud, it was impossible to make him get it down again". But did Father Nély not sign the monstrous letter to three bishops too? Was he not "on its small cloud" too when, in Fanjeaux, he declared to the Mother Superior, worried about an ultimatum of Rome: "no, feel reassured, everything goes well with Rome, their canonists help us to prepare the statutes of the prelacy … "

Can you say, in conscience that you and your assistants assumed your responsibilities? After so many contradictory and harmful comments, how can you be able to claim? Who did harm the authority of the General Superior, yourself and your Assistants? How can you claim to speak about justice after hurting it? "What truth can go out of the mouth of the liar?" (Eccli. 34, 4). Who did sow ill-feeling? Who was subversive by lying? Who did scandalize priests and faithful? Who did mutilate the Society by decreasing its episcopal strength? What can well be a charity without the honor and justice?

We know that we shall be blamed for not respecting the forms by writing you so publicly. Our answer will then be the one of Father de Foucauld to General Laperrine: "I had believed by entering the religious life that I would have to recommend the sweetness and the humility; in time, I believe that what is mostly lacking, it is Often the dignity and pride." (Letter of December 6th 1915). And what's the use to write you in private when we know that a brave and lucid priest had to wait four years to have a reply from you and it was not to read responses but insults. When a District Superior is still waiting for the acknowledgement of receipt of its letter of seventeen pages sent to the General House, it seems that Menzingen does not have other argument than the voluntarism anymore: "sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas ".

Your Excellency, what we go through the moment is obnoxious. The evangelic righteousness has been lost: the Est est, non, non. The Chapter of 2012 did not clarify at all the situation. Father Faure, a chapter member, recently warned us publicly against "letters and statements of current superiors of the Society these last months"? Another one said to a colleague: "it is necessary to recognize that the Chapter failed. Today it is OK for a free Society in the conciliar Church. I was devastated by the level of reflection of some chapter members. "

Your interventions and those of your Assistants are shady and let us believe that you operated only a simple strategic recoil.

At the end of 2011, an assistant with a priest favorable to the agreement had tried to estimate the number of priests, in France, who would refuse an agreement with Rome. Their result: seven. Menzingen was reassured. In March 2012, you said that Mr. Guenois of Le Figaro was a very well informed journalist and that his vision of things was fair. Yet, Mr. Guenois wrote: "whether we want it or not, the pope and Bishop Fellay don’t want a doctrinal but ecclesial agreement ". In May 2012, you told the Superiors of the Benedictines, Dominicans and capuchins: "we know that there will be some breakage, but we will continue till the end". In June the ecclesial agreement was impossible. Nevertheless, in October, 2012, in the priory of Brussels, diocesan priests invited by Father Wailliez showed you their wish to see an agreement between Rome and the Society. You reassured them by these words: "yes, yes, that is going to be soon made"? It was three months after the chapter of July.

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

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

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

February 28th 2013
37 priests of the SSPX
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 01, 2013, 09:14:10 AM
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.  

Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Matthew on March 01, 2013, 07:59:19 PM
Letter of 37 French priests to Bishop Fellay:
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on March 03, 2013, 11:42:49 AM
Declaration of Fr Arizaga (O.S.B - Silver City)
Doctrine Over Obedience
Copied/Pasted from "The Recusant"



I declare that I am a servant of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Most Holy Virgin Mary of Guadalupe, and of the father of Our Lord, St. Joseph, and that I desire to live and die for love of Him. Moved by this attitude I am writing this public declaration in order to make clear the reasons for my actions, actions in which I do not believe I have been moved by rebellion or personal interest or anything else other than love of doctrine and charity.



The motive for my actions has been the words of Garrigou Lagrange: 



"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not beleive; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."



The Catholic principles which we have received from Abp. Lefebvre are the motor, the heart, the raison d'etre of the SSPX, the greatest treasure which we have inherited from him, and through which we have received the Catholic religion in all its force and integrity. Love of this doctrine has led me to trust in a special way the teaching of Bp. Williamson. His advice wisely guided me to continue in my beloved monastery of Silver City and foster a monastic life of fidelity, knowing that this is the best way of serving the Church in the sublime Benedictine vocation. Intolerance regarding principles necessarily moved me to lean on Bishop Williamson, while tolerance in charity led me to continue in my beloved monastery. Unfortunately, my superiors have decided that this way of living is not possible. On Sunday 24th February, the doors of my monastery were closed to me, to my great surprise. My crime? Following Bishop Williamson. I do not wish to attack my monastery, nor my spiritual father Dom Cyprian; they are not modernists; their intention is to give everything to God and to be holy, and their generosity is beyond question. The problem rather lies in a failure to grasp what the greatness of doctrine means: the priority of doctrine above everything else. Doctrine which is foud solidly grounded in Bp. Williamson, especially though not uniquely. This has been demonstrated by the fact that his teaching and his Eleison Comments have never ben refuted. This love of doctrine means that the condemnation of Bp. Williamson also falls upon me: I have been his friend and his son, that was my sin. My search for wisdom through spiritual direction, with no desire to leave my monastery, only to be confirmed in the faith and to continue my defense of the faith as a soldier of Jesus Christ ought, in order thus to better help the monastery, this was the cause of my expulsion.



Charity requires me not to condemn either the SSPX or the monastery of Silver City, only God can judge, I forgive all the injustice perpatrated against me. At the same time, I beg forgiveness of all those whom I have offended, especially Dom. Cyprian, whom I shall never cease loving and for whom I continue to pray specially, hoping that Divine Providence reunites us again. I declare myself to be the enemy of nobody. I merely declare that I am intolerant of sin, and an enemy of liberal doctrine, sin against the First Commandment, since liberalism is a blasphemy in practice, which without doubt has infiltrated into various parts of the SSPX.



In charity for my poor soul, please implore the infinite mercy of God, and to all of you, my brothers in the Faith, I appeal to your fraternal charity to pray a great deal for your poor servant. 



With the help of God we will soon open a new monastery, and from now on I am asking for your help. We will receive all Catholics who are intolerant in doctrine but tolerant in charity.





Yours forever in Our Holy Father St. Joseph,







Fr. Raphael Arizaga, OSB



Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on March 04, 2013, 02:38:43 PM
37 Priests Defend Their Anonymity
Communiqué of La Sapinière about the letter to Bishop Fellay March 4th 2013

Whatever thinks Jacques-Régis du Cray, the February 28th letter to Bishop Fellay was written by some Society priests of the district of France.

Mr. Ennemond (Jacques-Régis du Cray), who claims he knows the SSPX well, stated that no priest of the district could have acted this way. He is mistaken; not all the priests share the ideas of Father Lorans or Célier. Some writers of his forum Fecit believed they could blame us for our anonymity. This is laughable when we know how Mr. Jacques-Régis du Cray uses and abuses it [anonymity].

Mr. Jacques-Régis du Cray put our bravery into question. Anonymity is not necessarily a sign of cowardice. To publicly resist the lies of our Superior General, we think opportune not to leave the Society. As Archbishop Lefebvre reminded to Dom Thomas Aquinas, prior of the Santa Cruz Monastery in Brazil, after the rallying of le Barroux (French Benedictine Monastery in Provence): “the goods of the Church belong to Christ the King, one shouldn’t sell them off and hand them over to the enemies of his universal reign”.

Anonymity is not an escape from the cross, as Father de Cacqueray [district superior] thinks in a fax sent to all the priests of the district on March 1st 2013. We bear the cross. It is even a heavy one. For a recent time, the meditation of the anguish of the heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ facing the betrayal of Judas has been deeper and renewed our inner priestly life.

We have met some cries of horror from liberals and ‘agreementists’.  We understand them without agreeing with them. They had an idol that they took for a saint and they realize he is a liar. They wanted his policy of rallying Rome to be saint because they shared his liberalism. Rather than submitting to the facts, they preferred to deny them. They don’t want to see the lies because they don’t want to set the conclusion that this policy doesn’t come from the good spirit.

Yes, liberalism is a sin that ends up making blind its people. Those cries of horror are only hypocritical. One takes offense of an anonymous letter which denounces the repeated deceptions in a serious matter, of a superior towards his inferiors, but one doesn’t want to take offense of the lie itself. This is backward. For them, subversion doesn’t involve lying but denouncing a lie. What strange morals!

Father de Cacqueray, who is not liberal, but who is rather victim of his benevolence, in the fax, blames us for our “objectively destructive behavior”. But, we may wonder what is objectively destructive, lying or denouncing the very lie?

Father de Cacqueray thinks ludicrous the number of 37 priests agreeing with this letter. This is amazing to us, because he knows more than anyone else the number of priests who showed him their total loss of confidence toward the General Superior and his Council, is over that number. Moreover, the value of the facts doesn’t rely on the signers but on the trustworthy eye witnesses, mentioned in a circuмstanced way. At last, Father de Cacqueray thinks also ludicrous the judgment of this Chapter member: “It is necessary to recognize that the [General] Chapter failed. Today it is okay to have a liberated Society [of St. Pius X] inside the Conciliar Church”.

Father de Cacqueray invites us to have a “frank and respectful” attitude toward the superiors. But we then ask him how long we will have to put up with lies directed to us and the faithful?

Your Excellency, dear colleagues, dear faithful, an original version received by all the Society priests on January 24th 2009 that we had to read on the pulpit, said: « the decree of January 21st quotes the letter of December 15th to Castrillon Cardinal Hoyos in which I expressed our attachment “to the Church of O. L. Jesus-Christ that is the Catholic Church”, stating our acceptance to its bi-millenary teachings and our faith in the primacy of Peter. I reminded how much we suffer from the current situation of the Church where this teaching and this primacy are trod, and added: “we are ready to write the credo with our blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of the faith of Pius IV; we accept and make ours all the Council until Vatican II, about which we make some reservations.”

But, several days later, this passage has become:
“We are ready to write the credo with our blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of the faith of Pius IV; we accept and make ours all the Council until Vatican I. But we can only make some reservations about the Vatican II Council, which wanted to be a “different one” from the others.

How to justify such a difference? Back then, Bishop Fellay said to the priors that it was a mistake of the Secretary General who, by working the whole night, made that mistake. But, eventually, after deleting the first version, the corrected version was published, the very one which is now on all the websites of the Society, … Today, we know that this is the first text which was the thought of Bishop Fellay because he seeks to submit to the official Church. On the 29th of October 2009, the editor-in-chief of the Osservatore Vaticano, Vini Ganimara, published an article entitled: “strengths and weaknesses of the diplomacy of Bishop Fellay”. In it, we read:

Bishop Fellay knew how to take up a moderate language, language which has his past statements forgotten, not like the aggressive speeches of the other bishops of the SSPX, and which takes weapons away from the episcopal “public opinion” (in Germany for instance), trying to captivate the good will of the pope. This third point – decisive, for there is no negotiation without compromises on both sides - shows its diplomatic capacities, at the same time as the weakness of his possibility to maneuver. I quote an example:  after the lift of the the excommunications, he sent a “letter to the faithful” by fax to all the priories of the world (24 january 2009), containing the quotation of his own letter to Castrillon Cardinal Hoyos (15 December 2008) which allowed the lift of the sanctions: “we accept and make ours all the Council until Vatican I. But we can only make some reservations about the Vatican II Council, etc…” This is the first version that received Cardinal Hoyos. The 2nd version is not a fake: this is a translation useful for the public opinion of the SSPX.”

http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/dos-articulos-de-vini-ganimara-y-un-recuerdo/

Bishop Fellay and the communication of the General House lied in the past, they lied again recently in their communiqué; why believe they will stop doing so in the future?  This scandal and this mascarade have lasted too long. They have to stop and they will stop.

La Sapinière
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on March 08, 2013, 11:06:19 AM
Correction about the Communiqué of the District Superior of France on the letter to Bishop Fellay of February 28th

A letter, shared by 37 priests of the district of France has well been posted on the website of La Sapinière. The truths that they contain displeased very much the General House, which decided to punish three priests among the thirty-seven ones. Their crime: not supporting the lies of the General House.

It [the General House] commands them, based on the canon 2331 § 2 to stop their ministry and to be quarantined until the next lawsuit, where the one we accuse will also become our judge. It means that Bishop Fellay will be judge and party at the same time.

We don’t know any canon of the law of the Church which permits to lie. On the other hand, We know the 8th commandment of God which forbids it.

All the contents of the letter of the 28th of February is true and verifiable. The General House, embarrassed, first said it was a fake, that this letter couldn’t come from priests. In front of such facts [described by the letter], it is well aimed [by Father de Cacqueray] to have people believe “it was just a confabulation”.

We have nothing “against the authority of the Society”, to which we owe everything; we just want the General House to stop misrepresenting the truth and being in favor for a practical liberalism.

Whatever they say, there is not but “a few priests” who wish “the resignation of their superiors”!

Three priests have been punished, of course, but this doesn’t change anything to the facts. The whole problem is still there. We refuse the accusation of the General Secretary. We have always justified our sources. We have committed no slander, no defamation, no hodgepodge. If we are decided to reveal the evil done by the General Superior and his assistants, this is only after asking (and praying) Saint Thomas and the moral authorities of the Society. Our aim is to have this scandal of the blurry and ambiguous policy of the General House stopped.

Our “attitude” is not grounded on “nothing objective”, on the contrary! We have not been “moved by irrational distrust against the authority of the Society”. The reasons of our worries are not only reasoned but have good arguments and summed up in the “catechism of the crisis in the Society”.

We don’t doubt of the doctrinal rectitude of the District Superior of France, but we notice that he is no more free to write what he thinks.  He has to twist his conscience in order to exempt his Superior from his deviations, so that he may be able to preach the doctrine.

Without the letter of February 28 of the 37 priests, would Bishop Fellay have given this conference in Nantes on March 1st in this way?

Would the letter to friends and benefactors of the month of March have obtained the permission for publication from Menzingen, without this “gratitude to him for this courageous refusal that he addressed to the pope”. Here we are no longer in the doctrinal rectitude but in the swamps of diplomacy.

La Sapinière will continue its work. Est est, Non non!

We hate nobody, neither Bishop Fellay, though his duplicity scares us, nor Father de Cacqueray to whom we have the highest esteem. But to both of them, and to all the chapter members who, instead of truly solving the problem at the Chapter back then in July 2012, only hid and backed it, we say to them those words of the Lieutenant Degueldre to his executioners, before being shot: “I don’t hate you, I just feel sorry for you.”

Father Olivier Rioult>, SSPX
One the 3 punished priests
Posted Today, 4:03 pm   
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on March 08, 2013, 11:08:45 AM
Correction about the Communiqué of the District Superior of France on the letter to Bishop Fellay of February 28th

A letter, shared by 37 priests of the district of France has well been posted on the website of La Sapinière. The truths that they contain displeased very much the General House, which decided to punish three priests among the thirty-seven ones. Their crime: not supporting the lies of the General House.

It [the General House] commands them, based on the canon 2331 § 2 to stop their ministry and to be quarantined until the next lawsuit, where the one we accuse will also become our judge. It means that Bishop Fellay will be judge and party at the same time.

We don’t know any canon of the law of the Church which permits to lie. On the other hand, We know the 8th commandment of God which forbids it.

All the contents of the letter of the 28th of February is true and verifiable. The General House, embarrassed, first said it was a fake, that this letter couldn’t come from priests. In front of such facts [described by the letter], it is well aimed [by Father de Cacqueray] to have people believe “it was just a confabulation”.

We have nothing “against the authority of the Society”, to which we owe everything; we just want the General House to stop misrepresenting the truth and being in favor for a practical liberalism.

Whatever they say, there is not but “a few priests” who wish “the resignation of their superiors”!

Three priests have been punished, of course, but this doesn’t change anything to the facts. The whole problem is still there. We refuse the accusation of the General Secretary. We have always justified our sources. We have committed no slander, no defamation, no hodgepodge. If we are decided to reveal the evil done by the General Superior and his assistants, this is only after asking (and praying) Saint Thomas and the moral authorities of the Society. Our aim is to have this scandal of the blurry and ambiguous policy of the General House stopped.

Our “attitude” is not grounded on “nothing objective”, on the contrary! We have not been “moved by irrational distrust against the authority of the Society”. The reasons of our worries are not only reasoned but have good arguments and summed up in the “catechism of the crisis in the Society”.

We don’t doubt of the doctrinal rectitude of the District Superior of France, but we notice that he is no more free to write what he thinks.  He has to twist his conscience in order to exempt his Superior from his deviations, so that he may be able to preach the doctrine.

Without the letter of February 28 of the 37 priests, would Bishop Fellay have given this conference in Nantes on March 1st in this way?

Would the letter to friends and benefactors of the month of March have obtained the permission for publication from Menzingen, without this “gratitude to him for this courageous refusal that he addressed to the pope”. Here we are no longer in the doctrinal rectitude but in the swamps of diplomacy.

La Sapinière will continue its work. Est est, Non non!

We hate nobody, neither Bishop Fellay, though his duplicity scares us, nor Father de Cacqueray to whom we have the highest esteem. But to both of them, and to all the chapter members who, instead of truly solving the problem at the Chapter back then in July 2012, only hid and backed it, we say to them those words of the Lieutenant Degueldre to his executioners, before being shot: “I don’t hate you, I just feel sorry for you.”

Father Olivier Rioult>, SSPX
One the 3 punished priests
Posted Today, 4:03 pm   
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on March 08, 2013, 05:28:17 PM
This protest takes the form of an open letter to +Fellay

Monsignor,

As many sources tell me that the position of the SSPX has not changed I permit myself to keep you informed of what is happening in  Antwerp Belgium.

A few years ago there was some confusion as to the 'novena' to the Divine Mercy being started publicly in an SSPX chapel on Good Friday.
Picture of this DMercy unveiled behind  communion rail as everything else was covered.

Mentzingen took at the time the right R.Catholic position that should be maintained in  a Traditional  chapel and this novena  was cancelled.

Several attempts were later still taken to push this 'modern' idea forward in public in a SSPX Traditional chapel that follows the 1962 liturgical calendar with no sign yet of this feast. Pope JPaul II instituted this feast and it was only in 1999 that it was celebrated for the first time in the Vatican.

As you probably know BEFORE VAT II this devotion was banned and forbidden  by Rome around the year 1959.  However modern Rome and the modern calendar  has this feast restored and it came part of the new  liturgy appearing here and there  and replaced our Trad. low Sunday by  the  Sunday of the Divine Mercy within the 'Modern Church'.

WHY now is there a novena started in an SSPX chapel for the Divine Mercy on GOOD FRIDAY ? Again in Antwerp !!!!!!!!!!

Does" Good Friday" need a modern approach in a Traditional chapel ?  Do we not have all the devotion  and liturgical solemnity in commemoration of the passion and death of Our Lord?
Who decides on these novelties  on GOOD Friday within the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church?

We even seem being pushed towards the new liturgical calendar as our SSPX bulletin announces  a' gebedsstonde' (N.O. language for prayer moment)  of the Divine Mercy during Benediction at 15 hours on April 7th 2013
Telling us "to spread the word... " for this modern feast!

What happened to your advise given on this matter before or are we being prepared to accept the new liturgical calendar in the near future?

I can only pray and hope that we are publicly spared from this devotion in an SSPX chapel.

May God Bless you and help us to survive modern Rome.


Helen Astle
Goedetijdstraat 110
B- 2660 Antwerpen
Belgium

Attached file: Divine-Mercy.jpg (47 downloads)
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on March 10, 2013, 05:42:10 PM
From The Recusant:


A Commentary on Bishop Fellay's proposed Preamble

By a priest of the SSPX

I have been asked for my first impressions of the text published today on La Sapiniere and other good websites of resistance to the sell-out. I hope that someone better qualified than I will have time to study all the subtleties of this preamble, but certain problematic points are already easily identifiable. Here then, as asked for, are a few blunt remarks.

As Bp. Fellay himself said in May or June 2012, the reaction to this text will depend on the disposition of the mind of the person reading it. (“Rose-tinted or dark-tinted spectacles...”). In effect, after several paragraphs reaffirming attachment to the Pope and traditional doctrine, we come across some scandalous affirmations. This mixture of truth and falsehood reminds one of the methods of the Modernists as St. Pius X denounces them in Pascendi.  In other words what we have here is an ambiguous text, which in itself is a serious fault, since we can hardly hope to rebuild the Church if we have a misunderstanding as the foundation. It is not honest towards Rome nor is it honest towards Tradition. The General Council shows us, in effect, that it believes that the end justifies the means. They still do have a little bit of shame left however, it was left to the Resistance to publish this text.

So, here briefly are some points which cause problems, to say the least.

1.    We find in this text, not surprisingly, what we have known about for a while, since it was revealed by Fr. Pfluger on 5th June 2012, at Fanjeaux I think, and which is in itself an abomination [paragraph 3.4] Saying that Vatican II makes explicit “certain elements” contained implicitly in the entire Tradition of the Church means we have just put this pastoral Council (which was diverted and hijacked by the Freemasons and modernists) on the same level as all the other legitimate doctrinal Councils. When you think about it, Vatican II is more akin to a secret get-together of plotters and schemers than a true Council, even if it was presided over and approved by two Popes, because these two Popes made illegitimate use of it: they used it to make a revolution in the Church. That’s why I call it a plotters’ get-together. The first thing a Catholic Pope will to will be to declare the Council illegitimate and void, as was the case with several oriental councils at the start of the Church.

2.    The second serious fault of this part of the text is that it doesn’t say which elements of Tradition were supposedly made explicit by Vatican II. Is it talking about Religious Liberty? Does it mean Collegiality? Or the “subsistit in”? Or ecuмenism? Or permission to say Mass in the vernacular? Or permission to wear a clerical suit instead of a cassock?

3.    The third thing that occurs to me is that instead of saying that there are erroneous texts which simply cannot be interpreted the right way, it says that there is a way of discussing things in order to arrive at the correct interpretation. We are no longer saying that Vatican II teaches doctrines previously condemned by the traditional Popes.  But this goes against what was always our position, that there are three types of docuмent in Vatican II: the “good bits”, the bits which have to be read in the light of Tradition, and the docuмents which need to be totally corrected. (cf. Fr. Gaudron’s Catechism, No.29)

4.    So, overall this Preamble says that we’re going to stay faithful to Tradition but that we’re prepared to leave the doctrinal questions to one side. We’re ready to sign an agreement now and a commission will be assigned the task, in the future, of explaining the points of Vatican II which appear to contradict Tradition (cf. para III.6) What this amounts to, then, is the laying down of the principle that we are ready to sign a purely practical agreement without having first corrected the errors of Vatican II.

5.    Instead of a declaration against the New Mass, as being something which seriously undermines the majesty of Almighty God and thus in that way a serious sin against the First Commandment, we’re now content simply to recognise its validity under certain conditions (cf. para III.7) We hide under a bushel the fact that the Novus Ordo MIssae directly attacks the greatest treasure of the Church, the source of supernatural life which is the Sacrifice of the Head of the Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

6.    Then there is the recognition of the 1983 Canon Law, under which we’re happy to place ourselves. Abp. Lefebvre said that he detested this Code, a Code poisoned by the theories of Vatican II. Let us remind ourselves of Canon 844 which permits “communicatio in sacris” the sharing of sacraments between Catholics and non Catholics. (cf. para III.8)

In  conclusion, this doctrinal preamble shows us to just what depths the General Council has sunk into the abyss.  It confirms the warning of Fr. Gaudron’s Catechism which alerts us to the grave danger of contamination entailed by frequenting the Roman authorities. (See pp. 291-294 in the 2008 edition) Utinam! Would to heaven that the General Council had made Fr. Gaudron’s Catechism its bedtime reading! Then we wouldn’t be where we are now!

Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on March 11, 2013, 07:49:08 AM

A Catechism

of the

Crisis in the SSPX
By a French priest of the SSPX

Original text: http://www.lasapiniere.info/catechisme-de-la-crise-dans-la-fraternite/

Translated for TheRecusant.com


 
1.    Has there ever really been a crisis ?
Yes. Bp. Fellay speaks of “a very great trial in the SSPX” (Econe, 07/09/2012); “A sorrowful trial” with “serious problems” (Cor Unum, Nov. 2012) “The greatest that we’ve ever had” (01/11/2012)

2.    Why speak of these problems in public?
For the simple reason that we must “never say these theological discussions are a matter for specialists and do not concern us. It must be emphasised to show that exactly the opposite is the case: because they touch on faith, these issues concern us all, clergy and laity. We must therefore take pains to understand and make understood the issues. "(Fr. de Cacqueray, Suresnes, 31/12/2008)

3.    Why deal with these problem in the form of a catechism?
Because, as Mgr. Fellay said, “Aware of the vital need on behalf of souls to preach time and time again the truths of Faith, the Catholic Church has always sought to make available to her  children the teaching of eternal truths ... May the pages of the Catechism enlighten souls of good will ... "(Preface to the catechism of Christian doctrine)

4.    Of what exactly has the crisis in the SSPX consisted?
“There has been a challenge to authority, a radical challenge, since it accused the authorities of no longer directing the Society towards its end” (Bp. Fellay, Cor Unum, Nov.2012)

5.    But wasn’t this crisis overcome at the General Chapter in July 2012?
No. “There is a distrust of authority.” (Bp. Fellay, Econe, 07/09/2012

6.    Why has the sickness not been treated?
Because, as Bp. Fellay himself recognised, “I am well aware that this does not happen in a day and it is useless to say ''Trust us!''. It is after the facts, in actions, that little by little it will come back. It is following the facts, and through acts, that little by little it will return.

7.    Have there not been any significant actions by Menzingen since then?
Of course! The expulsion of Bp. Williamson!

8.    But is that enough to conclude that the crisis is still going on? You’d have to show that, apart from some disciplinary matters, Menzingen continues its doctrinal slide.
This is exactly what we are going to do: explain how and why Menzingen is continuing down the wrong road.


9.    Why would Menzingen be going down the wrong road?
Because the authorities of the SSPX refuse to get rid of the ambiguity which they have created.

10.    What is this ambiguity?
It is twofold and concerns the two acts performed by Benedict XVI which are favourable to Tradition in a material way and which Bp. Fellay presents as formally favouring Tradition.

11.    What do these strange words mean?
When you have cement, sand and gravel, you have a house materially speaking, but not formally. There is a huge difference.

12.     What is the first act of Benedict XVI which is a problem?
This is the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. Bishop Fellay claims that "By the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм, Pope Benedict XVI has restored to its rightful place the Tridentine Mass, stating clearly that the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V has never been abrogated."
(Menzingen, 07/07-2007)

13.    Where is the ambiguity?
In reality, the Motu Proprio says that the Traditional Mass has never been abrogated as the extraordinary form but that it was repealed as the ordinary form. By this act, Benedict XVI made the Roman rite of Mass lose, de jure, its status as the only ordinary and official form, and relegated it to the status of “extraordinary form”, after having humiliated it by comparing its sanctity to that of the “bastard rite.” Despite these facts, no official docuмent from Menzingen exists condemning this liturgical cohabitation.

14.    But that’s just the way you see things.
No, it’s also the view of Fr. de Cacqueray in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors of 2009. The Motu Proprio, he said, “does not correspond, and is not a response, to the first requirement of the SSPX except materially speaking.” (Suresnes, 31/12/2008)
What’s more, Archbishop Lefebvre, after realising that it had been a mistake to sign an agreement with Rome in May 1988, put us on our guard after the Consecrations: “You can see clearly that they wanted to bring us back into the Conciliar Church... they want to impose these novelties on us in order to have done with Tradition. They don’t allow anything through esteem for the traditional liturgy but simply in order to trick those who they give it to and to diminish our resistance, to drive a wedge into the Traditionalist camp, in order to destroy it. That’s their policy, their tactics...” (Econe, 09/09/1988)

15.    So how should Bp. Fellay have responded?
The same way the Society once upon a time responded to a similar action by Rome (the Indult of 1984). The Superior General of the SSPX said that this indult was “ruinous for the metaphysics of law”. It could only be an “argumentum ad hominem,” because “its conditions are unacceptable.” A Catholic, “who thinks with the Church, can only consider the indult as being the foundation of a request.” (Cor Unum, June 1985)

16.    So, strictly speaking, the first requirement of the SSPX didn’t succeed?
In effect, the General Chapter of 2006 spoke of “the necessity of having two requirements” in the “discussions with Rome.” A note recalled the first one: “Complete liberty without any conditions for the Tridentine Mass.” However, the liberating of the Mass, in addition to the deception already noted, was not unconditional. Article 2 of the Motu Proprio gives this freedom to say Mass without need for “authorisation from the Apostolic See or the Ordinary” only to “Masses which are celebrated without the people.”

17.    Should we therefore not have pursued discussions with the Roman authorities any further?
If we had respected what the General Chapter of 2006 had decided: that’s right, yes. And yet, Bishop Fellay did the opposite, because after recalling “the Hegelian approach of Benedict XVI, according to which the change, which was necessary, nonetheless cannot be a rupture with the past”, he wrote: “Regarding Rome, not knowing how and when the situation can change, we prefer to prepare the ground for discussions by an ad hoc group and not let ourselves be taken by surprise, if there are any surprises.” (Cor Unum, 16/07/2007)

18.    What is the second act of Benedict XVI which poses a problem?
It is the decree lifting the latae sententiae excommunications of the Society Bishops (21/01/2009), which didn’t correspond either with the second requirement of the 2006 Chapter, which is to say: “The repeal of the Decree of Excommunication of the four Society Bishops.”
For, just as in 1988, “For Rome, the goal of these discussions is reconciliation, as Cardinal Gagnon says, the return of the lost sheep into the sheepfold. When we think of the history of relations between Rome and Traditionalists from 1965 to our own time, we are obliged to state that it is one cruel, relentless persecution to oblige us to submit to the Council. The conciliar, modernist Rome of today could never tolerate the existence of a healthy, vigorous branch of the Church which condemns them by its vitality.”  (Abp. Lefebvre, Econe, 19/06/1988)

19.    But it doesn’t matter a great deal whether the excommunications are “repealed” or “lifted”, does it?
“The Society refuses to ask for a ‘lifting of the sanctions.’ It is seeking ‘the repeal of the decree of excommunication’ and anyone can see that the terms which we employed to make our request are that way by design. We want to make manifest our conviction that the sanctions are invalid.” (Fr. de Cacqueray, Suresnes, 31/12/2008)

20.    But the result is there, and in spite of everything, it is positive!
“If what we’re talking about is really the repeal of a decree - and not the lifting of excommunications – then that will be the beginning of repairing the unprecedented injustice that we know of, and we will be able to rejoice. However, if there were to be a “lifting of excommunications,” then things would be quite different. That would not correspond to our second requirement, and it would not cleanse our Bishops of the unjust proceedings that have been practised against them. If we allow it to be thought that the penalties pronounced were not invalid, and perhaps were deserved, would that not result, in a certain sense at least, in a new and more profound evil? In that case, Rome, with an appearance of compassion, would have removed penalties which have been found by the same act to have been validly or legitimately made.” (Fr. de Caqcueray, Suresnes, 31/12/2008)

21.    How did Bp. Fellay react in public to the lifting of the excommunications?
He expressed his “filial gratitude to the Holy Father for this act which, going beyond the SSPX, will benefit the whole Church ... Besides our recognition to the Holy Father, and to all those who helped him make this courageous act, we are happy that the decree of 21st January sees “discussions” with the Holy See as necessary... In this new climate, we have a firm hope of arriving soon at a recognition of the rights of Catholic Tradition.” (Menzingen, 24/01/2009)

22.    Did anyone take issue with this communiqué at that time?
Yes. On the occasion of a meeting of priors, one of them commented that the communiqué told a lie, was deceiving our faithful, and that things needed clarification. He used this image: “When I order a pear cake, and I get delivered an apple cake, I can’t say I’ve obtained what I asked for.”

23.    Did Bp. Fellay publicly correct the position he had taken?
No. The following year, the prior was silenced and appointed as a junior priest in a new post. In the meantime, Bp. Fellay wrote in the internal bulletin of the Society: “At the same time as I handed over to the Cardinal the bouquet for Pope Benedict XVI, I received from his hands the decree signed by Cardinal Re, dated 21st January. How can one not see the hand of Our Lady in that? I swear to you, I am still today amazed by it. This goes beyond human expectations, even if the decree speaks of remitting [pardoning] the excommunications and not of cancelling the decree of 1988, and even if the text arranges things in such a way that the Holy See doesn’t lose face. The essential thing is still that the excommunications - which we have always contested – no longer exist, and the path recommended by us of discussions of the root problems (doctrine, faith, etc.) is recognised as necessary.

24.    Surely what matters is the effect?
No, since “The essential thing is that the excommunications no longer exist” is another way of saying that we’re content with having a thing materially whereas we wanted to have it formally.

25.    So in spite of these “even if”s, Bishop Fellay considered the second requirement fulfilled?
Yes. Not only would he engage in discussions with Rome, but he had already begun to talk to members of a “canonical situation, when it will be possible” where “we would necessarily have to have a system of protection, as Archbishop Lefebvre so wisely foresaw, with a committee for the defence of Tradition in Rome at its head.” (Cor Unum, 08/02/2009)

26.    So we began the discussions with Rome on a false foundation?
Completely, since “we don’t see reconciliation in the same way. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it in the sense of reducing us, of bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as the return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree with one another. It’s a dialogue of the deaf.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, Sept-Oct 1988)
 

27.    But we’re no longer in the era of John-Paul II.
“But, is the thinking of Benedict XVI better in this respect than that of John Paul II? It is enough to read the study made by one of us three, The Faith in Peril from Reason, to realize that the thought of the current Pope is also impregnated of subjectivism. It is all the subjective imagination of the man in the place of the objective reality of God. It is all the Catholic religion subjected to the modern world.”
(Bishops Williamson, Tissier, de Galarreta 07/04/2012)

28.    All the same, even if both the requirements were not strictly speaking met, in terms of the media and also psychologically speaking they showed that Benedict XVI was really benevolent towards the Society and its doctrinal position.
“As a subjectivist this can easily be the case, because liberal subjectivists can tolerate even the truth, but not if one refuses to tolerate error. He would accept us within the framework of relativistic and dialectical pluralism, with the proviso that we would remain in “full communion,” in relation to the authority and to other “ecclesiastical entities.” For this reason the Roman authorities can tolerate that the Society continue to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not permit that it condemn Conciliar teachings. That is why an even purely practical agreement would necessarily silence little by little the Society, a full critique of the Council or the New Mass. By ceasing to attack the most important of all the victories of the Revolution, the poor Society would necessarily cease being opposed to the universal apostasy of our sad times and would get bogged down.”
(Bishops Williamson, Tissier, de Galarreta 07/04/2012)

29.    But when Rome calls on us to take part in discussions, we have to come running, don’t we?
No! We mustn’t rush in: “I will lay down my conditions for eventually resuming talks with Rome” (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter Sept-Oct 1988) Note well that these conditions are for entering back into contact, and not for signing an agreement!

30.    What were the conditions, so wisely foreseen by Archbishop Lefebvre, for eventually resuming talks with Rome?
“At that point, I will be the one to lay down conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: ‘Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.’ The positions will then be made more clear.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter Sept-Oct 1988)

31.    Did the work of our theologians lack clarity?
Absolutely not. “On our side, our experts have shown the opposition between the Church of all time and the teaching of Vatican II, and what came from it.” (Bp. Fellay, Cor Unum, March 2012)

32.    What were the results of these discussions?
“The discussions have shown a profound disagreement on virtually all the points touched upon.” (Bp. Fellay, Cor Unum, March 2012)

33.    So why this “proposition from the Roman congregation to recognise the Society through the juridical status of a Personal Prelature on condition that we sign an ambiguous text?” (Bp. Fellay, Cor Unum, March 2012)
The discussions with Rome showed “that they are not ready to renounce the Second Vatican Council” and they want “to bring us to it.” However the return of the Society could “be useful” to the Conciliar Church “in order to endorse the renewal of the reform with continuity.”
(Bp. De Galarreta, Albano, 07/10/2011)

34.    But is Bp. Fellay aware of that?
Yes. “So we received a proposal which was an attempt to make us enter into the system of the hermeneutic of continuity.” (Bp. Fellay, Cor Unum, March 2012) And in the same docuмent, he claims to be surprised by this proposal from Rome.

35.    Surprised or not, what does he decide to do?
First of all, to call a meeting of all the Society superiors (except Bishop Williamson) at Albano to seek advice. (Oct. 2011)

36.    What was said to him at this meeting?
That the offer from Rome was “confused, equivocal, false and evil concerning essentials.” “Their doctrinal preamble” is “worse than the protocol of 1988, particularly regarding the Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium.” “Given the circuмstances, it is certain that in the end, after a long palaver, we would end up with absolutely nothing.” To continue the contacts would “necessarily mean some harming of the common good that we possess, for the Society and for the family of Tradition.” (Bp. De Galarreta, Albano, 07/10/2011)

37.    Did he follow the advice?
No.

38.    So Bishop Fellay showed a serious lack of prudence?
Yes, but that wasn’t his only fault, because doing that meant going against the will of the General Chapter of 2006. Therefore, there has been not only a very rash imprudence, but also a serious disobedience.

39.    Which means?
In March 2012, the Superior General wrote the following to all the members of the Society:
  “The few acts of Benedict XVI ad intra affecting the liturgy, discipline and morals are important even though their implementation still leaves much to be desired. Some young bishops clearly show us their sympathies ... It may be that these things are more obvious in Rome! We now have friendly contacts in the most important dicasteries, and equally among those closest to the Pope!”
Bishop Fellay thinks he is witnessing “the restoration of the Church. While one should not exclude the return of a Julian the Apostate, I do not think this movement could be stopped. If this is true, and that's for sure, it demands of us a new position in relation to the official Church. This is the appropriate context in which to consider the question of the Society’s recognition by the official Church. It’s a question of having a supernatural view of the Church, and the fact that She is still in the hands of Our Lord Jesus Christ, although disfigured by Her enemies. Our new friends in Rome confirm that the impact of such a recognition would be extremely powerful, throughout the whole Church, like a confirmation of the importance of Tradition for the Church. All the same, such a concrete realisation requires two absolutely necessary points in order to ensure our survival: the first is that the Society not be asked for concessions on anything touching the Faith, or flowing from it (liturgy, sacraments, morals, discipline). The second is that a real liberty and autonomy of action be granted to the Society, and that it be permitted to live and develop concretely. These are the concrete circuмstances which will demonstrate when the time has arrived to make steps back towards the official Church. Today, and in spite of the Roman approach of 14th September, and because of the attached conditions, that still seems to be impossible. When God wishes it, the time will arrive.  We can no longer exclude the possibility, because the Pope is putting his full weight behind this matter, that it reaches a sudden end.” (Cor Unum)

40.    How could he justify such a change of direction?
By scorning all friendly warnings and cancelling the decisions of the 2006 Chapter which bound him.

41.    Which “friendly warnings” are you thinking of?
This one in particular: “To proceed in the direction of a practical agreement will mean breaking our word and our engagements in front of our priests, our faithful, Rome and the whole world. Such an approach would demonstrate a serious diplomatic weakness on the part of the Society, and to tell the truth, more than just a diplomatic weakness. It would be a lack of coherence, of uprightness and of firmness, the effect of which would be the loss of the credibility and moral authority which we enjoy at present. The simple fact alone of setting out down this road will bring us distrust and division. Lots of superiors and priests will have a problem of conscience and will oppose it. Authority, and even the principle of authority, will be called into question and undermined. Therefore, this is not the time to change the decision of the 2006 Chapter. (Bp. De Galarreta, Albano, 07/10/2011)

42.    What did this decision of the 2006 Chapter say?
“The contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. When Tradition comes back into its own, "reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will spring back to life.”

43.    What did Bp. Fellay think of the conditions of the 2006 Chapter?
“The 2006 Chapter gave a line which was, one might say clear, but which I would venture to suggest was too abstract. It’s a clear line, it says: the discussions are in order to help Rome return to Tradition and we don’t want to discuss a practical agreement; when Rome returns there will no longer be a problem. How does one judge that?  How far does it go? Is it total or partial? On what points?"

44.    What did he do with these clear decisions?
He officially threw them in the dustbin in March 2012, in Cor Unum.

45.    How?
Through a sophism.

46.    Which one?
This one: the so-called “new situation” which requires a new “direction”; the decision of the 2006 chapter is not a “principle” but a “guideline which must inform our concrete action”.  
“We're here in front of reasoning in which the major premise is the affirmation of the principle of the primacy of faith in order to remain Catholic. The minor premise is a historical observation on the current situation of the Church and the practical conclusion is based on the virtue of prudence governing human action, not to seek an agreement to the detriment of the faith. In 2006, the heresies continued to emerge, the authorities were even propagating the modern and modernist spirit of Vatican II and were imposing on everyone like a steamroller (that’s the minor premise). Reaching a workable agreement: impossible without the authorities being converted, otherwise we would be crushed, shredded, destroyed or subjected to such strong pressure that we could not resist (that’s the conclusion). If the minor premise were to have changed, that is to say, if there were to be a change in the situation of the Church in relation to the Tradition, this could lead to a corresponding change in the conclusion, without our principles having changed in the slightest! As Divine Providence is expressed through the reality of the facts, to know His Will we must attentively follow the reality of the Church, observe it, scrutinise what’s going on. However, there is no doubt that since 2006, we are witnessing a development in the Church, an important and very interesting development, though barely visible.

47.    Where is the error in this reasoning?
It is in a blindness which refuses to see reality for what it is: the authorities are still, in 2012, propagating the modern and modernist spirit of Vatican II!
For Cardinal Ratzinger, “there is no Tradition. There is not deposit to transmit. The Tradition of the Church is whatever the current Pope happens to be saying today. You have to submit to what the Pope and the bishops are saying today. That’s what Tradition means to them, the famous “living tradition,” sole motive of our condemnation... It’s is the tyranny of authority.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, quoted by Bishop de Galarreta, Albano, 07/10/2011)


 



 

48.    In view of this blindness, were there reactions, was there opposition?
Yes, and of very good quality too. As Bp. De Galarreta predicted, “lots of superiors and priests” had a “problem of conscience” and “opposed” it. But they were not all that numerous in quantity, for: “Do we not already see within the Society the symptoms of a lessening of its confession of the Faith?” (Bps. Williamson, Tissier and de Galarreta)
 
49.    Was not Bp. Fellay misled by “the contradiction reigning in Rome” (Bp. Fellay, DICI 264)
Rome has always used the same wrong but clear and precise language. By contrast, the Superior General during recent years has made use of ambiguity and imprecision in his official communiqués and press statements.

50.    Couldn’t it be that we’re mistaken about the Pope’s intentions?
No!

51.    Why not?
Because on Weds. 20th April 2005, on the day after his election, Benedict XVI in front of 11 Cardinals addressed his first message to the world. In it, he praised Pope John-Paul II, “his teaching and his example”:
“Pope John Paul II rightly pointed out the [Second Vatican] Council as a ‘compass’ by which to take our bearings in the vast ocean of the third millennium. Thus, as I prepare myself for the service that is proper to the Successor of Peter, I also wish to confirm my determination to continue to put the Second Vatican Council into practice, following in the footsteps of my Predecessors and in faithful continuity with the 2,000-year tradition of the Church... the Conciliar Docuмents have lost none of their timeliness; indeed, their teachings are proving particularly relevant to the new situation of the Church and the current globalized society.”
(Osservatore Romano, 21/04/2005)

52.    What did Bp. Fellay think of Benedict XVI when he was first elected?
“Very briefly, let me summarise the thought by using an image: if we took the allegory of a freefall to describe the Pontificate of John Paul II, we can predict that Benedict XVI will try to open a parachute, but one whose size we don’t yet know. The effect of the parachute will be to slow down the fall to some extent, but the descent will continue. This situation could deceive more than one or two people, making them believe that the restoration of the Church is at hand. Short of a miracle, that is not the case. The standard is still going to be Vatican II, as well as the broad guidelines of collegiality, ecuмenism and religious liberty, with an emphasis being placed on “ecuмenism” with “our nearest neighbours”, whether the Orthodox, the Anglicans or the Jєωs. Regarding the question of the liturgy, we can expect a reinforcing of Ecclesia Dei as well as some sort of attempt at “reform of the reform”.

53.    And what about in 2012, when they were all busy celebrating 50 years of Vatican II with indulgences being offered to the faithful who assisted at conferences on Vatican II?
“One may observe a change of attitude in the Church, helped by the gestures and acts of Benedict XVI towards Tradition. ... The hierarchy in favour of Vatican II is losing speed. ... I have been able to observe in Rome that even if the glories of Vatican II are still in the mouths of many, and are pushed down our throats, it is nevertheless not in all the heads.”
(Letter, 14/04/2012)

54.    Be honest: there is some truth in that statement.
Some truth which hides a lot of falsehood. Archbishop Lefebvre, in his judgement, did not omit the most essential thing: principles. In an interview with the magazine Jesus, Cardinal Ratzinger declared that the “values” of “two centuries of liberal culture” which “were born outside the Church” have “found a place in the Church’s view of the world.” But that since the climate was no longer one of 1960s optimism, we have to “continue to look for a new balance.” Archbishop Lefebvre had this to say on the subject:
“It’s clear: religious liberty, ecuмenism, it’s the ‘rights of man.’ It’s satanic. And the Cardinal says: ‘That’s one accomplishment, now we have to find a new balance.’ He doesn’t say that we should get rid of principles and values which come from liberal culture, but that we have to find a new balance. This ‘new balance,’ it’s the balance which Opus Dei have: a traditional looking exterior, an exterior piety, an exterior of religious discipline, but with liberal ideas. There’s not concept of fighting against the ‘rights of man,’ against religious liberty and against ecuмenism. So, for this balance they’ll have to put down liberation theology a little, put down the French bishops a little due to their catechism, it’ll mean they’ll have to give a little bit of satisfaction to those who have a real nostalgia for the old Mass: and voila! Ultimately, they’ll give the impression of wanting to return to Tradition, but they don’t really want to do so. So we have to warn our faithful, in such a way that they won’t end up being fooled, so that they don’t let themselves be taken in by an exterior traditional reform which would fatally lead them into adopting liberalism and liberal ideas.” (St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, 13/12/1984)

55.    Bp. Fellay said he was deceived by the Pope because he was by Rome.
He can say that, but without proving it. The Pope publicly warned Bishop Fellay and the SSPX:
“This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium of the Popes ... The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.” (Benedict XVI, Letter to Bishops, 10/03/2009)

56.    Perhaps Benedict XVI is praising Vatican II for political reasons, but deep down he doesn’t really believe in it, as Bishop Fellay claimed when he came to the meeting of SSPX priors in Flavigny to talk about the Beatification of John-Paul II?
If Benedict XVI believes what he himself speaks, then he’s a modernist. If he doesn’t, then he’s a hypocrite. In either case, the will of such a person isn’t worth anything. In either case, it is misplaced to say: “For the common good of the Society, we would far prefer the present solution of the intermediary status quo but it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer.”

57.    You only see what divides us, and never what unites us. Benedict XVI, at least, has condemned the “hermeneutic of rupture.”
You talk like a newcomer who knows nothing about modernist doctrine. Everything is ‘living’ for them, everything is history. Everything is a historical continuity, because, for a modernist, truth evolves with the life of the subjective Church.

58.    Perhaps Bp. Fellay was badly advised?
In Menzingen yes, but not in the SSPX at large. District Superiors, Bishops, priest friends, and Superiors of religious orders all warned him. Even voices from within Rome warned him not to take the road he was starting out down. Among the latter was Fr. Ferre, the secretary of Cardinal Canizares, as well as others. (Source: Bp. De Galarreta, Albano, 07/10/12)

59.    But Bp. Fellay hasn’t made any concession to, or compromise with, modern Rome.
Maybe, maybe not. We still haven’t yet seen all the docuмents. In any case, there is this strange confidence of Bp. Fellay: “The 13th June interview with Cardinal Levada well and truly confirmed that the Vatican” has proposed for us “a canonical arrangement” based on “my letter of 14/04/12” whereby “we would have to say at the same time that we were in agreement and not in agreement.” “This extremely delicate letter seems to have been approved by the Cardinals and the Pope.” (Cor Unum, Summer 2012)

60.    Do I have to remind you that Bp. Fellay didn’t sign anything on 13th June 2012?
“But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.” One can very well commit spiritual adultery in thought or desire, without one’s plans ever coming to fruition.

61.    But you’re judging intentions.
Not so! I’m simply reading! Bp. Fellay reproached the other three Bishops for having a vision of the Church which is “too human and even fatalistic.”
 - “These gestures over the last few years in our favour are under the government of Benedict XVI.” (Which isn’t true, as we’ve already seen.)
 - “Now, these gestures indicate a line - not always a straight line - but a line clearly in favour of Tradition.” (This affirmation is superficial, because it is material and subjectivist, and thus objectively and formally false.)
 - “We are in the process of making the Council's errors into super-heresies, as though it is becoming absolute evil, worse than anything... This is serious because such a caricature no longer corresponds to reality.” (One wonders if Bp. Fellay really understood the combat of Abp. Lefebvre, who said: “The Roman replies to our objections tended to show that there was no change, but a continuity of Tradition. These are statements which are worse than the conciliar declaration on religious liberty. This is the real official lie. There is no way we can understand one another, it’s all in continuous evolution. It becomes impossible to speak.” (Abp. Lefebvre, quoted by Bp. De Galarreta, Albano, 07/10/12)
 - “Logically it will in the future finish up in a true schism.” (Yet another dishonest sophism, which plays on sentimentality and not cold reflection. In a letter which Abp. Lefebvre wrote to Bp. De Galarreta in 1989, we read: “It seems to me opportune to analyse the action of the devil to weaken our work or reduce it to naught. The first temptation consists of maintaining good relations with the Pope or current bishops. Obviously it is normal to be in harmony with the authorities, as opposed to being in conflict with them. The Society will therefore be accused of exaggerating the errors of Vatican II, of abusively criticising the writings and actions of the Pope and bishops, of being attached to the traditional rites with an excessive rigidity and ultimately of displaying a sectarian tendency which will one day lead to schism. Once the word ‘schism’ starts being mentioned, it will be used as a scarecrow to make seminarians and their families afraid, leading them to abandon the Society more easily than if priests, bishops and Rome itself pretend to offer them guarantees in favour of some sort of ‘Tradition’.”)
 - “And it may well be that this fact is one of the arguments pushing me to delay no longer in responding to the pressure from Rome. ... As for the most crucial question of all, that of whether we can survive in the case of the Society being recognised by Rome, we do not arrive at the same conclusion as you do.” (What could be clearer than that?)

62.    But this private letter was never intended for public consumption.
So? Is it OK to blaspheme in private as long as you don’t do it in public? Isn’t a perverse but private intention still a perverse intention?

63.    Menzingen said that the person responsible for this indiscretion had “sinned gravely”.
On the contrary, we think he did nothing more than his duty. When a leader loses his reason, it’s as well if the rest of the group realises it. And if there was any fault involved: o felix culpa, which revealed the thoughts of the heart.

64.    These are serious matters. Unimpeachable proof is needed.
We have quite sufficient words of Bp. Fellay which reveal his innermost thoughts.  

65.    Which words?
Regarding the “text which they presented” to him “in June,” there were some modifications personally desired by the Pope (the three conditions: Magisterium, Vatican II, New Mass). “When they gave me back this docuмent, I thought to myself ‘No, I can’t sign it. The Society can’t sign it.’ ” (Bp. Fellay, 01/11/2013, DICI 264)

66.    How do these words condemn Bishop Fellay?
If the modifications are what made Bishop Fellay decide that he couldn’t sign, that means that on that day there was something which he could sign. “No, I can’t sign it” means that there had been another possibility: “Yes, I’ll sign it.”
That being the case, in other words without the Papal modifications, what is it that he could have signed on behalf of the SSPX if not a practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement? And that, contrary to the will of the 2006 Chapter and the more recent extraordinary meeting of Superiors.

67.    So without the doctrinal explanations added by the Pope, there would have been a compromise [‘ralliement’]?
Everything points that way. And several indiscretions by the Assistants, Frs. Pfluger and Nely, confirm it.

68.    But all the same, Bp. Fellay isn’t a modernist.
Obviously. Nobody has ever thought that. But Cardinal Billot taught that the liberal: “is incoherent, he says yes, he says no, he doesn’t know exactly, who never affirms his position in a completely clear way, who always talks in an ambiguous way, and all due to his concern for pleasing the world.” A liberal inclination is therefore susceptible to the temptation of compromise with an unconverted Rome. That is where the danger lies: in a desire to be accommodating, and not in any direct recognition of the theory of Vatican II. The danger is this liberal illusion which in practice seeks to live in peace with the conciliar system.

69.    Why have Bishop Fellay and his General Council been maintaining all the ambiguities? Why were they so imprudent, even to the point of disobedience? Why have they been attempting so dangerous and suicidal a policy?
Because Bishop Fellay and those around him, when all’s said and done, have more in common with the ecclesiology of Benedict XVI than that of Archbishop Lefebvre.

70.    What is the ecclesiology of Benedict XVI?
It is that of Cardinal Ratzinger who already in 1988 “insisted on there being only one Church: the Church of Vatican II.” (Abp. Lefebvre, 19/06/1988)

71.    Didn’t Archbishop Lefebvre warn us about this false ecclesiology?
Of course! “Cardinal Ratzinger always told me, ‘But Monsignor, there is only one Church, you mustn’t make a parallel church.’ Which is this Church for him? The Conciliar Church, this is clear! And if we mention Tradition to him, Cardinal Ratzinger replies: ‘But the Council, that’s what Tradition is today! You have to return to the Tradition of the Church of today and not of the past! Rejoin the Church of today!’” And Abp. Lefebvre comments: “I could sense very well that that was what was in his mind: it might take a few years perhaps, but he had to bring us back to the spirit of the Council.” (Econe, 09/06/1988)

72.    Doesn’t Bishop Fellay also think that there’s only one Church, the concrete Church?
Yes, and he preaches it! “The fact of going to Rome doesn’t mean that we agree with them. But it’s the Church! And it’s the true Church! In rejecting the bad bits, we mustn’t reject everything. It remains the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” (Flavigny, 02/09/2012)

73.    Does that really contradict the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre?
Obviously. “The visible church is recognized by the features that have always given to visibility: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. I ask: Where are the true marks of the Church? Are they more in the official Church (this is not the visible Church, but the official church) or in us, in what we represent, what we are? Clearly we are who preserve the Unity of the faith, which disappeared from the official Church. ...  It is not us, but the modernists who are leaving the Church. As for talk of ‘leaving the visible Church,’ it is a mistake to the visible Church one and the same as the official Church. We belong to the visible Church, to the faithful under the authority of the Pope, since we aren’t denying Papal authority, just what he is doing. ... How about ‘Leaving the official Church’, then? In a certain sense, obviously, yes.” (Econe, 09/09/1988)

74.    But Archbishop Lefebvre used to go to Rome too.
Yes, but with a very precise and non-negotiable goal: “I can hear them say: ‘You exaggerate! There are more and more good bishops who pray, who have the faith and are edifying!’   -  Can they be saints when they admit false Religious Liberty and therefore the secular state? When they accept false ecuмenism and therefore the admission that there are many paths leading to salvation? When they accept the liturgical reform and therefore the practical denial of the Sacrifice of the Mass? And the new Catechism with all its heresies and errors? Are they not rather officially cooperating with the revolution within the Church and its destruction? ... One thing alone is necessary for the continuation of the Catholic Church: bishops who are fully Catholic, without any compromise with error, who found Catholic seminaries. ” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey)

75.    Where does this phrase “Conciliar Church” come from?
It comes from a letter from Abp. Lefebvre to Mgr. Benelli (25/06/1976), and since the time of Paul VI (Consistory of 24/05/1976) who viewed as “outside the Church” anyone who “refuses the teachings of the Council”, and on into the era of John-Paul II (Sacræ Disciplinæ Leges 25/01/1983) who saw “in the Code a great effort to translate into the language of canon law the very doctrine of conciliar ecclesiology ... which constitutes the essential novelty of the Second Vatican Council, in continuity with the legislative tradition of the Church,” leading us all the way up to Benedict XVI, there is a perfect (if unique) continuity.

76.    How long has Bp. Fellay thought like this?
For several years. “To identify the official Church with the modernist Church is an error, because we’re talking about a concrete reality.” (Bp. Fellay, Flavigny, 16/02/2009)

77.    Have people pointed out his error to him?
Of course. At a priests meeting, a theologian and former seminary professor asked him to get rid of this ambiguity regarding the Church: Catholic or Conciliar? He was heard to reply: “I am tired of all this quarrelling over words.”

78.    Well that’s a surprising reply!
It is more than just surprising. It is distressing. Forty years of theological combat over the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of words just to end up hearing that from a successor of Abp. Lefebvre! Who himself, in an interview one year after the Consecrations, said the following:
“The talk of ‘visible Church’ by Dom Gerard and M. Madiran is childish! It’s incredible that anyone could talk of the ‘visible Church’ to mean the Conciliar Church in opposition to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and to continue. I’m not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. But we represent the Catholic Church as it used to be since we are continuing what it has always done... Obviously we are against the conciliar Church which in practical terms is schismatic, even if they don’t accept it. In practice it is a Church which is virtually excommunicated, since it is a Modernist Church.”

79.    That’s why Menzingen and its press organs (DICI...) always avoid using terms such as “Conciliar Church”, “Church of Vatican II”, etc...
Undoubtedly. And more worrying still, most recently the General Chapter of 2012 didn’t want to take up and make their own again either the words of the 1974 Declaration: “We refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Protestand and neo-Modernist tendencies, which is manifested clearly in Vatican II and after the Council in all the reforms which came from it” or the words of the Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin: “We never wanted to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and which defines itself by the Novus Ordo Missae, indifferentist Ecuмenism and the secularisation of all society. Yes, we have nothing whatever to do, nullam partem habemus, with the Assisi Pantheon of religions. We can ask for no better than to be declared ex communione...”

80.    But isn’t talking of a new Church dangerous for one’s faith?
It’s not dangerous, it’s necessary. It’s reality!
   “It is a new Church which has arisen. ...They are obsessed with fidelity to Vatican II which for them is the new Church, it’s the conciliar Church with its own sacraments, its own faith, its own liturgy, catechisms, all in all it’s terrifying, terrifying. We can’t submit to that, it’s impossible! ...So what would I be asking? Ask the seminarians to swear an oath of submission to the conciliar Church? That’s not possible. No, no, it’s clear now that we’re dealing with a new Church, a Church which is twelve years old.” (Cospec 33B, 1976)

81.    Today the conciliar Church is fifty years old. Has nothing changed, deep down?
Yes, one thing has changed. Today Bp. Fellay, the superior of the Society founded by Abp. Lefebvre intends to make the Catholic faithful believe that this fifty-year-old conciliar Church is the same reality as the Catholic Church, whereas the former is the corruption of the latter.

82.    Is it unacceptable for you?
Not for me. In itself. Just as it was unacceptable for everyone who assisted at the Consecrations in 1988 and who applauded the anathema which Abp. Lefebvre hurled upon the conciliar spirit:
“What is this truth for them if not the truth of Vatican II, the truth of the Conciliar Church? Consequently, it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we want nothing to do with this for anything in the world! For anything in the world!” (Long and thunderous applause follows.) (Abp. Lefebvre, 30/06/1988)

83.    For you, neither Rome nor Benedict XVI should be spared?
Not for me! For Abp. Lefebvre, with whom I agree. For Abp. Lefebvre, “we abandon, practically speaking, the fight for the faith,” when we cease, “attacking Rome.” (Fideliter, quoted by Bp. de Galarreta, Albano, 07/10/2011)

84.    OK, so even if the head of the SSPX is no longer in its right mind, at least Rome won’t try anything again, after the failure and refusal of an agreement by the SSPX?
Rome may have lost one battle, but not the war. “If they break with us, a pause in the constant tension which these contacts bring the Society would be welcome, and, in my eyes, providential. In any case, knowing them, they won’t waste any time in getting back into contact with us.” (Bp. de Galarreta, Albano, 07/10/11)

85.    Is that so?
As it happened, it didn’t take long. In December 2012 Abp. Di Noia addressed a letter to all the members of the Society regarding “an agreement”. For that, we have to “rise above the seemingly insurmountable disagreements on the authority and interpretation of the Council” in order to “truly desire unity.” He invited us not to lose “the zeal of [our] founder.” For that, we have to “stop publicly correcting others in the Church” and not “usurp the mission of the Sovereign Pontiff.” That way, “the authentic charism of the Society” which “consists of forming priests” will be of use to the Church. We have to abandon our “desire for autonomy” and “seek reconciliation.” “The only future for the SSPX,” he claimed, “is to be found on the road to full communion with the Holy See.”

86.    What ought we to think of that?
“Vatican II is the uncrowning of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the denial of His rights over societies. Vatican II is an immeasurably harmful and scandalous ‘kindness’ towards souls in relation to these societies, factories of error and vice and purveyors of Hell, which are quite improperly called ‘other religions.’ Vatican II is the triumph of democratism inside the Church which renders all authority illusory, and any command nigh on impossible, and which permits the proliferation of heresy and schism. Vatican II is, in reality, the greatest ever disaster in the Church... To recover, we must get rid of it. In no way whatsoever, therefore, could the SSPX cease from its immense fight to confess the faith, which must include the denouncing of error. The SSPX must remain humble and respectful, but intrepid, fearless, to continue to say what needs to be said, to confess what must be confessed, to denounce everything that needs to be denounced.” (Fr. de Cacqueray, Suresnes, 31/12/2008)

87.    But since Bp. Fellay has declared, three times, that he doesn’t want to sign, why do Rome say that they’re still waiting for a response, and giving the Society more time?
Because Bp. Fellay, due to his false ecclesiology, and the perpetual temptation of compromise [‘ralliement’] refuses to denounce Benedict XVI publicly as an instigator of error. He remains fixed on the docuмents of Abp. Lefebvre in 1987 saying “We accept being recognised as we are by the Pope and to bring our assistance to a renewal of the Church, we never wished to break with the successor of Peter...” (Letter to Cardinal Gagnon, 21/11/1987)
He refuses to see the evolution and conclusion of Abp. Lefebvre after 1988 who said himself that he had gone too far in his dealings with Rome.

88.    So, is this condition which Bp. Fellay has made his own, that we be “recognised as we are” therefore ambiguous?
Yes, because it can be made to fit with the “hermeneutic of continuity” and because this formula is a form of ecuмenism, mixing truth and error together in the same ecclesiastical structure.  

89.    When will this crisis in the Society come to an end?
The crisis will come to an end when Menzingen:
- gets rid of the ambiguities;
- calls things by their name: a modernist is a modernist, even if he’s the Pope; a virtually schismatic conciliar Church is a virtually schismatic conciliar Church, even if it shows favour towards the cassock and the so-called “extraordinary form”;
- and decides to publicly demand the conditions laid down by Abp. Lefebvre.

90.    To finish: “What’s going to happen with Rome? Excommunication? Things staying as tey are? Or the situation becoming unblcocked?” (Bp. Fellay, Econe, 07/09/2012))
Bp. Fellay answered the question himself: “I’ll tell you: expect a bit of everything.”

91.    What does that mean?
It means that we’re not out of the doctrinal area of turbulence. The proof is in these words of Bp. Fellay at a time when they’re trying to beatify Paul VI:
    “But look and that’s very interesting. Who, during that time, was the most opposed that the Church would recognize the Society?  The enemies of the Church. ... I may say that’s the kind of argument we’re going to use with Rome.  Trying to make them reflect, trying to make them reflect. ... I have absolutely no idea when there will be an agreement, and the term “agreement” is not the right word, but “recognition”, “normalisation.” ... [in spite] of everything that is not well, there is some hope. I am optimistic in this situation. ... I say, if you look at the situation in the Church, it’s still winter. But we start to see the little signs that start to say that spring is coming.” (New Hamburg, 28/12/2012)

92.    What are we to do?
Follow the advice of a confrere: when you go through a patch of turbulence, you’re told “put your seatbelt on” but “don’t buckle it.” (‘Le Chardonnet’ newsletter, July-August 2012)

93.    You’re a pessimist.
No, I’m a realist. Our Superior sees the devil at work everywhere in the SSPX, everywhere that is except in Menzingen. He is incapable of questioning himself. As a confrere said, in reference to the unjust persecutions by the General Headquarters (intimidations, monitions, transfers, delaying ordinations, and the expulsion of priests and one of our bishops):
        “In the final analysis, they’ve established a veritable dictatorship in the Society. They have knowingly ignored the warnings of prudent people who counselled them not to go after a practical agreement with modernist Rome. They have undermined the unity and the common good of the Society, exposing it to the danger of a compromise with the enemies of the Church. And finally, they contradict themselves by affirming the opposite of what they themselves were saying only a few years ago. They have thus betrayed the legacy of Abp. Lefebvre, the responsibility of their duties, the trust of thousands of people, and even of those who, fooled by them, continue to trust them. They have manifested a determined will to lead the Society, cost what it may, into a compromise with our enemies. It hardly matters if the agreement with the conciliar Church isn’t yet concluded today, or if it doesn’t happen in the immediate future, or ever... a grave danger for the Society remains, since they haven’t retracted the false principles which have been guiding their destructive actions...”
(Fr. Ortiz, December 2012)

94.    Is that your last word?
No. To every lord, every honour. I will allow our Superior General to have the final word, despite all the harm that he has done.
    “We should expect Rome to try to bring us into a universalist amalgam, where we would end up being offered a place “among others”, a little bit like they are already declaring the Orthodox to be “sister churches”. We can think that the temptation to re-enter “officialdom” could be very great, in proportion to the offers which ecuмenist Rome could offer us; refusing therefore to enter into this confusion, we would be made to look like wicked villains. At the moment, this is just a hypothesis...” (Bp. Fellay, Cor Unum, March 1995)

 
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on March 24, 2013, 05:22:54 PM

"When the salt loses its flavour..."


 
An Open Letter
from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to
the Faithful of Mexico City


(English translation courtesy of The Recusant)


 
Original: Non Possumus


Dear Friends in Christ,


Some of you are already aware of my departure and my taking up residence here in St. Joseph's House, here in Mexico. In order to avoid any misunderstanding or perplexity on your part, it is not only important but also necessary for me to give you an explanation of the serious reasons which have created this necessity for me.

Nobody from among you should be ignorant of the very serious motives which have guided what is known as the Traditional movement, present a the beginning in various parts of the world, but now principally in the Society of St. Pius X, the work of an exemplary Bishop, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, who tried to save the values of the Catholic Church from the Modernist invasion which hit the Church of Christ, above all by that which we call Vatican II, and by all the reforms of the Church which this council caused. This attack provoked a totally legitimate defensive movement of faithful Catholics, a movement which is in itself very natural and necessary. The struggle, the war against the dotcrinal errors of the modern world which was waged by the Popes of the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries, by Pope St. Pius X in particular, is the same one which we wished to take on and try to wage in our turn.

Nonetheless, those Traditionalists in particular who have known the beginning of this fight are the ones to state that our superiors have lowered the tone of our demands and of our fight for the defence of the Faith. To begin with, it was argued that this was a means of converting Rome: not only the fact of no longer denouncing as strongly the deviations of Churchmen, but also a way of coming closer and closer to the official Church. The question is: is all this a proportionate means of converting Rome? Or is it a mere illusion? Can one convert someone to the truth by hiding that same truth? Can one convert someone by leaning in the direction of their errors and dialectic?

With increasing concern, we see on the part of many SSPX priests and faithful, as well as allied religious orders, an omission which takes on ever greater and more misleading proportions. A silence which is more and more noticeable.

The fact is that the Romans have renounced not one of their very serious errors of Vatican II, nor the New Mass (Novus Ordo Missae), nor any one of the reforms which are a consequence of this Council and which affect the life of the whole Church. Rome has merely made some concessions of a political nature to bring the Society closer, little concessions which are not sufficient to serve as proof that there has been a real change of direction in Rome, in other words in the direction of Tradition. Quite the contrary, we find in all these negotiations and dialoguing a diplomacy which is full of duplicity. We cannot base our important decisions solely on rumours or facts which comprise no proof at all of the churchmen's conversion.

The fact is that, despite the famous failure of the doctrinal discussions, supposedly conducted in order to convert Rome, (and which remain unpublished to this day), we are still trying to go full steam ahead towards an agreement with Rome at any price, in extremely dangerous conditions. And to crown it all, there are already today those who think that the Society ought to make an agreement to submit Rome, whether or not Rome has converted! ("I would even say that, in front of this sublime reality, any talk of whether or not we have an agreement with Rome is a trifling matter... defending the Faith, keeping the Faith, dying in the Faith, that's what's important!"  - Bp. Fellay, Paris, 30th January, 2013) But perhaps we want to be dependent on those who do not have the same Catholic principles as us? Is it possible to have a good pastoral ministry without having good doctrine? Perhaps those who do not have sound doctrine could be in charge of the Traditionalist pastoral ministry? How can we understand one another regarding practice of the Faith if we do not have the same principles regarding Faith and Morals? Perhaps Francis, the new Pope, didn't begin his Pontificate by recommending a book by the heretic Kasper in his Urbi et Orbi in St. Peter's Square! And wouldn't it be a very pious idea to live in a cave with Ali Baba and the 40 thieves in order to convert Ali Baba and the 40 thieves...? A very pious idea, full of realism...!

The conclusions of the Society's last General Chapter have only dramatically confirmed our fears, because in its official conclusion the leaders of the Society declared what will be the six conditions for us to accept an agreement with Rome or a 'regularisation' inside the Roman system. According to these, three are necessary, and the three others "desirable", which means that even if the Pope doesn't let us have them, we will still accept the "agreement". I might mention at this point that one of the "desirable" conditions isn't really a condition. Much could be said about these conditions, but the worst is to be found in the first of these three "desirable" conditions: the decisions of our ecclesiastical tribunals could be overturned by the tribunals of the conciliar Church; and with our agreement too! In other words, they with their modernist principles would make decisions affecting the pastoral ministry of Traditional priests! What's more, in the second "desirable" condition we accept the possibility of having to depend on local bishops, even though we're well aware of the extent to which they would like to have an opportunity to make us submit to the ideas and pastoral practice of Vatican II. A real programmed ѕυιcιdє of Tradition! In addition, in the third of these conditions we also accept the possibility of the man in charge of the commission which represents us to the Pope not being himself a Traditionalist. But how could someone who does nto think like us, and who is not one of us, represent us? Fr. Mario Trejo, the District Superior of Mexico,  recently said in the Dictrict newsletter ('Dios Nunca Muere', no.41, p.7) that in the declaration of the last General Chapter of the Society, "Every phrase, every word was weighed and examined in order to give testimony to the Faith of all time."  Well, with these conditions, how can the Faith of all time be defended by people who no longer proffess it?

In any case, it has now become clear that there is now a new attidude towards Rome and its errors on the part of those who now run the SSPX, a new position full of ommissions and ready to make very serious compromises which, even if it hasn't yet been brought about, brings to light a more than worrying state of mind. There is a gradual omission of any reference to our combat, or the objectives which Abp. Lefebvre gave the Society,

An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more discturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."

Abp. Lefebvre conselled against going to Indult Masses as well as those of groups with an atmosphere such as the Fraternity of St. Peter, because such atmospheres are corrupted at their root, in the sense that what is taught and promoted in the short- or long-term tends towards assimilation with the conciliar Church. But if the Society of St. Pius X changes its spirit and its objectives, could it not also end up being in a similar state, equal or worse, even if the agreement with Rome has, for the moment, not been made concrete?

I myself have commented on how many priests have changed their attitude towards the combat of Tradition against the enemy, and unfortunately this has been more frequently the case with new priests. I am myself a victim of this new line from our superiors, a line full of omissions about struggle and our combat. Already, they're not seeing many enemies in Rome; optimism has little by little replaced the distrust which one ought naturally to feel towards the destroyers of the Church. My District Superior, Fr. Mario Trejo has forbidden me to speak about these subjects: not just in sermons, but also in private! Whether it be with the faithful or with other priests, and that with the threat of transfer and severe punishments.

And since I cannot accomplish my mission as a priest from within the Society, a mission which conists of showing forth the truth and denouncing danger which threatens souls, I have decided to continue my ministry outside the structure of the Society, although I continue to be a member of it, and this is for the good of the faithful who are in Mexico City and who wissh to have recourse to my priestly ministry. I hope that you, as well as my fellow priests, will understand the reasons for this serious decision.


May God, through Our Lady of Guadalupe, bless and enlighten you,



Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo, SSPX

22nd March, 2013

In memory of the Seven Dolours of Our Lady.

Contact: SalTerrae22@gmail.com
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on March 24, 2013, 07:59:51 PM

"When the salt loses its flavour..."


 
An Open Letter
from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to
the Faithful of Mexico City


 



Original: Non Possumus


Dear Friends in Christ,


Some of you are already aware of my departure and my taking up residence here in St. Joseph's House, here in Mexico. In order to avoid any misunderstanding or perplexity on your part, it is not only important but also necessary for me to give you an explanation of the serious reasons which have created this necessity for me.

Nobody from among you should be ignorant of the very serious motives which have guided what is known as the Traditional movement, present a the beginning in various parts of the world, but now principally in the Society of St. Pius X, the work of an exemplary Bishop, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, who tried to save the values of the Catholic Church from the Modernist invasion which hit the Church of Christ, above all by that which we call Vatican II, and by all the reforms of the Church which this council caused. This attack provoked a totally legitimate defensive movement of faithful Catholics, a movement which is in itself very natural and necessary. The struggle, the war against the dotcrinal errors of the modern world which was waged by the Popes of the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries, by Pope St. Pius X in particular, is the same one which we wished to take on and try to wage in our turn.

Nonetheless, those Traditionalists in particular who have known the beginning of this fight are the ones to state that our superiors have lowered the tone of our demands and of our fight for the defence of the Faith. To begin with, it was argued that this was a means of converting Rome: not only the fact of no longer denouncing as strongly the deviations of Churchmen, but also a way of coming closer and closer to the official Church. The question is: is all this a proportionate means of converting Rome? Or is it a mere illusion? Can one convert someone to the truth by hiding that same truth? Can one convert someone by leaning in the direction of their errors and dialectic?

With increasing concern, we see on the part of many SSPX priests and faithful, as well as allied religious orders, an omission which takes on ever greater and more misleading proportions. A silence which is more and more noticeable.

The fact is that the Romans have renounced not one of their very serious errors of Vatican II, nor the New Mass (Novus Ordo Missae), nor any one of the reforms which are a consequence of this Council and which affect the life of the whole Church. Rome has merely made some concessions of a political nature to bring the Society closer, little concessions which are not sufficient to serve as proof that there has been a real change of direction in Rome, in other words in the direction of Tradition. Quite the contrary, we find in all these negotiations and dialoguing a diplomacy which is full of duplicity. We cannot base our important decisions solely on rumours or facts which comprise no proof at all of the churchmen's conversion.

The fact is that, despite the famous failure of the doctrinal discussions, supposedly conducted in order to convert Rome, (and which remain unpublished to this day), we are still trying to go full steam ahead towards an agreement with Rome at any price, in extremely dangerous conditions. And to crown it all, there are already today those who think that the Society ought to make an agreement to submit Rome, whether or not Rome has converted! ("I would even say that, in front of this sublime reality, any talk of whether or not we have an agreement with Rome is a trifling matter... defending the Faith, keeping the Faith, dying in the Faith, that's what's important!"  - Bp. Fellay, Paris, 30th January, 2013) But perhaps we want to be dependent on those who do not have the same Catholic principles as us? Is it possible to have a good pastoral ministry without having good doctrine? Perhaps those who do not have sound doctrine could be in charge of the Traditionalist pastoral ministry? How can we understand one another regarding practice of the Faith if we do not have the same principles regarding Faith and Morals? Perhaps Francis, the new Pope, didn't begin his Pontificate by recommending a book by the heretic Kasper in his Urbi et Orbi in St. Peter's Square! And wouldn't it be a very pious idea to live in a cave with Ali Baba and the 40 thieves in order to convert Ali Baba and the 40 thieves...? A very pious idea, full of realism...!

The conclusions of the Society's last General Chapter have only dramatically confirmed our fears, because in its official conclusion the leaders of the Society declared what will be the six conditions for us to accept an agreement with Rome or a 'regularisation' inside the Roman system. According to these, three are necessary, and the three others "desirable", which means that even if the Pope doesn't let us have them, we will still accept the "agreement". I might mention at this point that one of the "desirable" conditions isn't really a condition. Much could be said about these conditions, but the worst is to be found in the first of these three "desirable" conditions: the decisions of our ecclesiastical tribunals could be overturned by the tribunals of the conciliar Church; and with our agreement too! In other words, they with their modernist principles would make decisions affecting the pastoral ministry of Traditional priests! What's more, in the second "desirable" condition we accept the possibility of having to depend on local bishops, even though we're well aware of the extent to which they would like to have an opportunity to make us submit to the ideas and pastoral practice of Vatican II. A real programmed ѕυιcιdє of Tradition! In addition, in the third of these conditions we also accept the possibility of the man in charge of the commission which represents us to the Pope not being himself a Traditionalist. But how could someone who does not think like us, and who is not one of us, represent us? Fr. Mario Trejo, the District Superior of Mexico,  recently said in the Dictrict newsletter ('Dios Nunca Muere', no.41, p.7) that in the declaration of the last General Chapter of the Society, "Every phrase, every word was weighed and examined in order to give testimony to the Faith of all time."  Well, with these conditions, how can the Faith of all time be defended by people who no longer profess it?

In any case, it has now become clear that there is now a new attitude towards Rome and its errors on the part of those who now run the SSPX, a new position full of omissions and ready to make very serious compromises which, even if it hasn't yet been brought about, brings to light a more than worrying state of mind. There is a gradual omission of any reference to our combat, or the objectives which Abp. Lefebvre gave the Society,

An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."

Abp. Lefebvre counselled against going to Indult Masses as well as those groups with an atmosphere such as the Fraternity of St. Peter, because such atmospheres are corrupted at their root, in the sense that what is taught and promoted in the short- or long-term tends towards assimilation with the conciliar Church. But if the Society of St. Pius X changes its spirit and its objectives, could it not also end up being in a similar state, equal or worse, even if the agreement with Rome has, for the moment, not been made concrete?

I myself have commented on how many priests have changed their attitude towards the combat of Tradition against the enemy, and unfortunately this has been more frequently the case with new priests. I am myself a victim of this new line from our superiors, a line full of omissions about struggle and our combat. Already, they're not seeing many enemies in Rome; optimism has little by little replaced the distrust which one ought naturally to feel towards the destroyers of the Church. My District Superior, Fr. Mario Trejo has forbidden me to speak about these subjects: not just in sermons, but also in private! Whether it be with the faithful or with other priests, and that with the threat of transfer and severe punishments.

And since I cannot accomplish my mission as a priest from within the Society, a mission which consists of showing forth the truth and denouncing danger which threatens souls, I have decided to continue my ministry outside the structure of the Society, although I continue to be a member of it, and this is for the good of the faithful who are in Mexico City and who wish to have recourse to my priestly ministry. I hope that you, as well as my fellow priests, will understand the reasons for this serious decision.


May God, through Our Lady of Guadalupe, bless and enlighten you,



Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo, SSPX

22nd March, 2013

In memory of the Seven Dolours of Our Lady.

Contact: SalTerrae22@gmail.com
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on March 24, 2013, 08:08:20 PM
Carmelite Nuns Oppose Menzingen; Dissolve Relationship With Menzingen

The Recusant


The traditional Carmel of St. Joseph, in Brilon Wald, Germany was founded some 30 years ago as a daughter house of the Carmel of the Sacred Heart in Quiévrain, Belgium. Some time ago this German Carmel made clear to Fr. Schmidberger their complete opposition to any agreement with an unconverted modernist Rome. The Carmel has now officially disassociated from the German District of the SSPX.

The actions of the German District have been neither generous nor charitable. Having already taken away their extern, itself a reprehensible act which potentially placed the enclosed sisters in a very precarious position, the German District is now trying to leave them without a chaplain. Please keep these Carmelite nuns in your prayers.




Some background information (From separate Cathinfo post):

 When Archbishop Lefebvre started his society, his biological little sister, Sister Marie-Christiane, founded in Belgium a Carmel affiliated with the SSPX. Later an autonomic subsidiary Carmel was founded on 1st February 1984 in Germany: The mentioned Carmel St. Joseph in Brilon am Wald.

 One SSPX priest is always stationed in the Carmel to spend the Holy Sacraments, read retreats to the Carmelites, say the Holy Masses daily (also for the Catholics in the area, so it's actually also a Mass Center). Since one or two years the Bavarian Fr Zaby is doing this, a close friend of the brave Bavarian Fr Hermann Weinzierl (I outlined his resistance story here on CI).
 Fr Zaby is against the sell-out to Newrome and surely played an important role in waking-up the Carmelites. According to my information, if the Carmel is going to split with the Neo-SSPX, also Fr Zaby will leave the SSPX and hold position in and with the Carmel.

 The Carmel St. Joseph consisted of seven Carmelite sisters, but due to the clash with Fr Schmidberger one sister whose brother is a priest in the Neo-SSPX, left the Carmel right now and joined the sell-out party. Unfortunately also the mother Carmel in Belgium stays with the betrayers in Menzingen and so is about to cut ties with its own subsidiary Carmel in Germany.


Contact details for the Carmel:

Karmel St. Josef


Korbacher Str. 89

59929 Brilon Wald

Germany


Tel. 0049 2961 - 6445
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on March 27, 2013, 12:06:26 PM
Is Fr. Girouard the Next to Go?
Description of Recent Actions and Penal Censures by SSPX
Copied from the English translation on the "Un Eveque S'est Leve!" French Website


News of father Patrick Girouard

         
         
Last summer, Patrick Girouard (FSSPX), Langley Priory vicar (near Vancouver Canada) delivered 3 sermons (in english) and a conference (french) against an SSPX-« unconverted-Rome » agreement (Youtube). He recently wrote a famous docuмent known as “Brève réflexion sur le préambule doctrinal”.        

         

10th of march : High Mass, during the announcements he decided to warn everyone by deliverin the last news: german Carmel, Dom Raphael being expulsed, letter from the 37. He decided then to publicly mention his support, explaining a few elements of his critical text. He went on mentioning that Langley was an exception as a parish, truth being here fully told, since Menzigen uses guillotine to cut the heads (of the courageous priests and bishop refusing Menzingen changing its position). He ended explaining to be ready to pay a high price for explaining what was expected to remain untold, as he refused to loose his soul being a complicit in this silence-operation.        


         

         

13rd of march : He received a call from abbot Wegner (Canadian district superior) requiring him leaving his parish, as he was transfered to St Cesaire headquarters (4500 km far), (28thof march as a deadline). There, he’ll be under scrutiny, silence and obedience required as soon as possible. A priest from Post Falls (USA) was announced to replace him for next high-Mass (17th of march).        

         

14th of march : deadline was changed by Abbot Wegner (24th of march), abbot Girouard is firmly told to not criticize his superiors any longer. Web connection, phone access and his future affectation as a priest will depend on his submissive attitude. A fact you should keep in mind : in an official letter sent to canadian priests (to explain the reasons of such a transfer), you can read abbot Girouard private and confidential conversations and emails (sent after 10th of march). It’s easy to understand that once he lives in St Cesaire, every single word he pronounces will be condemned if he dares going on expressing his points of view against authorities.        


         

         

17th of march : some faithful decided to attend abbot low Mass (half of the parish), before a last lunch, all together. That day was the first Passion Sunday, his 1st day as a suspended priest, and his 50th birthday : the beginning of his new life. After lunch, he went back to the chapel for a last moment (not in warm ambient as the other parishioners follow Bp Fellay instead of studying facts and docuмents).        


         

         

21st of March : after a few days (packing his furniture and personal items, bringing everything in another place far from here) he took his personal car for a long trip (maybe he arrives on Tuesday, or Wednesday, so later than required). Today, we know for sure that abbot Wegner is on Langley for Holy week…        


         

Waiting from news, we can only speculate. He follows his own consciousness, so he won’t accept submission to the law of silence. We know some of Resistance-followers (Canada & USA) expect him to serve as a priest dedicated to their small groups. It seems that previous of his faithful from Langley wish him to become the priest of their own chapel. Furthermore, abbot Pfeiffer and his followers (Kentucky) would welcome him. So, let's wait and see to know his decision. Will he reach St Cesaire (allowing him to not loose fame and material security) or trust in divine Providence, taking care of a group belonging to the Resistance ? What about abbot Wegner ? We hope to get the answers in a few days...so during that blessed holy days, let's pray for him and all those who follow the Resistance.
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on March 27, 2013, 07:26:07 PM
Duplicate
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on March 29, 2013, 07:59:37 AM

DECLARATION
to
Members of the Society of St. Pius X,
Affiliated Communities
&
Faithful of Tradition.

(Translated by The Recusant)


French: http://www.lasapiniere.info/declaration-aux-membres-de-la-fraternite-st-pie-x/


Holy Thursday, 28th March, 2013

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ the King,

On this day when the Holy Church solemnly commemorates the institution of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrament of Holy Orders, I take this opportunity to inform you of my decision to place myself outside the official structure of the Society. My intention is neither to abandon nor to vilify it. The Society is victim of an enterprise that aims to bring it under the power of the Conciliar Church, despite repeated warnings of its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Following my sermons and interventions against a rallying, my district superior, Fr. Jürgen Wegner, transferred me from the Priory of Langley (near Vancouver) to District Headquarters (St-Césaire, near Montreal) with the expressed intention of "closely monitoring" me. He also said that I could no longer criticise the superiors. In his letter to Canadian priests regarding his decision, he attacked not only my public statements, but also my emails and private conversations with the faithful. It is clear that I was being offered to exchange the material welfare of remaining in the Society for my silence in public and in private. This would be no more no less than a form of spiritual prostitution. But I have a soul, and I want to save it. I cannot do that by accepting this deal because, as the saying goes: “silence is tantamount to consent.” This is basically why I see it as a moral obligation to refuse the transfer. This is the only way for me to continue to work towards achieving the true goal of the Society, which is not to convert modernist Rome, but to preserve and transmit the true Mass and the true priesthood. So I put myself in the hands of Providence, convinced that Our Lord will take good care of His priest.

Much has been written on the subject of a "purely practical" agreement with Rome. Suffice to say that I fully endorse the statements and studies by other colleagues who are opposed to this new orientation of the Society. I shan’t repeat them here. I would, however, like to share some personal reflections on the three aspects of the crisis of the Society:

  1. Society authorities want to justify the abandonment of the resolution of the General Chapter of 2006 ("No practical agreement without conversion of Rome"), by saying that the situation is not the same today. They would have us believe that many new bishops, priests, and seminarians are no longer interested in Vatican II and prefer the traditional Mass and theology. Yet they are unable to produce a serious and independent study to demonstrate this. We are being asked no less than to accept what Archbishop Lefebvre termed "Operation ѕυιcιdє." The General Chapter of 2012, far from correcting this change of direction only wrapped it up in cosmetic "conditions". The only condition that mattered, the conversion of Rome, was abandoned. In addition, this chapter occasioned a reversal of the balance of strength between bishops: From the 7th April 2012 when we had on one side three bishops against a "practical" agreement and on the other, an isolated Bishop Fellay, we found ourselves on the 14th July, with three bishops in favor of such an agreement against an ostracised Bishop Williamson, who had moreover been excluded from the said Chapter. The final statement about the newfound unity actually signalled the end of a period of grace for all "resisters". Henceforth, from 15th July 2012, all opposition vis-à-vis a purely practical agreement, any criticism of the authorities of the Society on this subject, became a crime against the Society itself. A law of silence was instituted. The rest is history. This law of silence is so powerful that Menzingen doesn’t even bother to respond to the arguments and accusations; opponents are simply demonised as vulgar rebels of subversive deeds! Exit H.E. Bishop Williamson and a score of priests!

2. H.E. Bishop Fellay’s secret docuмents (14th April 2012 letter to the three other bishops, Preamble the following day), which were published unofficially, allowed us to understand the extent to which frequent relations with today’s Rome are dangerous. If even before the signing of an agreement such contacts have changed the Superior General, his assistants, and, by extension, other Superiors, what would happen to simple priests and faithful when they would be officially, legally, permanently under the control of the Roman authorities? One has only to see how Menzingen already persecutes those who oppose this new direction even while we still enjoy a degree of independence vis-à-vis Rome, to understand how far they will go once under the authority of the conciliar Church!

3. Recently, it was asked of us to accept the theory that the term "conciliar Church" does not mean a separate institution of the Catholic Church, but rather a "movement" within it (cf. Fr.Gleize in DICI: http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/can-one-speak-of-the-conciliar-church/). The logical consequence of this theory would be that the traditionalist movement should return to the formal structure of the Church, to fight from within the conciliar "movement" and thus help Tradition triumph. It is why we often hear SSPX authorities say that the Society must "help the Catholic Church to reclaim her Tradition." Now, on one hand, the Catholic Church, without her Tradition, could not exist, it would no longer be the Catholic Church. Furthermore, one can no longer speak of a mere "movement" when the liberal and Masonic ideas of Vatican II have been "institutionalised" by reforms covering all aspects of Church life: Liturgy, Catechism, Ritual, Bible, Ecclesiastical Tribunals, Higher Education, Magisterium and, above all, Canon Law. We are confronted with a structure, an institution which is different to the Catholic Church. If it weren’t the case, we would be members! But it is not us who have left the Catholic Church, they have, even if they managed to take control of the official structure. Concerning the role of the Pope in all this, it has to be admitted that therein lies a mystery, a mystery of iniquity. Nonetheless, it stands that we are in the presence of two separate institutions: The Catholic Church founded by Our Lord and the conciliar Church, instigated, let there be no doubt, by Lucifer.

These are just three small reflections, but I believe they can shed some light on some aspects of the debate. Now that I have become totally free to speak, you can count, dear brothers and sisters in Christ the King, on my regular contribution to the websites of the growing movement of opposition to the Ralliement, a movement that I believe deserves the name Catholic Resistance.


Pray for thy servant, as I pray for you.

Father Patrick Girouard, SSPX


Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 07, 2013, 01:36:47 PM
TRUTH or Consequences
Father David Hewko

 
April 4, 2013

"WE CONTINUE!!"

How often that holy warrior of the Church, Abp. Lefebvre, would conclude his conferences and sermons with these words:..."We continue!"

 When the new doctrines opposed to the Traditional Magisterium hijacked the Second Vatican Council, refusing the "neo Protestant and neo Modernist tendencies" both in the Council and in the reforms, the Archbishop simply carried on, refusing them all saying, "We continue."

 Pressured to close his Seminary in Econe, conform to the Council, and offer the New Mass, he categorically refused, saying, "We must continue!"

 When the insulting-to-the-True-God-Assisi-Meetings were held, along with the papal visits to the Synongogues and Protestant temples, the holy Archbishop raised his vigilant shepherd' s voice in resistance, and appearing "disobedient" and "rebellious", he simply said, "We must continue."

 When the majority of Catholic bishops and clergy, along with the religious (who still kept their vows!) and faithful throughout the world, went along with the flow of the Conciliar Church, preferring "approved"reputations to the unpleasant labels of "reactionaries" and "rigid Traditionalists", Abp. Lefebvre looked to please God alone and thus stood alone repeating the words "We simply continue!"

 When Rome wanted Abp. Lefebvre to sign the Protocol for an agreement in 1988, being pressured to sign, he immediately retracted his signature saying he went too far. He said to sign was a great mistake and he later added that the Good Lord protected the Society from falling for that agreement, which would have meant it's Operation ѕυιcιdє. So he performed the Consecration of four bishops to continue the Faith and Mass of all time, calling it "Operation Survival". His words and actions cried out, "We continue!"

 Now his sons in the Society are faced with a leadership embracing the dangerous ideas which the Archbishop himself so valiantly resisted. Religious Liberty of the Council now called "limited, very limited." "The errors of the Council are not really from the Council but the general interpretation of it" or worse yet, "95% of the Council is acceptable." Or, commenting on an ultra-Conservative New Mass at an Abbey near Florence, Italy, "If the Archbishop had seen this, he would not have had to do what he did."

 Faced with this new direction and this "new attitude towards Rome", we are forced to follow the exampe of the Archbishop and simply resist, strong in the Faith. In the face of universal compromise and "avoiding polemics" for a false peace, faithful Catholics all over the world are honored to pick up his words of fidelity, which were:"We continue!"

 In what did he continue? In what must we continue? In the fidelity to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church of all time, before the Council. In the refusal to follow the Conciliar Church built on the sands of Vatican II "poisoned through and through" with the condemned principles of the modern world, along with its reforms. In fidelity to acknowledging the lawful Vicar of Christ in his authority, but acknowledging his right to our disobedience when he demands us to accept the Council and the illegitimate New Mass.

 For the first time in our 42 years of the Combat for Catholic Tradition we have heard a novelty that rings of Modernism. This time from within! For the first time the mind-set of accepting the Second Vatican Council, as long as it is seen with the colored glasses of the "light of Tradition", is expressed in the official docuмents and interviews of the SSPX! What has happened? "An enemy hath done this!" For the first time an official docuмent submitted to Rome surrenders the Combat for the Faith, accepting the "legitimacy" of the New Mass and the new sacraments, such as Confirmation. For the first time the Society accepts, with no noted exceptions, the New Code of Canon Law! This Code is Vatican II in canonical form, as Pope John Paul II expressed in 1983 when he promulgated it. If the Code is accepted, as is, then the principles permeating it, must also be. Since those principles are the very ERRORS of the Council, what are we doing accepting it and "respecting" it? Who's side are the leaders of the SSPX now on? We may justly ask this until a clear revocation and refutation of the General Chapter Statement & six conditions, the Liberal Interviews and Doctrinal Preamble of April 15, 2012 are publicly announced, and under no uncertain terms. To re-earn the trust the SSPX once had, its leaders are obliged to make clear their rejection of the ambiguous, liberal and modernist statements that have been made, by our own leaders. As Abp. Lefebvre once said, the faithful have a right to know where their priests really stand; for or against the Conciliar Church? For or against the Roman Catholic Church of Tradition? Both cannot mix. The ideas of the Revolution cannot stain nor mingle with the Immaculate Bride of Christ, His Church.

 "We must continue!" are the words that the priests and faithful of the Resistance want to maintain, by the grace of God. Some things, the most beautiful things, never change. So, in fidelity to the Catholic Faith; to the counter-Revolution against the principles seeking to demolish that Faith by sneaky agreements; to the Mass of all time; to the stand of Abp. Lefebvre, who merely stood on the rock-solid shoulders of the great anti-Liberal Popes, and in fidelity to the Combat for the Faith,....we must continue! Under the Mantle of She Who crushes the hellish serpent...."WE MUST CONTINUE!"




Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 11, 2013, 09:36:45 AM
Clarification regarding my expulsion from OLG Monastery in Silver City


PAX



I want to answer some questions regarding the events that surrounded my expulsion from my Monastery, and also to unmask false rumors about it.


There is a point I need to make clear and which I never thought was important to explain further, since for me in totally secondary, a point that only could be of interest for those who does not see a doctrinal problem in the whole issue. A doctrinal problem causes a state of necessity and a state of justification in front of the Code of Canon Law and in front of the Rule of St. Benedict. My "permission" to leave the monastery for few days comes from the Rule and from Canon Law. Nevertheless I did inform indeed to Father Cyprian, before leaving, that, due to the scandal, i was forced to look for spiritual direction somewhere else. I told him that I would be absent only for few days and that I would certainly come back, that he should not be worry, that I would come back. Even in the cases in which a monk without justification leaves his monastery, the superior is obliged by the Rule to accept him back until 4 times. For this reason i say that it is a secondary point, since leaving the monastery for any cause, good or bad, never can be a reason to close de door of the Monastery to anyone. To focus only on this issue is to miss the whole point, and it is exactly what the SSPX and Father Cyprian want, in order to avert the attention to the fact, that the reason why they do not accept me back is because there is a very serious doctrinal problem they do not want to fix and therefore, they do not want me to preach. My permanence in the Monastery would "divide" the Monastery, when we know that the only source of unity is the truth. Doctrine and charity were being step upon by the monastery, and therefore by that scandal I was in a state of necessity to act accordingly.



Now I want to refute some false rumors:




"Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko did not accepted the invitation of the Monastery to stay overnight since they were staying overnight with the faithful of Silver City"


This is completely false. They were not offer by the Monastery not even a glass of water which they would not have denied even to a pagan who would have asked for it. Both Fathers had to come back to El Paso that same day, very late.

When they arrive to the Monastery their wish was to stay overnight at the Monastery. For that reason, as Fr. Pfaiffer was taking out his luggage form the car Pablo de Mexican, his driver, told him "Don´t do that Father, since we do not know even if we will be expelled from here the next minute"


"They were not accepted because their bad spirit, one of criticism and attack to the Superior of the SSPX"


When a superior is teaching bad doctrine, whether it be the Pope or our Superior, we have the duty in charity to correct and to warn to flock of the danger against the faith and therefore of their own salvation. When the shepherd sleeps, the dogs must bark.

That "attack is only an appearance, it is rather charity in action.




"Father Raphael left his Monastery during the absence of the community, excusing himself of being sick"

Indeed I was on bed and even with some fever, but the state of necessity, as I have explained, obliged me to act in such a manner, but not without informing beforehand what I was about to do. I had to be discrete for the good of the Monastery and to go on that day since Bishop Willianson only was in México for few days.




"Father Cyprian send an e'mail warning him that if he continue in an position of critique, attack, and rebellion, then the door of the Monastery would be close to him"

I never received such an e'mail. The only e-mail I received from him is dated february 26 in which he said : "Go where you can find peace, for now the doors of the Monastery are close to you". Without further explanations, without asking my opinion, without saying what are the charges against me (crimes?), and without giving to me the opportunity of self-defense. Breaking the laws of charity, Canon Lay and the very Rule of St. Benedict. To his e-mail I answered by 2 e-mails; but I did not receive any answer.




"Father Cyprian tells everybody, the brothers included, that Father Raphael is still part of the Community".

How could I be part of a Community where its doors are close to me and where I cannot enter anymore? This is an strategy to calm down the brothers, since they were told by Fr. Cyprian "We are on talks of reconciliation with Fr. Raphael". Which is totally false!!




Please pray a great deal for this your servant and father, so that I may always may do the will of God. This is precisely the greatest of the advices I received form Mons. WIlliamson: "Always pray to know the will of God, every day, and the grace to follow it and to fulfill it, avoiding precipitation"




I also beseech you, for the love of God, to help me with your prayers and support for the new project of opening a new Benedictine Monastery in Mexico.




U.I.O.G.D. (May God me glorify in all things)




Yours always in St. Joseph

Father Raphael OSB

Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2013, 10:07:59 AM
We Have Always Been At War With Eurasia! (1984)



From the French website "La Sapiniere:"

From April 15th 2012 to April 15th 2013... Is Bishop Fellay credible?


A priest responds to Bishop Fellay's Letter to Friends and Benefactors

 On April 15th, was made public the text of Bishop Fellay soon to be shown in the Letter to the friends and benefactors of the Fraternity. If we look at the text isolated, it is firm as it consists primarily of quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre. Bishop Fellay recognized the "present analysis" of our founder who is still "the conductor wire of his doctrinal position and action" in the Fraternity. "His very fair perception, theological and practical, continues to be valid." The profession of faith which opens the famous statement of November 21st, 1974 "is also of all members of the Fraternity." In short, "currently, following the same line, we can not do more than repeat what Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Schmidberger affirmed after him. All the errors they denounced, we denounce". Wow, may this serve to appease the most suspicious!

 But ... if you consider this text, not as an isolated text but in the current context of Tradition, we can not but ask ourselves: Is Bishop Fellay credible? Or more precisely, should we believe Bishop Fellay in his statement of April 15th, 2012 or in his statement of April 15th, 2013? From the one April 15th [2012] to another [2013], the contrast is startling. "The analysis of Monsignor Lefebvre" is truly being "the conductor wire of the doctrinal position and action" of the Superior General of the Society in 2012? "The situation of the Church is virtually unchanged" at Easter of 2013: that's not what we read in the editorial of Cor Unum of March 2012.

 So how should one understand the text of the last April? Can we not fear that this shift to the right is intended to reassure and put to sleep those who still resist the policy of adherence to Rome? In order to Bishop Fellay again be credible, three conditions are necessary:

 1. A sincere and unequivocal  mea culpa: Bishop Fellay acknowledged that "the Fraternity found itself in a delicate position (what a euphemism!) during a great part of 2012" (what now?), But immediately explained that the difficulties came from the "demands" and "lack of clarity" of Rome. The Superior General and the headquarter wouldn't have anything to do with it? It is indispensable that Bishop Fellay explicitly retract certain writings and certain events of last year: among many others, we'll simply quote the shameful April 14th response to the three bishops, the scandalous Statement of 15th, the painful statement of the General Chapter, the odious sanctions that have fallen upon a bishop, priests (exiled or expelled) and religious (ordinations delayed) ...





2. The solemn affirmation, in a statement addressed simultaneously to the Holy See and the bishops, priests and faithful of Tradition, the principle of: "no practical deal without doctrinal agreement". Carefully specifying the meaning of words in order to avoid any ambiguity or imagination of a "doctrinal agreement" for the simple fact that Rome accepts us as we are.

 3. The firm and public criticism of todays Rome and its current pope. Archbishop Lefebvre didn't rejoice denouncing the errors, but did not hesitate to attack, respectfully but vigorously, the abettors of errors, not only the bishops, but even the pope. Towards the end of his text, Bishop Fellay seems to quietly and timidly criticize (without daring to name it) pope Francis, but do not denounces the numerous scandals that have marked the first few weeks of his pontificate. And DICI reintroduces us the story of Aeneas and Pio, comparison attempted by Fr. Celier in relation to Benedict XVI in 2005. After eight years, the number of "pink eyeglass wearers" have grown terribly.

 We conclude proposing in a loud voice what many priests and faithful think silently: when a Superior puts a work entrusted to him in so much danger, it is convenient after having recognized his mistakes, to resign his office. This is at least one "desirable condition" to save the little part remaining healthy in the Fraternity [St. Pius X]. It better be a "sine qua non" condition.

 
 A PRIEST.




Original in French: http://www.lasapiniere.info/dun-15-avril-a-lautre-mgr-fellay-est-il-credible/

In Spanish: http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.mx/2013/04/de-un-15-de-abril-al-otro-monsenor.html
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 23, 2013, 08:56:23 PM
http://www.therecusant.com/brilonwaldcarmel (which also has more detailed information and Fr. Schmidberger's editorial)

Correction of the editorial in the Mitteilungsblatt (German District Newsletter) of April 2013

The announcement of the separation of the Carmel St. Joseph from the Society St. Pius X in the April Mitteilungsblatt requires, due to its wrong claims, some corrections which we want to submit herewith.

Claim: The Carmelites of Brilon-Wald were misled by their chaplain ... A period of one and a half years of influencing preceded this move.

Correction: There was no influencing, but sound catechesis, in the form and content similar to the instructions we were commonly used to receive 15 years ago from the Society St. Pius X. With this background it was inevitable that the current deviations of the Society St. Pius X from sound doctrine would become obvious. Our practical conclusion, the step to separate ourselves from the Society, was not discussed with our Chaplain, he was merely informed of it, excluding the practical question of whether he was to go or stay with us in this case.


Claim: We were religious nuns in seclusion who are only "informed" from one side.

Correction: Up until March 2013 we received the Mitteilungsblatt and the Kirchliche Umschau and therefore we were familiar with the official statements of the Society.


Claim: In the last months, subversive and slanderous writings were apparently circulating in the monastery.

Correction: The main object of our studies were in recent months:
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Sermons, talks and books (especially They have Uncrowned Him).
Don Félix Sardá y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin (recommended by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre).
Father Michel Lelong, Pour la nécessaire réconciliation - Le Groupe de Reflexion Entre Catholiques (GREC) (Report of a priest of the official church of the secret talks between the SSPX with Rome for 15 years).
To complement the one-sided reporting of the Mitteilungsblatt, we used (without the mediation of our Chaplain) the writings of the SSPX Resistance. These are flatly condemned by the SSPX as subversive.


Claim: Step by step their (i.e. our) trust was undermined, that is, by the said subversion.

Correction: Our trust was undermined by the Society itself. The contradictions and deviations from the clear line of the Archbishop, of which abundant examples can be found, were irrefutably docuмented by the Resistance. That the Mitteilungsblatt did not even want to publish the letter of the three Bishops Tissier de Mallerais, de Galarreta and Williamson to the General Council in April 2012, as well as the response of the General Council (14.04.2012), certainly does not corrspond to truthful reporting. On the side of the Resistance we meet an objective way of arguing, whereas it is mere subjective arguing on the side of the SSPX.


Claim: Without literal reference, but from its context unambiguously applied to us, we are subject to: stubbornness, self-righteousness, condescension, criticism, false dialectic, mockery and malice.

Correction: A docuмentation of our exchange of letters with Bishop de Galarreta and Fr. Schmidberger, which on our sidewas kept as short and polite as possible, would completely exonerate us in this regard. We forgo publication in order not to unnecessarily show personalities of the SSPX in the light of their own allegations.


Proof of liberalism in the Society

That liberalism has entered the Society can be demonstrated by many statements of Bishop Fellay and other well known representatives of the Society, and can be read in their official statements or more clearly compiled on the website of the Resistance. The willingness for, indeed the pursuit of, a practical agreement with a still modernist, conciliar Rome is the most telling and alarming proof. As complicity in liberalism, Don Félix Sardá y Salvany mentions: "Complicity have the fathers, confessors, spiritual directors, directors of institutes, professors and teachers, when they, if asked about such things, either remain silent or simply do not explain, when they are obliged to instruct the conscience of their subordinates." (Chapter 17, No. 6) In Sarto Verlag (the publishing company of the German SSPX) dubious books are distributed. In the Mitteilungsblatt and the Kirchliche Umschau there constantly appear disputable articles by conservative representatives of the official Church without any correction.


Are we sedevacantists?

No, we are not. A decision on whether the dubious popes since the Council were or are legitimate Popes or not cannot be in any way incuмbent on us. Therefore, we pray for the Pope, without however being able to submit to his still modernist authority.


Our canonical situation

According to the letter of the then Superior General of the SSPX, Fr. Schmidberger, to the monasteries of tradition on 28.05.1991, the situation for all monasteries associated with the SSPX is as follows: The SSPX itself has no power of jurisdiction over the religious communities. The bishop in charge of the religious communities executes his office not as a member of the SSPX but simply as a Catholic bishop by virtue of an extraordinary jurisdiction which arises as the communities call on him due to the state of emergency. The communities are completely free to do so. We have therefore freely forgone, owing to the above-mentioned liberalism, making use of Bishop de Galarreta’s supplied authority. Instead we are in contact with Bishop Richard Williamson.


Conclusion

The quest for a rational assessment of the situation of the SSPX, enlightened by Faith, has suggested to us, after much prayer, the following decision: For the love of the truth, of the Church, and of the SSPX, and of the work of the Archbishop, blessed by God, we see it as our duty to withdraw from the dangerous influence of liberalism which has become apparent in the SSPX. The life of contemplative sisters has as its goal the contemplation of truth and union with God, who is truth itself. It is impossible to use half-truths and compromises to reach this goal. In order to work for the triumph of our Holy Church through the triumpf of the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady, to remain faithful to the mission of the Archbishop and to obtain for us and for many souls the highest good, the union with God, we see ourselves forced to confess and protect our faith by distancing ourselves from the Society. We will return with pleasure, as soon as it returns to the line of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.


What about the future of the monastery?

Due to the loss of benefactors who cannot understand our step and also due to fact that our extern sister left us in haste, we are now in a distressed situation. For over 30 years the district has been unable to provide us with a chaplain who could have operated pastorally. Due to the lack of faithful who could help us, we now have to regularly leave our cloister in order to ensure for our livelihood. That we were heading towards this precarious situation had already been communicated eight years ago to the then District Superior, without, however, there being appointed a house-chaplain who could fill the empty post. Therefore, we envisage having to relocate our Carmel to the south where help is assured. Since our monastery cannot be sold – according to the deed, it reverts back to the SSPX as soon as it is no longer used as a Carmel – we need new financial means to rebuild. Even a very humble beginning with a smaller building at least 700,000 Euros are necessary. We urgently ask you for your donations to help ensure that the continuation of our monastery in Bavaria or the nearby region can be guaranteed. For the sake of the Faith we have thrown ourselves into the arms of Divine Providence: "In te, Domine, speravi – non confundar in aeternum - In Thee, O Lord have I hoped – may I never be confounded."

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Guardian of the Faith, pray for us!

The Sisters of the Carmel St. Joseph


Contact: Carmel of St. Joseph, Korbacher Str 89, 59929 Brilon Wald, Germany. Tel 02961/6445

Donations: Sparkasse HSL Brilon, BLZ 416 517 70, Account No. 56 267
IBAN: DE58 4165 1770 0000 0562 67, BIC: WELADED1HSL

This post has been edited by Gabriel on Apr 24 2013, 01:01 AM



Immaculate Heart of Mary, be my refuge and my strength.
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Nadir on April 28, 2013, 04:50:08 AM
Fr Juan Ortiz:

Quote
Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Preamble
   
It seems necessary to comment on the April 15th, 2012 Doctrinal Preamble proposed by His Excellency Bishop B. Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, to Cardinal Levada. It was a secret for almost a year and was finally made public this past few weeks. This version of the Doctrinal Preamble met strong protests at the General Chapter. Consequently Bishop Fellay withdrew it without however repudiating it. This text consequently gives us an idea of the concessions, which Bishop Fellay would agree to concede, should he be allowed to do so.

As a matter of fact, Bishop Fellay seems to accept to some extent:
1.- Vatican II
2.- the N.O.M.
3.- the New Code of Canon Law.

The Council

“II.- We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council. (1)”

“(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749, 750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.”

This profession of faith says: “I also adhere with religious obedience of will and faith to the doctrines which, either the Roman Pontiff, or the college of bishops, pronounce when exercising an authentic magisterium, even if they have no intention of proclaiming them in a definitive act.” This profession of faith is preceded by an introduction explaining the meaning of the said profession: “It consequently proved essential to prepare adjusted texts in order to update them as far as their style and their contents were concerned and attune them with the teachings of Vatican II and docuмents developing them.”

This is Archbishop Lefebvre’s comments about this docuмent issued by Cardinal Ratzinger: “The errors of the Council and its reforms remain the official norm that has been confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger’s March 1989 profession of faith”. (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey)

“The new profession of faith which was drafted by Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly includes the acceptance of the Council and its consequences. It is the Council and its consequences, which have destroyed the Holy Mass, which have destroyed our Faith, which have destroyed catechisms and the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over civil societies. How could we accept this! [...] We have to keep the Catholic Faith and protect it by all possible means.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Le Bourget, November 19th, 1989)

“This is leading us to a contradiction since, since at the same time as Rome gives to the Fraternity of St Peter, as an example, or to Le Barroux Abbey or some other group, an authorisation to say the traditional Mass, at the same time they ask young priests to sign a profession of faith in which they accept the spirit of the Council. This is a contradiction: the spirit of the Council is expressed in the New Mass. How can one wish to keep the Traditional Mass and accept the spirit that destroys the Traditional mass? This is a total self-contradiction. One day, slowly, they will demand from those to whom they have granted the Mass of St Pius V, the Traditional Mass, that they also accept the New Mass. And they will just say that this is only complying with what they have signed, since they have signed that they accept the spirit of the Council and the Council’s reforms. One just cannot place himself in such a contradictory situation, in such an incredible non sequitur. This is quite an uncomfortable situation. This is what makes things so difficulty for these groups, which have signed this: it is a dead end for them.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Friedrichshafen homily, April 29th, 1990)

“III, 1.- We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de Episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.”

“III, 3.- Tradition is the living transmission of revelation ‘usque as nos’ and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, not as a contrary novelty, but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith.”

There is a contradiction between these two sentences, inasmuch as the expression “living” has precisely been constantly used by the Modernists in order to imply their doctrinal evolutionism and their “contrary novelties”.

“III, 4.- The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated (8).”

“(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, No. 21.”

This means that not only the Council in the light of Tradition, but also Tradition in the light of the Council.

To say that the Second Vatican Council “in turn, enlightens – in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit – certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated” is absurd as far as it flatly contradicts a number of them.

“III, 5.- The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, (1) must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, (2) without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.”

Bp. Williamson, who used to be Bp. Fellay’s professor, explains:
The first part here (1) is perfectly true, so long as it means that any Conciliar novelty “difficult to reconcile” will be flatly rejected if it objectively contradicts previous Church teaching. But (1) is directly contradicted by (2) when (2) says that no Conciliar novelty may be “interpreted” as being in rupture with Tradition. It is as though one said that all football teams must wear blue shirts, but football team shirts of any other colour are all to be interpreted as being nothing other than blue! What nonsense! But it is pure “hermeneutic of continuity”. (Eleison No. 300 and Open Letter to the Priests of the Priestly Society of St Pius X of Maunday Thursday 2013 by Bp. Williamson)

The Mass

“III, 7.- We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.”

Archbishop Lefebvre said that it could be valid, but that it was nevertheless dangerous since it furthers heresy (favens haeresim). As Fr. de La Rocque explained in his two conferences of May 12th and 18th, 2012 on the Roman doctrinal discussions, to acknowledge the validity of the N.O.M. without mentioning that it is dangerous would be hypocritical and an unacceptable mental reservation.

Moreover, this “legitimately promulgated” expression has always been disputed, and not only in traditional circles. In his editorial to the Friends and Benefactors of the French District, Fr. de Cacqueray wrote: “The new Mass can in no way be pleasing to God because it is misleading, harmful and ambiguous”.
It just cannot be enforced by a law as such in the whole Church. As a matter of fact the purpose the liturgical law is to serve with authority the common good of the Church and all that is required. Paul VI’s new Mass being short of this cannot be supported by a law: it is not only evil, it is illegitimate, despite the apparent lawfulness it was enwrapped with and still is (Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, Disputed Vatican II)
http://www.laportelatine.org/district/france/bo/lab80_130103/lab80_130103.php

The Novus Ordo Missae, in particular, is far too dangerous for the Common Good of the Church to be regarded as a true law.

The Canon Law

“III, 8.- In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.”

Bp. Fellay accepts the new Code of Canon Law, “in the light of Tradition” (III, 5), while Abp. Lefebvre had declared “this Canon Law is unacceptable”. (COSPEC 99B, March 14th, 1983) For him it is more even harmful than the Council itself, since it puts into laws the letter and the spirit of Vatican II, going as far as ignoring important corrections like the Nota explicativa.

In 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre, who had already progressively been disappointed by Modernistic texts from Pope John Paul II, was terribly shocked by the new Code of Canon Law converting into laws the deviations of the Council. » (La Porte Latine, quoted by Avec l’Immaculée:
http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.jp/2013/03/i-quelques-citations-de-ou-sur-mgr.html)

“Our concern became even more vehement with the aberrations of the new Code of Canon Law, not to say its heresies.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, chapter 21)

“One discovers an entirely new conception of the Church.” (Conference, Turin, March 24th, 1984)

“We can find in it the doctrine that was already suggested in the Lumen Gentium text of the Council, according to which the college of bishops united to the Pope holds the supreme power in the Church, and this in a regular and permanent way.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, chapter 12)

“This work, namely the Code, is in perfect accord with the nature of the Church, especially as has been proposed by the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, this new Code can be conceived as an effort to expose in canonical language this doctrine, i.e., conciliar Ecclesiology. The elements of this Ecclesiology are the following: Church = people of God; hierarchical authority = collegial service; Church = communion; and lastly the Church with Her duty to ecuмenism. Each one of these notions is ambiguous and will allow Protestant and Modernist errors to inspire from now on the legislation of the Church. It is the authority of the Pope and of the Bishops which is going to suffer; the distinction between the clergy and the laity will also diminish; the absolute and necessary character of the Catholic faith will also be extenuated to the profit of heresy and schism; and the fundamental realities of sin and grace will be worn down.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 24, March 1983)

“Well, in the new Code of Canon Law there are two supreme powers in the Church: the supreme power of the Pope, and then of the Pope with the bishops. Consequently there are two ordinary subjects of this supreme and total power in the Church. It is exactly what the Nota explicativa had corrected during the Council. For, if the bishops have with the Pope and not without the Pope the supreme power in the Church, they have a right to demand to exert this power which is theirs with the Pope and to demand from the Pope that they may participate in the exercise of this power over the Universal Church. This never ever happened in Church history. They exercised this power when the Pope summoned them in a council and allowed them to participate in his power in the council. It is in fact because they were meeting with the Pope that they then by an extraordinary act [...] had this power over the Universal Church and not in an ordinary manner! Consequently this is restricting the power of the Pope. This means that in practice they are not taking into account the Nota explicativa of the Council in the new Canon Law. That had been a small revolution in the Council. And the Pope felt obliged to intervene and to correct what was in that decree of the Church and adjust it according to the faith of the Church. These are examples I am giving you, which matter to our faith.” (COSPEC 100A, May 20th, 1983)

“The faithful are those who, inasmuch as they are incorporated in Christ by baptism are constituted as the people of God, and who for this reason, having been made partakers in their manner in the priestly, prophetic and royal functions of Christ, are called to exercise the mission that God entrusted to the Church to accomplish in the world. [...] There is no longer any clergy. What, then, happens to the clergy? [...] It is consequently easy to understand that this is the ruin of the priesthood and the laicization of the Church. [...] This is precisely what Luther and the Protestants did, laicizing the priesthood. It is consequently very serious.” (Conference, Turin, March 24th, 1984)

“You know that the new Code of Canon Law permits a priest to give Communion to a Protestant. (Canon 844) It is what they call Eucharistic hospitality. These are Protestants who remain protestants and do not convert. This is directly opposed to the Faith. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist is precisely the sacrament of the unity of the Faith. To give Communion to a Protestant is to rupture the Faith and its unity.” The Protestants must make “an abjuration in order to remove this obex [obstacle] that their baptism might bear fruit. After this, grace will remain in their souls and they will be worthy of salvation. But, as long as they remain attached to their errors and deny truths which are part of the faith, they cannot receive grace.” (Conference, Turin, March 24th, 1984)

“What is the object or aim of canon law, of the fundamental canonical laws? You have two books, which you may read on that subject: De norme generales juris canonici. Two volumes by Professor Michiels, a Franciscan, which give the answer – the general norms of law – and consequently the foundations of the ecclesiastical law itself, and of canon law. Well, he says it openly: Ut patet fondamentum vitae supernaturalis ecclesiae curae et potestati concreditae, est fides. This aim is the faith. [...] Take as an example the fact that the new canon law no longer requests in a Protestant Catholic mixed marriage to commit in writing to the Catholic baptism of the children, this a serious violation of the faith, a serious violation of the faith.” (COSPEC 100A, May 20th, 1983) “Then what should we think about this? – Well, this Code of Canon Law is unacceptable.” (COSPEC 99B, March 14th, 1983)

This is certainly enough to prove that this Declaration or Doctrinal Preamble of April 15th, 2012 by Bishop Fellay is blatantly at variance and even in contradiction with the line of the Archbishop about the Council, the Mass and the Canon Law. He was however just about to sign an agreement on this basis on June 13th, 2012, if it had not been rejected by Cardinal Levada – as not enough –, a refusal confirmed by the Pope’s letter to Bishop Fellay dated June 30th.

So despite the fact that the Superior General has been roaming all-over the world these past eight months in order to reassure people that he was not going to “sell” the Society, one may still be somewhat sceptical. This docuмent is evidence that the worst so-called “gossips” were not that wrong.


Top Priority

The top priority to “overcome the crisis” clearly is not to “overcome our abnormal canonical status”, of which the Archbishop was saying that it is “secondary”, but to keep our Catholic Faith, without yielding to Liberal pressures, which would make us lose it. Let us always remember these words from the Archbishop during a spiritual conference to his seminarians on December 21st, 1984, which, after unsuccessfully trying the impossible in May 1988, he supported until his death:

“Some are prepared to sacrifice the fight for the faith by saying: ‘Let us first re-enter the Church! Let us first do everything to integrate the official, public structure of the Church. Let us be silent about dogmatic issues. Let us be silent about the malice of the [New] Mass. Let us keep quiet over the issues of religious freedom, Human Rights, ecuмenism. And, once we are inside the Church, we will be able to do this, we will be able to achieve that...’ That's absolutely false! You don't enter into a structure, under superiors, by claiming that you will overthrow everything as soon as you are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They have all the authority.

“What matters to us first and foremost is to maintain the Catholic Faith. That's what we are fighting for. So, the canonical issue, this purely public and exterior issue in the Church, is secondary. What matters is to stay within the Church... inside the Church, in other words, in the Catholic Faith of all time, in the true priesthood, in the true Mass, in the true sacraments, and the same catechism, with the same Bible. That's what matters to us. That's what the Church is. Public recognition is a secondary issue. Thus, we should not seek what is secondary by losing what is primary, by losing what is the primary goal of our fight!

“We cannot place ourselves under an authority whose ideas are liberal and who little by little would condemn us, by the logic of the thing, to accept these liberal ideas and all the consequences of these liberal ideas, which are the new Mass, changes in the liturgy, changes in the Bible, changes in catechism, all these changes...”
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 28, 2013, 06:24:32 AM
Resistance Canada comments on the April 15th, 2012 Doctrinal Preamble proposed by His Excellency Bishop B. Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, to Cardinal Levada.

Quote:


Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Preamble
   
It seems necessary to comment on the April 15th, 2012 Doctrinal Preamble proposed by His Excellency Bishop B. Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, to Cardinal Levada. It was a secret for almost a year and was finally made public this past few weeks. This version of the Doctrinal Preamble met strong protests at the General Chapter. Consequently Bishop Fellay withdrew it without however repudiating it. This text consequently gives us an idea of the concessions, which Bishop Fellay would agree to concede, should he be allowed to do so.

As a matter of fact, Bishop Fellay seems to accept to some extent:
1.- Vatican II
2.- the N.O.M.
3.- the New Code of Canon Law.

The Council

“II.- We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council. (1)”

“(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749, 750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.”

This profession of faith says: “I also adhere with religious obedience of will and faith to the doctrines which, either the Roman Pontiff, or the college of bishops, pronounce when exercising an authentic magisterium, even if they have no intention of proclaiming them in a definitive act.” This profession of faith is preceded by an introduction explaining the meaning of the said profession: “It consequently proved essential to prepare adjusted texts in order to update them as far as their style and their contents were concerned and attune them with the teachings of Vatican II and docuмents developing them.”

This is Archbishop Lefebvre’s comments about this docuмent issued by Cardinal Ratzinger: “The errors of the Council and its reforms remain the official norm that has been confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger’s March 1989 profession of faith”. (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey)

“The new profession of faith which was drafted by Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly includes the acceptance of the Council and its consequences. It is the Council and its consequences, which have destroyed the Holy Mass, which have destroyed our Faith, which have destroyed catechisms and the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over civil societies. How could we accept this! [...] We have to keep the Catholic Faith and protect it by all possible means.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Le Bourget, November 19th, 1989)

“This is leading us to a contradiction since, since at the same time as Rome gives to the Fraternity of St Peter, as an example, or to Le Barroux Abbey or some other group, an authorisation to say the traditional Mass, at the same time they ask young priests to sign a profession of faith in which they accept the spirit of the Council. This is a contradiction: the spirit of the Council is expressed in the New Mass. How can one wish to keep the Traditional Mass and accept the spirit that destroys the Traditional mass? This is a total self-contradiction. One day, slowly, they will demand from those to whom they have granted the Mass of St Pius V, the Traditional Mass, that they also accept the New Mass. And they will just say that this is only complying with what they have signed, since they have signed that they accept the spirit of the Council and the Council’s reforms. One just cannot place himself in such a contradictory situation, in such an incredible non sequitur. This is quite an uncomfortable situation. This is what makes things so difficulty for these groups, which have signed this: it is a dead end for them.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Friedrichshafen homily, April 29th, 1990)

“III, 1.- We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de Episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.”

“III, 3.- Tradition is the living transmission of revelation ‘usque as nos’ and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, not as a contrary novelty, but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith.”

There is a contradiction between these two sentences, inasmuch as the expression “living” has precisely been constantly used by the Modernists in order to imply their doctrinal evolutionism and their “contrary novelties”.

“III, 4.- The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated (8).”

“(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, No. 21.”

This means that not only the Council in the light of Tradition, but also Tradition in the light of the Council.

To say that the Second Vatican Council “in turn, enlightens – in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit – certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated” is absurd as far as it flatly contradicts a number of them.

“III, 5.- The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, (1) must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, (2) without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.”

Bp. Williamson, who used to be Bp. Fellay’s professor, explains:
The first part here (1) is perfectly true, so long as it means that any Conciliar novelty “difficult to reconcile” will be flatly rejected if it objectively contradicts previous Church teaching. But (1) is directly contradicted by (2) when (2) says that no Conciliar novelty may be “interpreted” as being in rupture with Tradition. It is as though one said that all football teams must wear blue shirts, but football team shirts of any other colour are all to be interpreted as being nothing other than blue! What nonsense! But it is pure “hermeneutic of continuity”. (Eleison No. 300 and Open Letter to the Priests of the Priestly Society of St Pius X of Maunday Thursday 2013 by Bp. Williamson)

The Mass

“III, 7.- We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.”

Archbishop Lefebvre said that it could be valid, but that it was nevertheless dangerous since it furthers heresy (favens haeresim). As Fr. de La Rocque explained in his two conferences of May 12th and 18th, 2012 on the Roman doctrinal discussions, to acknowledge the validity of the N.O.M. without mentioning that it is dangerous would be hypocritical and an unacceptable mental reservation.

Moreover, this “legitimately promulgated” expression has always been disputed, and not only in traditional circles. In his editorial to the Friends and Benefactors of the French District, Fr. de Cacqueray wrote: “The new Mass can in no way be pleasing to God because it is misleading, harmful and ambiguous”.
It just cannot be enforced by a law as such in the whole Church. As a matter of fact the purpose the liturgical law is to serve with authority the common good of the Church and all that is required. Paul VI’s new Mass being short of this cannot be supported by a law: it is not only evil, it is illegitimate, despite the apparent lawfulness it was enwrapped with and still is (Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, Disputed Vatican II)
http://www.laportelatine.org/district/france/bo/lab80_130103/lab80_130103.php

The Novus Ordo Missae, in particular, is far too dangerous for the Common Good of the Church to be regarded as a true law.

The Canon Law

“III, 8.- In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.”

Bp. Fellay accepts the new Code of Canon Law, “in the light of Tradition” (III, 5), while Abp. Lefebvre had declared “this Canon Law is unacceptable”. (COSPEC 99B, March 14th, 1983) For him it is more even harmful than the Council itself, since it puts into laws the letter and the spirit of Vatican II, going as far as ignoring important corrections like the Nota explicativa.

In 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre, who had already progressively been disappointed by Modernistic texts from Pope John Paul II, was terribly shocked by the new Code of Canon Law converting into laws the deviations of the Council. » (La Porte Latine, quoted by Avec l’Immaculée:
http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.jp/2013/03/i-quelques-citations-de-ou-sur-mgr.html)

“Our concern became even more vehement with the aberrations of the new Code of Canon Law, not to say its heresies.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, chapter 21)

“One discovers an entirely new conception of the Church.” (Conference, Turin, March 24th, 1984)

“We can find in it the doctrine that was already suggested in the Lumen Gentium text of the Council, according to which the college of bishops united to the Pope holds the supreme power in the Church, and this in a regular and permanent way.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, chapter 12)

“This work, namely the Code, is in perfect accord with the nature of the Church, especially as has been proposed by the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, this new Code can be conceived as an effort to expose in canonical language this doctrine, i.e., conciliar Ecclesiology. The elements of this Ecclesiology are the following: Church = people of God; hierarchical authority = collegial service; Church = communion; and lastly the Church with Her duty to ecuмenism. Each one of these notions is ambiguous and will allow Protestant and Modernist errors to inspire from now on the legislation of the Church. It is the authority of the Pope and of the Bishops which is going to suffer; the distinction between the clergy and the laity will also diminish; the absolute and necessary character of the Catholic faith will also be extenuated to the profit of heresy and schism; and the fundamental realities of sin and grace will be worn down.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 24, March 1983)

“Well, in the new Code of Canon Law there are two supreme powers in the Church: the supreme power of the Pope, and then of the Pope with the bishops. Consequently there are two ordinary subjects of this supreme and total power in the Church. It is exactly what the Nota explicativa had corrected during the Council. For, if the bishops have with the Pope and not without the Pope the supreme power in the Church, they have a right to demand to exert this power which is theirs with the Pope and to demand from the Pope that they may participate in the exercise of this power over the Universal Church. This never ever happened in Church history. They exercised this power when the Pope summoned them in a council and allowed them to participate in his power in the council. It is in fact because they were meeting with the Pope that they then by an extraordinary act [...] had this power over the Universal Church and not in an ordinary manner! Consequently this is restricting the power of the Pope. This means that in practice they are not taking into account the Nota explicativa of the Council in the new Canon Law. That had been a small revolution in the Council. And the Pope felt obliged to intervene and to correct what was in that decree of the Church and adjust it according to the faith of the Church. These are examples I am giving you, which matter to our faith.” (COSPEC 100A, May 20th, 1983)

“The faithful are those who, inasmuch as they are incorporated in Christ by baptism are constituted as the people of God, and who for this reason, having been made partakers in their manner in the priestly, prophetic and royal functions of Christ, are called to exercise the mission that God entrusted to the Church to accomplish in the world. [...] There is no longer any clergy. What, then, happens to the clergy? [...] It is consequently easy to understand that this is the ruin of the priesthood and the laicization of the Church. [...] This is precisely what Luther and the Protestants did, laicizing the priesthood. It is consequently very serious.” (Conference, Turin, March 24th, 1984)

“You know that the new Code of Canon Law permits a priest to give Communion to a Protestant. (Canon 844) It is what they call Eucharistic hospitality. These are Protestants who remain protestants and do not convert. This is directly opposed to the Faith. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist is precisely the sacrament of the unity of the Faith. To give Communion to a Protestant is to rupture the Faith and its unity.” The Protestants must make “an abjuration in order to remove this obex [obstacle] that their baptism might bear fruit. After this, grace will remain in their souls and they will be worthy of salvation. But, as long as they remain attached to their errors and deny truths which are part of the faith, they cannot receive grace.” (Conference, Turin, March 24th, 1984)

“What is the object or aim of canon law, of the fundamental canonical laws? You have two books, which you may read on that subject: De norme generales juris canonici. Two volumes by Professor Michiels, a Franciscan, which give the answer – the general norms of law – and consequently the foundations of the ecclesiastical law itself, and of canon law. Well, he says it openly: Ut patet fondamentum vitae supernaturalis ecclesiae curae et potestati concreditae, est fides. This aim is the faith. [...] Take as an example the fact that the new canon law no longer requests in a Protestant Catholic mixed marriage to commit in writing to the Catholic baptism of the children, this a serious violation of the faith, a serious violation of the faith.” (COSPEC 100A, May 20th, 1983) “Then what should we think about this? – Well, this Code of Canon Law is unacceptable.” (COSPEC 99B, March 14th, 1983)

This is certainly enough to prove that this Declaration or Doctrinal Preamble of April 15th, 2012 by Bishop Fellay is blatantly at variance and even in contradiction with the line of the Archbishop about the Council, the Mass and the Canon Law. He was however just about to sign an agreement on this basis on June 13th, 2012, if it had not been rejected by Cardinal Levada – as not enough –, a refusal confirmed by the Pope’s letter to Bishop Fellay dated June 30th.

So despite the fact that the Superior General has been roaming all-over the world these past eight months in order to reassure people that he was not going to “sell” the Society, one may still be somewhat sceptical. This docuмent is evidence that the worst so-called “gossips” were not that wrong.

Top Priority

The top priority to “overcome the crisis” clearly is not to “overcome our abnormal canonical status”, of which the Archbishop was saying that it is “secondary”, but to keep our Catholic Faith, without yielding to Liberal pressures, which would make us lose it. Let us always remember these words from the Archbishop during a spiritual conference to his seminarians on December 21st, 1984, which, after unsuccessfully trying the impossible in May 1988, he supported until his death:

“Some are prepared to sacrifice the fight for the faith by saying: ‘Let us first re-enter the Church! Let us first do everything to integrate the official, public structure of the Church. Let us be silent about dogmatic issues. Let us be silent about the malice of the [New] Mass. Let us keep quiet over the issues of religious freedom, Human Rights, ecuмenism. And, once we are inside the Church, we will be able to do this, we will be able to achieve that...’ That's absolutely false! You don't enter into a structure, under superiors, by claiming that you will overthrow everything as soon as you are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They have all the authority.

“What matters to us first and foremost is to maintain the Catholic Faith. That's what we are fighting for. So, the canonical issue, this purely public and exterior issue in the Church, is secondary. What matters is to stay within the Church... inside the Church, in other words, in the Catholic Faith of all time, in the true priesthood, in the true Mass, in the true sacraments, and the same catechism, with the same Bible. That's what matters to us. That's what the Church is. Public recognition is a secondary issue. Thus, we should not seek what is secondary by losing what is primary, by losing what is the primary goal of our fight!

“We cannot place ourselves under an authority whose ideas are liberal and who little by little would condemn us, by the logic of the thing, to accept these liberal ideas and all the consequences of these liberal ideas, which are the new Mass, changes in the liturgy, changes in the Bible, changes in catechism, all these changes...”  
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 08, 2013, 11:33:17 AM

AMBIGIOUS LANGUAGE-THE DEVILS QUICKSAND

by Fr. David Hewko

May, 2013




 

"And the Light shineth in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it" (St. Jn. I:5).

 

When the Divine Saviour stood surrounded by the pharasaical pack of wolves as they tried to catch Him in His speech, Our Lord answered them, "If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe Me?...I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of My Father, they give testimony of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep" (St. Jn. X:25). St. Paul calls Our Lord "Splendor Gloriae";The Brightness of the Father's Glory" (Heb. I:3) in Whom "there is no change, nor shadow of alteration," nor confusion. The Holy Ghost relegates the state of confusion to the enemies of God "who loveth and maketh a lie" as a punishment for obstinately refusing the Light of the Truth (Apoc. XXI: ).

 

"Ambiguous" means something that can be interpreted in two ways. When such language is used in matters of the Faith it causes immense confusion! St. Pius X in his Encyclical "Pascendi" exposes the tactic of the Modernist clergy who resort to ambiguous language in order to introduce their wicked novelties. He condemns such deliberate craftiness meant to muddle the meaning of any doctrine, or worse,lead to the loss of Faith!

 

Such deviant tactics triumphed in all the docuмents of Vatican II, as Abp. Lefebvre himself witnessed and Michael Davies treated in his "Liturgical Timebombs." Abp. Lefebvre refers to this during the course of the Liberal Council when the Modernist, Schillebeeckx himself, wrote, "We know very well what we are doing in having EQUIVOCAL PHRASES in the schemas of the Council. We shall proceed from there AFTER the Council" [Emphasis mine]. Recently an arch-Modernist, Cardinal Kasper, testified to this deliberate use of double speech in the Council docuмents. He said, "In many places the [Council Fathers] had to find COMPROMISE FORMULAS, in which, often the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the Conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception IN EITHER DIRECTION" [Emphasis mine].

 

Ambiguous language is the friendly atmosphere for heresies and Modernism ("the synthesis of all heresies" - St. Pius X) to take root and grow. That is why the Catholic Church in Her Tradition vigorously defends Scholasticism, St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy and theology, and the "unevolving" language of Latin. For clergy, faithful to Tradition, clarity of doctrine is crucial in this Combat for the Faith and nothing can be more repulsive and abhorrent to the Catholic mind than the use of ambiguous language. It has no place in the writings, docuмents or sermons of any Catholic, especially priests and bishops,....and popes!

 

St. Athanasius saw the entire Catholic Faith hinge on one Greek dipthong! The entire future of the survival of the Catholic Faith hung on two letters! "Homoousion" meant: "Christ is of ONE SUBSTANCE with the Father" (i.e.: "Consubstantial"); and the heretical: "Homoiousion" of Fr. Arius could be interpreted in two different ways, Catholic or heretical. Either "Christ is of ONE SUBSTANCE, or, of LIKE SUBSTANCE with the Father." How many Martyrs died to defend the Truth of the clear Catholic doctrine of "Homoousion"! Words, like the glass that holds the wine, hold the meaning of things. If the glass is shattered or cracked, the wine is lost. So too, misuse of words can shatter or change the meanings of words.

 

Let us come to the facts of the present crisis in Tradition. At the time of the Second Vatican Council, the Liberals had to invent loopholes in the docuмents to attain their desire for the Church to compromise and "be accepted" by the world. Is it no less true that Liberal minds in Tradition wanted to compromise clarity of language in order to"become more acceptable" by the Conciliar Church? It became official in July, 2012 with a whole new orientation towards "normalization" with Modernist Rome. Ignoring the warnings and direction of the Founder (who has the special grace of state as "Founder"!), the Society of St. Pius X leaders had to re-define "conversion of Rome", make a false separation between "principles of prudence" and "principles of the Faith" in applying the questions of canonical normalization with Modernist Rome, and utilize ambiguous language to advance their goals. To demonstate this, try figuring out what some of these quoted texts and interviews actually mean:

 

1. "Many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council, but the common understanding of it.... The Council is presenting a religious liberty which is in fact a very, very limited one. A very limited one. It would mean our talks with Rome, they clearly said that to mean that there would be a right to error or right to choose each religion, is false." (Superior General CNS Interview May 2012).

 

2. "As for the Council, when they asked me the question, 'Does Vatican II belong to Tradition?'" I answered, "I would like to hope that that is the case." (Superior General, DICI 6-8-12)

 

3. "Tradition is the LIVING transmission of revelation "usque ad nos" and the Church in it's doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition PROGRESSES in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, not as a contrary novelty, but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith" (Doctrinal Preamble, III, [Emphasis mine]

 

4."The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the, SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, which, in turn, ENLIGHTENS - in other words DEEPENS and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or NOT YET CONCEPTUALLY FORMULATED" ( Doctrinal Preamble, III, 4). [Emphasis mine]

 

5."We declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments...LEGITIMATELY promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II" (Doctrinal Preamble III,7) [Emphasis mine].

 

6."Concerning the reply I sent to Rome...from what I gather from private sources, I have the impression it is acceptable. Amongst ourselves, I think it will have to be explained properly because there are (in this docuмent) expressions or declarations which are so very much on a tight rope that if you do not have a positive mind or if you are wearing black or pink glasses, YOU WILL SEE IT AS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. So we shall have to properly explain that this letter changes absolutely nothing of our position. But, if one wants to read the letter in a crooked way, it will be possible to understand this letter the wrong way"(SSPX Superior General, Birgnoles, May 2012 - Nouvelles de Chretiente no. 135).

 

 

7. "It should be noted, by the way, that we have not sought 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 should prefer by far the current solution of an intermediary 'status quo', but clearly, Rome is not going to tolerate it any longer" (Superior General & Two Assistants, letter dated April 14, 2012). N.B.: The Doctrinal Preamble for a practical agreement was sent the next day!


How is it possible that those trained to refute Modernism and denounce the tactics of the modernists could possibly resort to using those very same means to attain their new goal; to be "recognized as we are" and have "justice done" to unjust penalties? What happened to the primacy of THE FAITH? Whatever happened to "no agreement until Rome converts to Tradition"? What happened to Abp. Lefebvre's proof for the moment of Rome's conversion, namely, the professing of all the papal teachings and condemnations from the Council of Trent down to Pius XII's "Humani Generis"? A few "crumbs of acknowledgement" to some aspects of Tradition are far from proofs of Rome's conversion! "Summorum Pontificuм" and the so called "lifting" of excommunications that never existed, are mere tactics and maneuvers, as Abp. Lefebvre himself named other supposed moves on the part of the Holy See, and are none other than attempts to swing the SSPX into the Conciliar Church. Again and again, the proof is in the consequences of all the Traditional Catholic communities that made agreements with Rome. The proof lies in the Roman authorities unwavering adherence to Vatican II!

 

Have the men of Tradition forgotten the Divine Words of the only Savior; "Take up your cross daily and follow Me?" Have the defenders of the Deposit of Faith grown weary in the long battle?

 

"When those chosen to defend the Faith don't want to carry this cross, and choose to exchange resistance and self-sacrifice for compromise and "recognition" in the name of a "utopian unity", then, what happens to Truth? What happens to the only True Faith? What happens to the souls?

 

"The Doctrinal Preamble of April 15, 2012, OFFICIALLY signed and submitted to Rome by the Society superiors, is a testimony of the willingness to surrender the Fight for the Faith through explicit expressions of ambiguity. This ambiguity (similar to the practice of freemasons, moranos and enemy infiltrators) justifies the SSPX Resistance! The facts speak for themselves. Ever since the General Chapter Statement & 6 Conditions, the Letter of Response to the 3 Bishops (April 14, 2012), and the notorious Doctrinal Preamble, there has been a weakening of doctrine, loss of souls and confusion. The crisis becomes more severe. Clarification becomes essential!" (Dom Daniel Joaquim Maria de Santana, FBVM).

 

 

"Affirm the Truth!" the Archbishop used to tell the young priests. Why? Because, as Bishop Williamson used to say, "The Truth stands on its own." St. John calls it "the victory which overcometh the world, our Faith!" (1 Jn. V:4) It is not ours to change or modernize, nor does it come from us, but it is the Sacred Deposit that must be handed down from generation to generation ("tradere" means "to hand down", in Latin, from which "tradition" is derived). Is this not the glory of Catholic Tradition, that, like it's sacred Founder Himself, is always the same, victorious over devils and men, over heresies, and always beautiful? "Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same forever!" (Heb XIII:8)

 

 

"It is on the battlefield of Doctrine that the battles are won or lost, and what decides the future," said the great Cardinal Pie of Poitiers. If the Society recovers its former clear defense of Catholic doctrine, which, in turn, demands the public rejection and repudiation of the compromising language used in recent docuмents and interviews, then God may let the "pilot light" carry on. If not, it will continue the path of compromise towards the open jaws of Conciliar modernism and "official recognition" at the price of the unambiguous Truth and countless souls! What then? ...Our Lord put it this way, "I say to you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out!" (St. Lk. XIX: 40) The Faith will be kept, even if its reduced to a handful!

 

Let the great Abp. Lefebvre have the final word about liberals and their love of ambiguous words - the Devil's quicksand!

 

"Catholic liberals have kept on saying that their will for Tradition is equivalent to that of most intransigent persons. The compromise they have sought is not theoretical but practical....They always come back to this reasoning. They are telling us: 'See, we are shepherds. We accept the reality, we are concrete people, we are practical!' But what is this practice? The practice is the implementation of principles with the help of the virtue of prudence, it is nothing other than that.

 

"What is the practice when the principles are missing?...'Yes, yes, yes, we agree, we share the same Credo, etcetera. Yes, but when we find ourselves in the world, then one must adjust oneself to the level of the others, one must live with the others, if not, you will never convert others.' To say this is a total error!...Popes have perceived the danger of those Catholics that are elusive because they claim, when one wants to corner them: 'No, no, I agree.' But afterwards, they come to terms with the enemies of the Church...they are traitors...more dreadful than avowed enemies...they divide the minds, destroy unity, weaken strengths that, instead, should be all together coordinated against the enemy...You will be told that it is you who cause division, but it is not possible to divide when one abides in the Truth...those who divide are those who try to diminish the Truth in order to find agreement with everyone...Those who have it wrong must convert to the Truth and should not try to find common grounds between Truth and error..." (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Conference, Econe, Jan. 1974).
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 10, 2013, 07:23:41 PM
Dissipating the perplexity

April 10, 2013

    We are approaching the first anniversary of the discovery of the correspondence exchanged between the resistant SSPX bishops, who were then three, and the headquarters of the Society under Bishop and Superior General Bernard Fellay—a discovery that triggered in a greater extent the resistance process to change the direction in which the SSPX is headed. According to all human perspectives, but also according to the divine way of proceeding in the normal way of correspondence with or rejection of grace, the SSPX will never be the same because Liberalism is a poison so subtle that once inoculated it shows itself rebellious to mitigated treatments. Once it enters the body of a society, its treatment requires immediate, clear, and unambiguous annihilations with practical measures proportional to contagion. But this can only be done by an authority who cares, with all the clarity and firmness of will, for the common good of society. But what to do when the authority itself is the most affected by the aforesaid poison which darkens the mind and perverts the will? [1]

    What is occurring in the world of Tradition today is something similar to what happened in the years following the Council:  Evil is perceived but most refuse to see it as such.  Alleged motives abound, such as respect for authority, the desire for "regularuty” various fears, etc..  

    He who feels the evil without knowing well its causes and effects becomes perplexed.  And the perplexed do not act in proportion to the gravity of the evil, or simply do not act at all.  This inertia becomes of great importance for the progress of evil that tends to destroy or denature the society wherein it has settled.

    We can't deny that Liberalism is already part of the modus operandi of the SSPX authorities. The revelation of the discrete procedures of GREC has shown us that even in the 90s the accordistas’ intentions were being formed through a small but powerful and influential group.  For a decade and a half, this [agenda] was maturing and letting itself be carefully experienced among priests and faithful.  Little by little the contacts with conciliar Rome were becoming more frequent, creating a sort of "state of affairs" which is the misery downfall of the traditional Catholic movement since it obliterates in the Catholic minds the breadth, intensity, and the demands of the state of necessity, which is so real but so uncomfortable.

    Undoubtedly, it is not easy to face the ecclesiastical authorities as they currently are.  Our dear God uses them, but they do not serve Him. Therefore, for our part, we must practice recognition and resistance, two attitudes that in the face of authority should only occur rarely, such as in situations of emergency. But because Vatican II and its spirit has institutionalized silent apostasy, we are forced to take this difficult and delicate attitude habitually. This is our cross.

    But when you do not want to carry the cross, the resistance is changed into compromise, thus sacrificing coherence in principles in the name of an utopian unity.

    Some moments in this sad trajectory are [ii]:

    2007: The SSPX asked for recognition of the Mass of all time. Rome responded with a decree declaring it not abrogated ... but restricted its application, humiliating and putting it on the same level with the illicit rite of Paul VI.  And what did the SSPX do?  They accepted the decision and thanked the Pope, along with many others, thus entering down a false path.

  2009: The SSPX asked for the removal of the decree of excommunications of the bishops.  Rome only lifted the excommunications, considering thus their validity. The SSPX, along with many others, once again thanked and accepted even though these excommunications were never valid. Each one with its truth...

    2010:  Then we had the doctrinal discussions, whose duration and secrecy were not of a nature to appease the faithful.  Even currently we do not know much about them (which is a bigger secret than the conclave!).  It is quite possible that the righteousness of the defenders of the good doctrine has influenced its negative results, which is recognized by both sides. But there has been no change:  Anunbridgeable gulf [still exists] between the steadfastness of Faith and their obstinacy in error.

    But things did not go well for the SSPX headquarters. The resistance triggered by the SSPX should not be restrained.  The imminence of a desire for canonical regularization was announced by the Society but they took care to precede it with a doctrinal preamble which would express "a common understanding of faith" [iii]  

    Almost a year later we have the canonical regularization intention presented to us. It is the testimony of a willingness to agree to a practical surrender in the combat for the Faith through an explicit profession of ambiguity. Ambiguity is the preferred way to make an agreement between what is Catholic and what is not. Bishop Bernard Fellay himself acknowledged the ambiguity with the unedifying comment regarding seeing things through rose-colored glasses.  The direction of Menzingen was clouded by showy frames and thick rose lenses, but their lenses and frames were broken by Benedict XVI himself who, with three blows, brought everything down. In his Modernism, the reigning Pope at that time was more correct than Menzingen in its traditionalism of rose color: The necessity in accepting the Council, its teachings, and the Mass of Paul VI. May that be clear!

    The analysis of the referred doctrinal statement, along with the consideration of the facts here briefly summarized, is more than enough to conclude that we are facing a process of infiltration, of poisoning with consequential internal destruction, though all the while retaining certain appearances. The infiltration seeks to instill itself especially in the high command posts and intoxication is done by frequent and dangerous environments that foster ambiguity and contradiction. The main objective in this case is the effective submission of the maximum number of traditional Catholics to the Roman authorities, especially priests and bishops. But if this submission does not become official, at least you must keep track of the flagship, the SSPX, whose authorities must keep intact its purposes, never failing to shape the image and mindset of its clergy and Faithful. [iv]

    We hasten to declare we have no conclusive evidence showing that the direction of the SSPX is composed of insiders such as Freemasons, Marranos, etc., but the facts and docuмents show that they act in a remarkably similar manner.

    Nine centuries ago, St. Bernard noted that the Jєωs practiced usury (nihil novum sub sole) ... But he also used to say that when Christians practiced the same, they became worse than the Jєωs.  To apply this appropriately to this case, the least we can say is that they act as enemies by infiltrating and moving in ambiguity and contradiction and with a final and unchanged goal which is not the purpose for which the Society that they govern was established.

    And this is what legitimizes resistance and must set aside any perplexity. The perplexed could ask about how men of God, who speak so well the things of God, could behave this way.  They hear them constantly say that they work for the good of Tradition ... Others might opine that they may not realize their mistakes and that all this can be considered as a well-intentioned illusion on their part.

    But what matters are the facts: The weakening of the doctrine [leading to] the detriment of souls and the instability of the Society.  And all this must be considered in relation with the change in direction of the leadership of the Society which, as it becomes more explicit, becomes more dangerous. [V]
It is necessary to clarify. You cannot expect a significant change in these conditions. To wait, to remain inactive, amounts to harming oneself where it is most important in the life of the soul:  Theological Faith, which should inspire us in everything.  In order to continue to live the Faith, the just must denounce those who are selling it.


Fr. Joaquim Daniel Maria de Sant'Ana, FBMV
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 12, 2013, 09:21:44 PM
Part 1-3 of 5:

(Originally Posted by "Parents for Truth")




Essay #1: Resistance to What?
Introduction:
A Response to Fr. Daniel Themann’s Lecture Piece by Piece.

by Fr. Don Rua, SDB

How happy I was to receive and listen to the talk of Fr. Themann’s concerning the crisis which the Society of St. Pius X is experiencing. Finally there is a concrete statement concerning the principles by which the Society operates. I want to thank him for his presentation and encourage him to enter into the essays which I will write in order to methodically come to the truth which determines the prudential action in the circuмstances in which we find ourselves. Now let us consider a word about the talk’s presuppositions and definitions.

“Truth is first” initiates Father’s preamble and all must agree to serious and precisely define the truth which causes us to act. The primary truth which is not stated in the address is the fact that “one must save one’s soul.” This is the underlying truth in everything we say, think or do. Our Lord remarks, “What good is it if a man gains the whole world but loses his immortal soul.” This truth is a metaphysical truth as opposed to an intellectual truth or a physical truth. It is a truth of the faith and so surpasses and encompasses all other truth.

Truth is not romantic but serious. Yes, Truth is serious for it is the word of God. I am the Way, I am the Truth thus spoke Our Lord. He, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is the Truth incarnate. This is serious because every word He spoke and every deed He performed draws us into union with the eternal truth. Through a correspondence to eternal truth we can arrive at judgments that are clear and prudential. Our judgments will follow the Truth which we hold.

Our judgments can be speculative, practical and prudential but they must be based upon a serious reflection of the truth and the circuмstances in which we live, move and have our being. Hence speculative judgments which deal in the truths of the faith are non-negotiable (e.g. murder is a mortal sin; there are three Persons in the Blessed Trinity). Judgments that are prudential and practical are determined by the circuмstances.

Father states: “Prudential truth is to say that within a given set of circuмstances, which is a reality, such and such a course of action is prudent. It is the correct way to act in order to achieve what is good. As concrete circuмstances change what is prudent changes as well.” Here then is a key – circuмstances. We must correctly assess the circuмstances in which a prudential judgment is made. If then the circuмstances are not correctly assessed then the prudential judgment will be in error. In his address Father will present the circuмstances as he views them which make the actions of the leadership prudential. We will note that our assessment of the circuмstances may call into question the prudential judgment of the same leadership. Hence keep this key in your mind – circuмstances help to dictate our prudential judgment.

Now the danger is exposed when Father tells us that “there is no faster way to get people at each other’s throats than to confuse a question of principle with a question of prudence.” When one makes a prudential judgment one already knows the good (the principle) and now we must decide how to accomplish that good in prudence.” Therefore the principle must be clearly presented as the good to be achieved. If we find that the good to be achieved is not a good then we must contest it with a greater good. Now we have two things to keep well in mind: the circuмstances and the good to be achieved.

Finally we come to the last key in the introduction to the address: “Remember a question of risk does not in itself make a course of action imprudent because any course of action involves some risk and so it is a question of balance weighing the risk with the good to be achieved.” Third element for the discerning listener is the element of risk. I took a risk in listening to this talk in order to achieve a greater understanding of the problem facing the Society. Risk is balanced with the good to be achieved. Keep in mind these three keys: circuмstances, the good to be achieved, and the risk to be taken.

During the body of the address truth will fluctuate from eternal to physical, good will be defined as a response to the authority of Rome, circuмstances will be accepted as favorable to tradition and risk will be accepted for the good of regularization. The great good is the legalization of seminaries, churches, schools, chapels and whatever else comes under the SSPX umbrella. So our desire is to analyze this address from the perspective of eternal truth, which is our faith. Is the risk that is being taken for the protection or the destruction of our faith?

Conclusion of Essay 1 – The Introduction.


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essay #2: Principles Upon Which the Society Has Always Acted. Comment upon Fr. Daniel Themann’s Address
By: Fr. Don Rua, SDB

After the preliminary remarks concerning truth, correct judgments, understanding circuмstances and the acceptance of risk, Father leads us into what he calls the first problem in understanding the Society’s direction in these days. It is the question of the principles upon which the Society is founded and continues to operate. The principles he enumerates are these two:

1. The Society has and continues to recognize the authority of Rome and Rome’s right to govern the Church (e.g. the Pope is the Pope, the Cardinals and Bishops hold offices of authority). For this reason the Society has never fallen into sedevacantism nor followed the route of the Ecclesia Dei communities.

2. The crisis in the Church is based on Vatican II and the new mass.

Considering these two principles we respectfully submit the words of Archbishop Lefebvre concerning the principles that form the foundation of the Society. I quote from the Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger July 8, 1987:

“In order to prevent the auto-demolition of the Church we beg to Holy Father, through your mediation, to allow the free exercise of Tradition by procuring for Tradition the means to live and develop itself for the salvation of the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls: that the traditional foundations may be recognized, especially the seminaries; that His Excellency de Castro Mayer and myself may consecrate some auxiliaries of our choice in order to give to the Church the graces of Tradition, the only source of the renewal of the Church.”

Upon reading this text to Cardinal Ratzinger, the basic principle of the Archbishop seems to be the preservation of the Tradition of the Faith at all costs.
Flowing from this desire to preserve the faith is the action of Rome to protect and foster the faith through recognition of its essential structures (i.e. seminary).

In reality the essential principle guiding the work of the Archbishop was to preserve the holiness of the priesthood and the holiness of the faith. Secondary to this was his effort to bring Rome back to the Tradition of the Church as understood be the Church of all ages. Did he try to establish a canonical structure for the Society – yes but as he remarks in a 1987 ordination sermon in Econe:

“There you have 20 years that I have been going to Rome—writing, speaking, sending docuмents to say: ‘Follow Tradition. Come back to Tradition, or else the Church is going to her ruin. You who have been placed into the succession of those who have built up the Church, you must continue to build Her up, and not demolish Her.’ They are deaf to our appeals!
“This is why, if God asks it of us, we will not hesitate to give ourselves auxiliaries in order to continue this work; for we cannot think that God wants it to be destroyed, that He wills that souls be abandoned, and that by this fact itself the Church will have no more pastors. We are living in an age that is completely exceptional. We must realize this. The situation is no longer normal, quite particularly in Rome.”

Society of St. Pius X we live in abnormal times where the auto-demolition of the Church seems willed by those who ought to build her up. The Assisi event, the uncrowning of Christ in the Catholic countries of the world, the refusal to listen to the pleas of our Blessed Mother, all this argues against a canonical recognition from those who hold position but fail to act according to that position.

These circuмstances have not changed from 1987 but have worsened as now the Church seeks ways to placate the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ life style. The one bastion of true Catholic life came to us from the Archbishop who recommended the fostering of large families, the development of serious seminaries and the mission of priests to go everywhere to preserve the faith. Their battle cry against the Council and the new mass used to be heard and united the flock.
Now the confusion caused by the desire for legal recognition is more than risky it is suicidal.

As the Archbishop remarks this is a battle against the powers of Satan which are found in the deceitful tongue. That tongue is operative in Rome as the Archbishop learned. His experience ought to guide our relations with the Modernist Rome that is currently playing a cat and mouse game with the leadership of the Society.

In the Arian crisis the visible Church was Arian while Athanasius remarked that they have the churches but we possess the faith. It is the faith that saves our souls not the canonical regularization of our Society. The greater good is the salvation of our souls from a house united around the guidance of its founder. We appeal to you to recognize that the visible church is not the Catholic Church.
It is the Conciliar Church, the Church of the new Advent as they call themselves.
This Conciliar Church is suicidal and will bring about the institutional death of the Catholic Church but the faith will remain and hence the Mystical Body will remain for all days.

The root cause of the crisis is not per se the Council but the ones who robbed the Council and used it for their liberal agenda. Those individuals continue to elect each other and the battle continues. Archbishop Lefebvre did what he had to do in 1988 to preserve the Faith of all ages. He consecrated four bishops with the prayer that they would stay the course and rebuild the church.

Dear Society and leaders in the Society your greatest good is the salvation of the souls entrusted to your care. The circuмstances have become more dangerous now than in the times of the Archbishop. The risk accompanied with union is the death of the society. Re-evaluate those who love you and desire your greatest welfare for they only seek to preserve you from a decision that will kill you.
Prudence demands that you re-consider. Your principles are out of order and need to place the priority of salvation over regularization. The history of the good Archbishop’s attempt to work out some kind of canonical status ought to be a warning to you of the deceitful tongues found in Rome. We pray in the wonderful Our Father …. Lead us not into temptation.

Applying your own words Father, the society must hold to its consistent principles (goods) and make a prudential judgment based upon a clear and precise evaluation of the circuмstances then take the risk to save the souls of its families and not put them and their faith in jeopardy. Keep Christ as the Lord of this holy Society and recall the words of warning from your founder:

“Who has been uncrowned? Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Who has uncrowned Him? The Roman authorities of today. …This is a tremendous scandal for souls, for Catholics, to see thus cast into doubt the universal Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is precisely that which is called Liberalism.” (p. 17 Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, Rev. F. Laisney)

End of Reflection on Point One in Fr. Themann’s Address



 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESSAY 3: THE MEANING OF THE TIMELINE IN
FR. THEMANN’S ADDRESS.
By: Fr. Don Rua, SDB

Our next “worry” as Fr. Themann calls it is the timeline which has not been outlined clearly and presents the faithful with doubts. Returning to the Roman
Pilgrimage of 2000 in which a strong presentation of the traditional faithful impressed modernist Rome with the strength of the movement and consequently caused Cardinal Hojos to contact Bishop Fellay to discuss an eventual agreement. In 2001 the General Council met and proposed two conditions to prove the sincerity of the Roman approach. The two requirements were:
1) The liberty of the Tridentine Mass which was never abrogated; 2) the admission that the excommunications were null and void.

Father remarked that Bishop Fellay stated that given “that Rome made the effort it is normal for the Society to take it with the seriousness it deserves.” In order to assess this section it seems good to this author to summarizes Fr. Themann’s chronology and then to fill in the chronology with missing elements. From those two lists the question will arise: Why be selective and why not show the complete actions of Menzingen? So we proceed to Fr. Themann’s chronology:

1) Jan. 2001 – General Council met and established two conditions for initiating a discussion with Rome. (cfr. Above)
2) 2006 – Election of Pope Benedict XVI – Tradition receives the Motu Proprio 2 years later freeing the Tridentine Mass – not a perfect docuмent but significant (Fr. Themann’s statement concerning the Society’s opinion).
3) Jan. 14th, 2009 – withdrawal of the decree of excommunication from the 4 bishops but does not mention Archbishop Lefebvre or de Castro Meyer. Again the docuмent is:”not perfect but significant”.
4) 2009 – 2011 Doctrinal discussions take place under Bishop De Galleretta and other outspoken Society leaders. Bishop Fellay could have chosen others who might “sweep the issues under the rug” but he didn’t.
5) Sept. 2011 Card. Levada invites BF to come to Rome “to make an assessment of these discussions and to consider prospects for the future.
6) Mid-Aug. Sources close to the Pope let BF know that the Pope wishes to recognize the Society unilaterally. In other words, no concessions and the Society will be recognized as it is.
7) Sept. Bishop Fellay meets with Card. Levada and receives a doctrinal preamble and in the following month the superiors meet in Albano to discuss this preamble. It is rejected. The hermeneutic of continuity cannot cover up the Vatican II docuмents which contradict the previous Church teaching.
8) Jan. 2012 Bishop Fellay is asked to send a more detailed explanation concerning the unacceptable preamble. He writes a more detailed explanation while holding to the first response – rejects preamble.
9) Bishop Fellay insists that the Society must be recognized as we are and in teaching as we do according to the principles that define us. Unofficially, BF is told that the Society can continue to attack the errors of Vatican II and the new mass and yet be recognized canonically.
10) March, 2012 BF meets with Card. Levada who gives him a harsh letter which CL says has been approved by the Pope. This letter mentions an excommunication of the Society (threatens the Bishop) if the preamble is not accepted in the present form. This will prove that the Society does not accept the authority of the Pope no matter what you say. BF has one month to reconsider.
11) Bishop receives the conviction that Rome does not think that the Society accepts anything that the Church has done since 1962. Fr. Themann “says that this is a false impression and in April Bishop Fellay will submit a response to that impression and his letter is designed to indicate that the Society does recognize much good and consequently BF will be attacked for this attempt to shatter that impression held by Rome.
12) The unofficial response from Rome is that the Pope accepts it. Now go through the proper channels (i.e. Card. Levada and the Commission). It is sent to the Commission but again it is rejected and the Congregation of the Faith changes it despite the fact that BF said if you change one word we will not accept it.
13) Early June Bishop Fellay grants an interview with DICI to test Rome by attacking Vatican II as erroneous. Pope has no problem saying that Vatican II has been abused but you cannot say it has errors. This is the issue. Bishop Fellay criticizes the new mass and the interview goes to the Pope via Card. Levada. The Cardinal says to BF that he has no right to say that the teaching of the Church today is in opposition to what it said in the past. Bishop Fellay answer that it is a fact. The Cardinal response that you have no right and then hands him the revised text in which words were changed hence makes it unacceptable.
14) Bishop Fellay writes to the Pope concerning this changed docuмent and the Pope then confirms that he approved the re-introduction of the objectionable material. He also states three conditions:
A) That Rome has the authority to determine what is part of tradition and what is not. This condition is true and part of the faith (Fr. Themann’s remark). “It may be your job but does not mean that you get it right.”
B) Vatican II is an integral part of tradition.
C) The new mass is valid and legitimate. Society has always said that the new mass is valid but not that it is good or legitimate.

15) July 2012 – The General Chapter condemns the three major errors of Vatican II in indirect terms.
16) Oct. 27, 2012 – Observatore Romano has an article stating that the Commission is still waiting for an answer from SSPX. However, Bishop Fellay has stated three times that he cannot sign it.

This is the summation of the timeline given by Fr. Themann in his address and now we shall proceed to fill in the missing data.

1. Normality – these are not normal times for Rome has “lost the faith” as the Archbishop pointed out to the Society years ago. In “normal” times the Church focuses on its goal “to save souls.” In abnormal times the Conciliar Church favors the temporal over the eternal. Fr. Themann shifts the term “normal” from the eternal life to the temporal life and loses.
2. Motu Proprio is not only an imperfect docuмent but a deceitful ploy since it presents the new mass as the “ordinary” rite of the Church thus usurping the position of the only legitimate mass which is now consider the “extraordinary” form. It weighs on the new mass over/against the Mass of the ages.
3. The Roman authority “lifted” (as opposed to repealing) the decree of excommunication. From an illegal act on the part of the authority we are presented with another ploy which denigrates the bishops as well.
4. This doctrinal preamble runs contrary to the Archbishop’s warning that “the superiors form the inferiors; not vice-versa….We were protected by God when He allowed the agreement of May 5th to come to naught.” (Letter June 12, 1988)
5. In Albano Bishop Williamson was left out of the proceedings and relegated to a position of silence.
6. The recognition that Rome offered to the Society was similar to what they offered La Barroux, Fraternity of St. Peter, Campos….
7. The harsh letter caused Bishop Fellay to cower whereas the Archbishop was ready to “lay down his life for the faith.” Quite a difference in the leadership one might remark.
8. April 7th, 2012 Bishop Fellay received the letter of the three bishops begging him to stop this madness.
9. April 12th Bishop Fellay responds that these bishops have no faith and are favoring “sedevacantism”.
10. April 15th Bishop Fellay submits the Doctrinal Preamble as a compromise to Rome. Here he does walk a fine line; we might say that he crosses the line in fear of the pseudo-authority of a modernist authoritarian mechanism.
11. May 11th CNS interview reveals the ambiguity in the Bishop’s statements.
12. June 8 – DICI Interview Bishop Fellay remarks that the SSPX has new friends of Tradition in Rome. It is recognized that the Society would naturally fall under the local bishops. This is not a trap by the Pope but an opportunity for the Society.
13. April 15th secret docuмent comes to light in March, 2013 and reveals that Bishop Fellay admits that Vatican II “enlightens and deepens” Tradition? He also called the new mass valid and “legitimately promulgated”. Thus the new mass can sanctify those who attend it.
14. July, 2012 – General Chapter presents the new principle differing from 2006 – which stated there should be no agreement without the conversion of Rome; but in 2012 the Chapter said: “we approve and determine an agreement without Rome’s conversion!” In paragraphs 6 and 7 we find ambiguity rivaling Vatican II. Six conditions are listed: a) Society “agrees to disagree” in order to make an agreement; b) exclusive use of 1962 Liturgy and retention of the current sacramental structure: c) one bishop offered the Society but from whom and from where? Now the desirable conditions (3) follow; d) Ecclesiastical tribunals first instance (but decisions could be overturned in second or third instance); e) placed under diocesan bishops (!?); f) Pontifical Commission (under whom?)
15. On Oct. 4, 2012 Bishop Williamson is expelled on the grounds of disobedience and fomenting rebellion.
16. On October 29, 2012: US District Superior, Fr. Rostand, in his Post Falls conference stated: “Will recognition of the Society make the Society grow and influence the Church? More to the point, that even to have to ask permission to the other bishops will become, over time, not a problem; it is a question of prudence.”(sic)
17. Finally, to date there has been no rejection, repudiation or correction of the main ambiguous statements from: a) CNS and DICI interviews; b) General Chapter statement and the Six Conditions; c) April 15, 2012 – Doctrinal Preamble
18. Consider the manner in which the Society chastens those who in one way or another raises questions of the prudential policy change. We can docuмent that priests have been expelled, silenced, punitively transferred. Our faithful have been refused communion; have had their children expelled from their schools; seminarians have been indoctrinated in a false obedience and to desire a union with modernist Rome; priests and laity have been blackballed from Society property. All this because the Society now desires to protect their new orientation in the name of unity. Faith is no longer the principle of unity but has been subordinated to the prudential policy change.

Now why would one who is presenting the chronology omit the 18 salient points that fill in the SSPX story? Could it be embarrassing to the record? If these facts were presented to the people at large could they recognize the duplicity in the leadership? Could they see that the priests of the resistance have a point to make? Could they recognize the Communist-style of leadership which brooks no opposition and crushes sincere questioning priests and laity? It causes this author to wonder and wonder and wonder. What about you, Fr. Themann?

Don Rua
 
 
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 12, 2013, 09:25:01 PM
Part 4-5 of 5

(Originally Posted by "Parents for Truth"):




FOURTH ESSAY: Changing the Prudential Policy of the Society.
Commentary by Fr. Don Rua, SDB on the Address given by Fr. Themann.

Fr. Themann separates his address into various parts which he calls the worries or the doubts that have been born in the hearts of the faithful. After his presentation of the chronology of events he turns to the prudential change in the Society’s policy in dealing with Rome.
As the priests of the Society recognize that the action of the Archbishop and the four bishops for the last 40 years has been very clear to all: have no dealings with Rome until She converts to Tradition. Our task is to combat the sum total of all heresies (St. Pius X’s analysis of Modernism) by continuing the primary work of the Catholic Church to bring souls to heaven through the reverent participation in the holy sacraments.

“There is no quicker way to cause tension among people except by creating confusion between principle and prudence.” This is the second time Father refers to this proposed postulate. Hence we must inquire concerning the meaning of this prudential policy?
What is it? Why did it need to be changed? What is the principle?
How are the priests of the resistance confusing the principle with the prudential policy?

Just recently Bishop Fellay wrote a letter to all the faithful which restates in beautiful language the stance of the resistance. Principles are present which are congruous with the stand of the fathers who cried out when these principles were on the table for sale. Now if we are in agreement with the principles then the prudential policy ought to favor the preservation of the principles. But there is one irritation in the mix. Bishop Fellay and his key personnel have not recanted their former traitorous docuмents or the General Chapter’s infamous 6 conditions. If a retraction issued forth and an apology came to those priests who were summarily dismissed and crucified, then we may have the restoration of the true SSPX.

Otherwise we have the Marxist technique continuing to show itself in the leadership. Take a few steps forward and see if there is any reaction. If there is a reaction take one step back, then re-group and re-evaluate. There is never an apology because the superior cannot err. Continue the policy by patting the superior on the back while you kick the inferior in the butt.

Now specifically the policy change initiated by Bishop Fellay is that ROME NEED NOT CONVERT in order for the Society to accept a canonical structure; instead, Rome need only allow the Society the right to critique Vatican II and the new mass. This ability to publicly criticize the errors of Vatican II and to state “that the new mass is evil” is the new prudential policy of the superiors. How does that contrast with the prudential policy of the Archbishop? Hence we quote:

“Some are prepared to sacrifice the fight for the faith, by saying: ‘Let us first re-enter the Church! Let us first do everything to integrate the official, public structure of the Church. Let us be silent about dogmatic issues. Let us be silent about the malice of the (New) Mass. Let us keep quiet over the issues of religious freedom, Human Rights, ecuмenism. And, once we are inside the Church, we will be able to do this; we will be able to achieve that…’ That’s absolutely false! You don’t enter into a structure, under superiors, by claiming that you will overthrow everything as soon as you are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They have all the authority.”

“What matters to us first and foremost is to maintain the Catholic Faith. That’s what we are fighting for. So, the canonical issue, this purely public and exterior issue in the Church, is secondary. What matters is to stay within the Church…inside the Church, in other words, in the Catholic Faith of all time, in the true priesthood, in the true Mass, in the true sacraments, and the same catechism, with the same Bible. That’s what matters to us. That’s what the Church is. Public recognition is a secondary issue. Thus, we should not seek what is secondary by losing what is primary, by losing what is the primary goal of our fight!”

Personally, I prefer the prudential policy of the Archbishop. Now Fr. Themann asks two salient questions: “Why change the precondition? What is the benefit? His answer is simply that Rome has always acted as “if Vatican II were infallible but they will not state it in that hot term because they will create questions. They use equivalent terms such as the Holy Ghost would not permit the council to err.”

Now the Society with its new prudential policy would be able to get into the structure and initiate criticism which would break the attitude that Vatican II is infallible. Hence the Society would create the environment for conversion to the Truth. In this manner the Society would fight “to take away the aura of infallibility from Vatican II.”
Thus a great victory would be theirs! (Does this sound just like the reasoning condemned above by the Archbishop? Is this what they are teaching their seminarians?)

The contrast between the two prudential policies is clear now and one must say that the Archbishop remains on the level of the Faith and the recognition that holding the fullness of Faith preserves one in the true Catholic Church. Bishop Fellay sinks from the high point of faith and falls into the realm of reason with the superiors believing that they can effect a change on their own power. Does Scripture say that apart from God you can do nothing? Should not the Society fight by standing in the Truth of the Faith? Fr. Themann prefers to fight. Why not fight under the banner and guidance of the good and holy Archbishop and speak out against the Papal abuses, the Assisi events, the liturgical aberrations, etc.?

Let us recall another thought of the Archbishop in dealing with the Pope and his cardinals, “if you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk. As long as you do not agree to reform the Council, taking into account the doctrine of those Popes that are your predecessors, dialogue is not possible. It is useless.”

This is the prudential policy that the priests of the resistance adhere to with their whole hearts and nothing less.


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESSAY #5: FOURTH WORRY: THE APRIL 15TH DOcuмENT
By: Fr. Don Rua, SDB

In this fifth essay we will analyze the concluding worry presented in Fr. Themann’s address at St. Mary’s and then draw this work to its natural conclusion and our fervent desire: to restore the Society of St. Pius X to its proper role during these Modernist times in which we are inundated.

Fr. Themann has made the case that this docuмent is the reaction of Bishop
Fellay to a harsh letter which he received from Card. Levada and supported by the Pope himself. It is a docuмent which “walks a fine line because it wants to correct the misconception that the Society has accepted nothing from 1962 to the present.” Why should the Society apologize for proclaiming the Faith and for establishing the bulkhead of Tradition? Instead of taking the defensive position against the demonic infiltration of the hierarchy, the Society should take an offensive position requiring the Roman structure to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Society is outside the Catholic Faith.

Consider these words of paragraph 25 so carefully chosen by Bishop Fellay and let the faithful ask themselves if they believe this concerning the Pope and his opinions.

“…his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly either from the character of the docuмents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” (paragraph #25)

Recall now the “universal salvation” proclaimed over and over again by Pope John Paul II (Redemptor Hominis). It fulfils this paragraph to a “T” and so if I dissent from his manifest mind and will am I acting in sin? Have I lost my Catholic Faith? The Popes in modern times have presented us with doctrines which are contrary to the Church’s magisterium of previous popes therefore to whom do we give our assent? It is for this reason that the Archbishop, realizing the total poisoning of the docuмents, said that no negotiations with Rome are possible because they have lost the faith. We cannot deal with the devil. So let us offer no concessions.

Fr. Themann now in imitation of the modernist as historian tells us that the Archbishop signed the May 5th protocol therefore BF presents this docuмent without presenting the errors of Vatican II. One difference is that the good Archbishop wrestled with this error in judgment throughout the night and wrote a retraction immediately on the following day. We have not yet seen the Bishop Fellay’s retraction for any of the disastrous docuмents issuing forth from Menzingen.

Bishop Fellay had the audacity to write that the new mass is legitimate simply because the authority of Rome is the legitimate authority. Fr. Paul Kramer writes: “I have completed a thorough revision of my most important work, A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism. In this work I theologically demonstrate from the docuмents of the Church’s infallible Magisterium that the Novus Ordo Mass is contrary to Divine Law and that the Second Vatican Council’s doctrines on Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty are heretical.” (p. xii, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy)

Now if the Novus Ordo mass is contrary to Divine Law how can it be legitimately promulgated by any pope? I would encourage Fr. Themann and the top theologians of Society to study the work of Fr. Kramer entitled “The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy.” There is no “context” in this world that can erase the error in this presentation offered by Bishop Fellay.

Where is the error in Bishop Fellay’s theology? It is the ecclesiological model from which he draws his conclusions. He considers the visible structure of the church to be the Conciliar Church. In a previous essay we noted that Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre were correct to point out that the Catholic Church resides in the Faith. We must worship in Spirit and in Truth. Structures and buildings do not constitute the Church. The Pope and officials in Rome may possess the structures but have lost the Faith.

Years ago Canon Gregory Hess produced talks which put all the modernist nonsense in their proper perspective. These reforms are all rooted in “pride and stupidity”. For the Society to lower itself to the level of the modernist denies its very nature which is to preserve the holiness and dignity of the Catholic Church in its Faith and the holy sacraments. For this reason the Bishops were meant to carry out the dispensation of the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmations and were not designated for any territorial boundary.

In the Archbishop’s rejection of the May 5th protocol and his decision to act decisively in consecrating four Traditional Bishops he invoked this principle:
“The official link with modernist Rome is nothing against the preservation of the faith!” (p. 559, Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier) We agree with the conclusion of Fr. Themann’s talk that we must unite the words of the great Archbishop with his actions. His priority from the very conception of this conflict with Modernist Rome was to protect the Faith in its splendor and to hand it on to the future generations. The priests of the resistance seek to adhere to this principle and now we conclude this reflection with some salient recommendations.

A FORMULA FOR TRUE UNITY AND STRENGTH.

We recognize that there are many holy priests who are confused by all that has taken place and by the resistance established by their priestly brothers, religious and laity. In the resistance we have experience the wrath of Bishop Fellay through district superiors and house priors. We have been ridiculed, refused absolution, removed from any premises belonging to the Society and put out on the street with nothing but our breviaries and cassocks. We have witnessed religious thrown out of their monasteries, Carmelite nuns forced to seek a new home, children removed from their schools, fear fostered in parishes and schools. We ask why this persecution when we agree with the recent and beautiful letter of Bishop Fellay. We have taken this stance to preserve the Faith placing any canonical structure as secondary. Hence we will continue steadfastly and boldly while calling to our friends and brother priests to hear our solution.

“Unto to the angel of the church of Ephesus write: ‘These things saith he, who holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks:
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them that are evil, and thou hast tried them, who say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And thou hast patience, and hast endured for my name, and hast not fainted. But I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity. Be mindful therefore from whence thou are fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.” (Apoc. 2:1-5)

Dear Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, Fr. Nely and all other superiors,

You have fallen from your former love and have been deceived by the Father of all lies who resides now in Rome. Repent and recognize the height from which you have fallen and the sins which are now committing while Rome degenerates and destroys the faith. The resistant priests are your allies and now our powers must unite in order to bring back the confidence of the Faithful. Hence we propose:

1. That Bishop Fellay correct the false ecclesiological principle under which he has thrown the Society into confusion.
2. That Menzingen apologize to those who warned the flock of the dangers of the modernist poison seeping into the Society.
3. That the current leadership humbly remove themselves from all offices of note in order that the priests of the Society may elect a new slate without prejudice.
4. Recall Bishop Williamson and offer him the deepest gratitude for his fidelity to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.
5. That the Faithful be offered a clear scriptural and spiritual plan for their souls in the crucial days coming our way.
6. A restoration of the priests of the resistance to their good name and a sincere apology for the manner in which they were treated.
7. That a clear statement of the Society’s preservation of the Faith over any structure be issued to the world at large based on the principle that the salvation of the soul outweighs the entire world.

Respectfully submitted by Fr. Michael Rua, SDB
 
 
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 22, 2013, 06:03:11 AM
http://www.therecusant.com/letter-of-entreaty

A Letter of Entreaty
to
Fr. Morgan and the Clergy of the British District

21st May, 2013

(St. Godric; Bl. John Haile)



Dear Fr. Morgan, Dear Fathers,


We beg of you in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, high priest and lover of souls, in the name of his Blessed Mother, in the name of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and in the name of all the wonderful, holy ideals which led you to answer the call to become a shepherd and a lover of souls – aid our souls now, in our moment of need.

The Subversion of the Society of St. Pius X

For some time now, we have felt betrayed by one portion of the SSPX and let down and abandoned by the lack of response from another portion. The leadership of the SSPX are wilfully pursuing a new direction and a new agenda, remaking the Society in their own image with reckless disregard for the souls which Divine Providence has placed in their care. Every month, sometimes it seems every week, some new, fresh piece of evidence emerges of the liberalism at the top which is being forced downwards upon the lower members and faithful of the Society. We have heard not one single convincing explanation, nothing to put our minds at rest, although it is not uncommon for Menzingen or DICI to issue “clarifications” or for Bishop Fellay to claim that his words have been misrepresented in some way.


What concerns us especially is that we see what amounts to a new direction officially enshrined in the SSPX. Recently we have seen proof of the liberalism of Bishop Fellay in the form of a modernistic “Doctrinal Declaration”, a declaration of the his own doctrinal position, presented to Rome with his signature as supposedly representing us also. Amongst other things, we are now able to see that Bishop Fellay accepts the legitimacy of the New Mass which Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX always held to be illegitimate; he accepts the idea of collegiality which Archbishop Lefebvre fought against at the council since it undermines any previous notion of the Church's Magisterium, replacing it with a sort of 'teaching democracy' in the form of the modern Bishops; he accepts the 'hermeneutic of continuity' and the idea that Tradition and the revolution can be thought of as consistent with one another; he accepts all of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which John-Paul II said was Vatican II translated into law, and which includes Canon 844 which provides for the giving of the sacraments to non Catholics; he states explicitly that diabolical modern ideas such as ecuмenism and religious liberty are reconcilable with the true teaching of the Church and with Tradition; and finally he also explicitly states that Vatican II “enlightens and deepens... the life and doctrine of the Church.”


Father, you can see as clearly as we that this Doctrinal Statement is a serious insult to Almighty God, and a total betrayal of the mission of the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. It is also a personal betrayal of every soul who has reposed confidence in the SSPX and worked to build it up and strengthen it, and of course a personal insult to the Archbishop who, far from accepting the New Religion of the conciliar church, declared that it “begins in heresy and ends in heresy, even if not all of its acts are formally heretical.” Let me remind you, Father, that this docuмent in question is not a throwaway remark, a bad translation, or an unfortunate choice of words made in the heat of the moment – it took months to prepare, and once handed over two months were waited to see whether it had been accepted or not. This docuмent, furthermore, is a Doctrinal Declaration: its purpose is to declare doctrine. If one declares something, surely one declares it in public and not in secret? How can one have 'secret doctrine'? Furthermore, since it is a declaration of doctrine, i.e. Bishop Fellay's “Declaration of what I believe”, it is perfect nonsense for him to say that he has “withdrawn it” - in what meaningful sense can one possibly “withdraw” doctrine? If Bishop Fellay was prepared to believe those things recently, but claims to have “withdrawn” his secret docuмent now that it has come to light, then we can take it that he as good as believes them still today. Since he has been caught betraying the Society, it would be “optimistic” to the point of reckless irresponsibility simply to pretend to ourselves that he is one of us once again. Neither he nor any of his allies can be trusted, and we think that if you are honest with yourselves you must admit that.

How are we to remain faithful to Tradition?

Taken together with all the other signs of the past year, and especially the General Chapter's scandalous “three conditions” (and “three desirable conditions – which in effect amounts to “three things we are not prepared to fight for, and are thus quite happy to lose”) which took the revolution in the SSPX and the Superior General's disobedience to the 2006 Chapter and legitimised it and made it the official position of the Society – what we now see is the revolution inside the SSPX fully established in power. Ideas not personalities are what concern us most. And in the persons of Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, and a large number of Superiors and members of the General Chapter we see new ideas which we abhor, and with which we wish nought to do. We do not wish to be underneath these clerics, whose ideas and doctrinal position are so much at variance with our own, and we do not wish there to be any risk or danger to the Faith by continuing under priests with whom we disagree. We cannot help but be reminded of the simple but insightful words of Archbishop Lefebvre: it is the superiors who form the subjects, not the subjects who form the superiors.


It is clear to us that the SSPX is now a sinking ship. The men who hold authority over it are the problem, and yet they cannot be removed from their positions (the only real opportunity to do so would have been at the last General Chapter). The very thing on account of which Almighty God blessed the SSPX, its faithful adherence to Tradition and its determination not to compromise with modernism, has been officially jettisoned and is now gone. Its absence is the one essential difference between the SSPX of yesterday and the SSPX of today. The good priests opposed to compromise who remain inside the SSPX are now good in spite of their being in the SSPX and not because of it. Since you cannot serve two masters, you must ask yourselves this: to which SSPX do you wish to remain loyal? Although you may have been left comparatively unmolested by Menzingen thus far, you cannot be unaware of what is happening all around the world in the Society. Which being the case, it is now only a matter of time: sooner or later if you do not choose to remain traditional at the cost of SSPX membership, you will find that you chose to remain SSPX members at the cost of your fidelity to Tradition.


Fathers, please consider: at your judgement Almighty God will not judge you faithful servants on account of what you said or thought in secret, but rather what you spoke openly and what actions you did in public. We your faithful have waited now for a year since the liberalism became apparent. We did not wish to act rashly. We have been giving you an opportunity to lead us. If, however, you will not do so, then we must reluctantly part company. It is clear that the situation can only become worse, and in such cicrumstances we can see no alternative but to start again. We can be confident for the future, however, since the only thing being begun again would be the administrative structure. The Faith remains, and that is what matters. If we do the right thing, everything else will be taken care of: God helps those who help themselves, as the saying goes. We beg and implore you to come to our aid and not to abandon souls which need you, especially not on account of a false obedience to superiors who regard you as, at best, a problem and with whom you will have increasingly little in common.


God bless you and reward you for your years of work caring for our souls.



Gregory Taylor
Waltraud Taylor
Olivia Bevan
Jeremy Bevan
Susan Warren
Alun Rowland
Anna Thompson
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 06, 2013, 07:49:17 AM
Recusant has posted the message from Father Girouard to London Conference
http://www.therecusant.com/conference-support


Dear Fathers and dear friends of the Catholic Resistance,

It was my intention a while ago to send a more substantial contribution than this one, but I have been on the run since March 21st, and it is only today, at 6PM your time, that I will get out of hiding and resume a public ministry.

For those of you who do not know my story, I refused to follow a transfer order, dated March 13th, to go from Langley (British Columbia) to the Canadian SSPX headquarters in Montreal (Quebec). This order was a consequence of my many sermons made since May 27th, 2012 in opposition to the Revolution in the SSPX. (Only three of them, and a French conference have been recorded).  In my communications with my district Superior, Fr. Jurgen Wegner, I was clearly told more than once that I would not anymore be allowed to criticize the authorities, and that I would have to follow the official line. I refused to go along with this plan, because I wanted to save my soul. Knowing what I know, it would indeed have been a grave sin for me, as a priest, to remain silent for the sake of material security and good reputation. Therefore, having packed my belonging and put most of it in storage, I left the Langley Priory on March 21st, and went on a trip to stay with some good faithful. On March 28th, I issued a public Declaration to explain why I refused to submit to the neo-SSPX.

During these two months and a half, I had to move four times. I also had to work “undercover”, many times in lay clothes.This was absolutely imperative to avoid my location being known by the SSPX authorities, and I could not take the risk of a chance encounter with some faithful. From a distance, I worked with a group of likeminded former parishioners. Although many of them had wanted to start their own chapel since the day my transfer was announced, I insisted on them taking the time to study hard. I wanted the decision to be based on convictions rather than on emotions. Therefore, they met every Sunday after Mass, studying the main docuмents related to the SSPX crisis, and some articles I wrote for them. I also had issues of the Recusant magazine circulated among the members. They all loved the clarity and the tone of the magazine. It has been a tremendous help for me and for them. Finally, on May 15th, when they became really convinced and strong, I left my latest hiding place and moved back to Langley to meet with the group.We all decided it was time for action. They all pledged what monthly donation they could do, and the tally showed we were able to rent a modest apartment for myself, and a hall to have Sunday Mass. I got some donations from friends and strangers, and thus was able to purchase the necessary items for the setting up of a chapel. God’s Providence was always with me throughout these weeks, and I was able to get my apartment furnished for only $55!

Very dear Fathers and friends, on this Solemnity of Corpus Christi, it is with a great joy, that, thanks to the help of the good Lord, I can announce to you that we are celebrating our first Mass today at 10AM our time, 6PM yours. Following a promise made to St. Joseph, we decided to name our Resistance chapel: “St. Joseph, Protector of the Church”, and I will be celebrating the Mass in his honor every first Sunday of the month, starting today. It is our hope that the existence of this chapel, which has been started from scratch, could encourage other faithful and priests to do the same. My apartment has its own little chapel and will soon have the Blessed Sacrament. For all practical purposes, we can say that it is the first Priory of the Resistance in Canada. I am ready to welcome and help any other priest who wants to join the Resistance. I have no doubt that God will inspire many generous souls to send us donations. Tomorrow, our website will officially open, and people will be able to go there and learn what to do to support the Priory. In the next couple of days, we will post, in French and in English, the video recording of our first Mass. The name of the website is SACRIFICIUM.ORG. I chose that name because the center of History is the Sacrifice of Our Lord, and this sacrifice is under attack in the conciliar Church since the creation of the Bastard Mass, the Mass of Luther, the Novus Ordo Missae. The neo-SSPX has ceased to be horrified by this abomination, going so far as to recognize its legitimacy (cf. Bishop Fellay’s declaration of April 15th 2012). The other reason for this name is that a lot of sacrifices are required from the priests and the faithful who want to continue the fight against the New Mass and the other errors and reforms and scandals of the New Church. We want to unite our sacrifices to that of Our Lord. This Holy Sacrifice and Immaculate Victim, “Sanctum Sacrificium, Immaculatam Hostiam”, is the source of our strength and what we want to fight and die for.

We are counting, dear Fathers and friends of the Resistance, on your prayers, and we are keeping you all in ours.

Fr. Patrick Girouard, together with his group of 25 adults and 10 children.

Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 07, 2013, 07:32:56 AM
1st Sermon of Fr. Girouard in New Resistance Chapel:
The "Branding" of the SSPX by Fr. Wegner (Canadian District Superior)
June, 2013


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

I will be brief in this sermon because I have to read that statement again, and you already had it before mass, but what I want to say today is that, obviously, this is my first mass since I came back from exile, and I would like to say a little bit to correct a little bit things that had been said about me when I was away by Father Wegner and the other priests. They said that basically I had not talked with Father Wegner before to preach my sermons, and so forth and so on. So this is not correct, this is not a true statement. In fact I have talked with him many times...

Like in July last year, on a phone call of 80 minutes, and I mentioned all the problems in the Society; and in October, when he came to visit in Langley, we had a two hour conversation, and I told him of these problems in the Society; and then, in November, I sent him two emails with a very important question about Bishop Fellay, and I am still waiting for the answer to the second email. So if I would wait for the answers all the time, I would probably reach the age of retirement before I get the answers! And, therefore, I decided to preach. The other reason also is because the reason why someone asks a question is because he has a question to ask. If you know already the answer, it is no use to ask the question, unless you are a teacher! So I don't have any questions to ask him anymore.

I saw the docuмents that came out from Bishop Fellay, especially his Declaration of April the 15th 2012 that he brought to Cardinal Levada, as the basics for an agreement with Rome. And when you read that, you realize the Society is in deep trouble! Because in that Declaration, in that draft for an agreement with Rome, Bishop Fellay accepts the New Code of Canon Law. He also says that the new mass has been legitimately promulgated. He also says that he recognizes the Magisterium of the Church of today and that he is ready to sign the 1989 Profession of Faith of Cardinal Ratzinger. Which Profession of Faith, as I have explained to you before in one of my sermons, is very bad, especially the third , which basically means that the priests who will take this oath of fidelity, the one drafted in 1989, will accept to submit to the modern Magisterium, that is to say to the modern teachings of the Pope.

Anyway... So I have preached against this Preamble, and I have preached, as I said, in my announcements on March 10th, about the Preamble, and about the letter from the 37 priests, and also the fact that the Carmelites in Germany have decided to leave the Society because of the same reasons; and also I have talked about the expulsion from the Monastery of Silver City of Father Raphael. So I thought that the faithful needed to know. But the reaction was to transfer me to St. Césaire, with the specific order that I should be silent. I should not communicate these things to the faithful. I should not criticize the Superiors. I should not show nor express any distrust for them or their actions. So it was kind of a pact that was asked of me: We will take care of your material needs, you will have a house and beautiful chapel in St. Césaire and in exchange for this security you will remain silent; so I refused. I cannot remain silent.

It would be a sin for me to remain silent, so therefore I refused and went into exile, as you know, and came back a couple of weeks ago because you have had a series of meetings, once a week, and you studied these docuмents; and you studied some articles that I wrote from afar for you, and you studied some copies of the magazine The Recusant, and so forth and so on. And you have had the same reaction any good and normal Catholic would have in front of those docuмents: You have understood that you, that we, have been misled for the past couple of years; that the Society has done a 180 degrees; and this is why you have decided to start your own chapel. Because you knew you could trust me to preach you the truth, because I have to suffer, and I have to make sacrifices to do it now. And we have organized and have now founded, this is our first mass, St. Joseph Defender of the Church Chapel.

And one of the things I would like to share with you about my conversations with Father Wegner in October... The thing that will explain why you do not anymore see the Society criticize in a strong manner, in a vigorous manner, the evils of Vatican II, the evils of the New Mass and what happens in Rome. You would think that maybe it's just that we forget, the Society is... it has forgotten its role of explaining the truth and battling against error. Maybe it's just a coincidence; just because your priest at that parish didn't think to talk about it... Well, that's what I said to Father Wegner; I told Father Wegner, I said to Father: “Look at the DICI website; look at the Angelus magazine; look at the website of the SSPX in the United States; look at the website of Father Couture in Asia; look everywhere, and you don't see any spirit of fight anymore against Vatican II and the New Mass! It seems to me that the Society has become a blunt sword in the hands of the Lord! There is no cutting edge anymore, it is useless!”

And I thought he would say: “Oh, you are wrong” or, “really, Father, we are still strong, and we are still fighting, and you are, you know, it's a misconception that you have. How can you say this?” So I was really taken aback when he agreed with me, and he said: “But yes, Father, it's true!” Well, Father Wegner agrees with me! So I thought I was making headway! I thought: “Well, that's good! Now that he understands the problem, maybe we will start to fight again!” But when my jaw dropped, was when he said that this was a good thing, this change was a good thing! Okay! Also, well, he explained to me how it came to be. He said this is not just a coincidence, or it is not because priests are becoming lazy or they are afraid of Rome. No, no! He said: “This is a decision that has been made in Menzingen, okay? Yes, Father Girouard, and this decision in Menzingen was made because we have been branded!”

So here, I don't know... You know, normally, you brand a cow! But he tells me now that the Society has been branded! So I was able to keep walking, I did not drop dead but... And then he told me: “Yes Father, that is true, and I did it!” Oh! You did it. How did you do it? “Well, when I was in Holland, District Superior, I met with somebody, I became friend with the President of a company...” (and then he named me the name of the company, it is a Flemish name which uh... is too strange to remember) but he said: “This is the fifth most successful company in Holland, so it is a very important company, a very successful company, and a couple of years ago I visited them and I met again with this man, and I asked him to take care of the Society and to do the branding of the Society, because that company is specialized in branding.”

So for those of you don't know what branding is, I will explain briefly. Branding is... That company who makes a branding, suppose it takes as their customer Coca Cola. So Coca Cola would hire that company, and would ask that company "do my branding". And that company will send men to Coca Cola offices, and everywhere, to study the whole industry of Coca Cola, to study all the advertising of Coca Cola, to drink a lot of Coca Cola! And to basically have as much knowledge of Coca Cola as possible. And then they will study all the other companies that make cola; so they will study Royal Cola, Pepsi Cola, King Cola, and so forth and so on. And they will try to figure out, and they will drink a lot of cola of course, and then they will try to figure out how could the Coca Cola company distinguish itself in a very striking manner from all the other brands. That’s the branding: To find out the striking difference of your customer and then, with the branding, they will say: Well, your product is more... It has a little bit more bitterness, or a little bit more fizz in it, and the color is more dark than the others, and so your branding should be that uh... I don't know, “Cola Cola... gives you a kick!” I don't know: “Coca Cola is a product that has more kick than all the others!” That is as an example of branding.

And so Father Wegner asked that man of that company to do the branding of the Society, and so that man said: “I will look into the Society on the website; I will let you know.” A couple of weeks later he phones Father Wegner, and he says: “Father, I refuse; I refuse the contract, because I looked over your name SSPX, and you don't have a good name out there, and I don't want my company to have the blemish of having you as a customer.” So Father Wegner says: “Well, at least give us a chance! Let's hear our own side, what we have to say. I will organize a meeting for you and Bishop Fellay in Menzingen, in Switzerland, and at least give us the chance to answer all of your questions, and after that you will decide!” So the man said : “Fair enough.” So they organize the meeting in Menzingen, and Father Wegner told me that the man went there and asked one hundred and fifty questions to Bishop Fellay, and Bishop Fellay answered all of these questions, and it lasted six hours! For six hours! And, at the end, that man said: “Okay, I will take the contract of the Society, and I will do your branding.”

So I don't know exactly how long this took... A few months... And I don't know how much it cost, but... I talked with some people, and they think it was a bundle of money, and I wish they would have given it to us, so we could have a nice church by now! And afterwards he gave the conclusion to Father Wegner and to Bishop Fellay, the conclusion of the whole survey of the branding, and he said to Father and Bishop Fellay: “Bishop Fellay, the result of my survey, is that for the last fifteen years, you had it all wrong! You will never get more faithful and more people to come to your churches if you continue this way, because right now, the Vatican II Church is like an old man dying, and it's like dying flat on the street. Like they lose their seminaries, they lose their monasteries, they sell their churches, and it is a dying church! And you are really looking bad when you continue to fight that Church! It makes you look like a cruel... or like you exaggerate, or like you are kicking somebody who is already dying! So your new branding has to change you completely! You have to stop arguing; you have to stop fighting; you have instead to go on the positive side, and to show the beauty of the traditional liturgy, the beauty of the traditional theology, and that way people will not see you as cruel, or bitter, or things like that.”

And this is why, since the branding of the society, DICI has changed; the SSPX websites have changed; the Angelus has changed. And in fact, interestingly enough, if you go back to the first issue of the new Angelus, what does Father Wegner say? Go back if you have it, and read it. He says: “We will not anymore put the emphasis on the battle and the fight, but we will put the emphasis on the beauty of the Gregorian chant, the beauty of art...” And so forth and so on. Go ahead and read it. It is exactly the branding of the Society and, really, I had to put my jaw back into place, because I said to myself: “I thought that if there was one person in the world who was authorized, and who knew better, as of the branding or the definition of the Society, that would have been its founder, the Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre! Not a layman who is not even a Catholic, who is not even a traditional! How can you go ask a pagan to define what we are, and what we should do? It is a complete madness!

They accuse us of not being supernatural, and what is that: to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to that company, a pagan company, and to say: “Well! Forget about Coca Cola! And do the SSPX, brand us!” Instead of listening to the founder, instead of reading the founder, who said who we were! As if what the founder said was not good enough, and now we have to have pagans telling us what to do!

So we refuse to do that, and this is why we have started our chapel here, of “Saint Joseph Defender of the Church”. And today, this morning, you have read and you have signed this mission statement that says to everybody why we are doing what we do, and it is not because of emotions, or anger, or resentment, or bitterness. It is because we have read these docuмents and we have understood that the Society has been changed, and has been doing a one hundred degree cycle, and we are not anymore doing what we should do. And, therefore, this is the only way we can continue. We are not making anything new here! You know that I have not preached to you, I have not shown to you any article that is new! We are continuing exactly what you came to Langley for, and Langley is not doing it anymore, and no other parish is doing it anymore in the SSPX. Because they have to follow the General Chapter of 2012, where now they accept the principle of signing a deal with Rome. It doesn't matter if it's not signed yet, because you have accepted the principle: “But yes! We can do a deal with Rome without the conversion of Rome!” And we refuse that, because it's a Revolution. We just continue here, in this hall, what we have been doing from the beginning.

So, my dear friends, we will have to continue to pray for each other to be strong, and to pray for all our other friends who remain in Christ the King. I am in contact with others who are not here this morning, and I have given them these articles and docuмents, and they are studying them. I will not name them. They have to take the time to study, and to be convinced. But, you know, you are not alone here. There are other people who want to continue the real fight of the SSPX. Let us pray for each other and for them.

In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Amen
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 08, 2013, 04:40:21 PM
HERE (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25067&f=19&min=50#p1) is found a .doc file download
of a nice and presentable copy of Fr. Girouard's monumental
Corpus Christi sermon, with page numbers (6) and some bold
for key phrases, and even a touch of color in several spots. The
semicolons are replaced with emdashes and extended emdashes.
I think it reads better this way -- we want to make an IMPACT
on the reader because the only thing that's going to wake these
people up is a HEAD-ON COLLISION, it seems.  



This is destined for perpetuity.  We are in the presence of true
greatness.  I only hope I don't fall into dangerous adulation.  

God help me!  



Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 08, 2013, 11:40:50 PM
.


Update for the above post, A Letter of Entreaty (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22261&min=70#p0):

There are now, as of today (June 8th, 2013), 50 signers.
Source
 (http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/26474199-letter-of-entreaty)
The original 7 are in bold:

Gregory Taylor
Waltraud Taylor
Olivia Bevan
Jeremy Bevan
Susan Warren
Alun Rowland
Anna Thompson

Michael Morley
Paul Whitburn
Alex Williams
Albrecht Maria Bastian
Benedikt Maria Bastian
Caecilia Maria Bastian
Daniel Starck
Clare Starck
Antonio Vitiello
Peter Biosah
Mary Fryd
Peter Wimberley
David McNee
John Britten
Michael Rooney
Margaret Rooney
Monica Beckingham
Angela Straughair
Veronica Whitburn
Alexandra Robson
Jacinta Cooper
John Jensen
Francisca Alacar
Sokia Cotee
Janello Burns
John Gill
Lucky Nwachukwii
Patricia Finlay
Catherine Gaskin
Matthew Gaskin
Mervyn Gaskin
Charlotte Rogers
Brenda Bailey
Ciaran Dennehy
Mary Dennehy
Robert Lane
Juan Zapato
Maria Elizabeth Cacho
Elaine Wakeling
John Harmsen
Mary Codd
Alexandra Dew
Vincent Withams
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 15, 2013, 04:14:58 PM
.


Source (http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/)
The Recusant              


SSPX in Poland caught promoting Ecclesia Dei

Posted by The Editor on June 15, 2013 at 11:10 AM               Comments  (0)

In a piece on the SSPX Polish District website, upcoming SSPX ordinations at Winona, Econe and Zaitskofen are mentioned in the same breath as ordinations of the FSSP the Institute of Christ the King and the "not-the-Redemptorists".

Incredible though it may sound that any of the clever, conniving politicians in the SSPX hierarchy would let their true feelings show in this way, yet on this one occasion the mask was allowed to slip.

On the whole they are careful not to let it happen too often lest too many faithful wake up to what is happening to the SSPX.

The last time the SSPX leadreship felt able to reveal their thoughts in all their alarming candour was in the run up to what everyone thought would be an announcement of a canonical deal with Rome, about this time last year.

Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfluger thought they were home and dry, and began to count their proverbial chickens before they had hatched.

If you are ever unsure of what Bishop Fellay's thinking is, we recommend that you look again at the CNS interview (here) (http://www.therecusant.com/bishop-fellay-cns) or re-read his letter to the three SSPX bishops (here) (http://www.therecusant.com/menz-letter-to-3-bishops), or his June 2012 DICI interview (here) (http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/).

But since Rome 'disappointed Bishop Fellay, the mask has been firmly back on - the liberalising and softening-up of the SSPX proceeds apace, but all the while the faithful must be reassured that nothing ha s changed!

This little article from Poland is the latest small piece of evidence which belies such official reassurances.


.

Our copy of the English translation of the piece has been available in the "Reference Materials" section for a short time, (here) (http://www.therecusant.com/sspx-ed-ordinations).

However, since then the webmaster of the SSPX Poland site has altered his original article (here) (http://news.fsspx.pl/2013/06/europa-i-usa-zapowiedzi-swiecen-kaplanskich-w-bractwie-sw-piusa-x/), removing from it the approving references to the Ecclesia Dei groups and their respective ordinations. You may wish to ask yourself why that might be.



Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 26, 2013, 10:50:58 AM
.

A most excellent and timely article by the formidable Fr. Patrick
Girouard - takes on the question of - Why are the Menzingen-
denizens pursuing this path of normalization with modernist
Rome?  What could be their motivation?  Why do this?
*

He endeavors to 'shed some light' on the topic, and true to
form, he does not fall short of his mark.  Many thanks for this
great article from us to you, Fr. Girouard!

*A topic not unrelated would be, why has the leadership of the
Society tried so desperately to CLAIM that they are NOT in hot
pursuit of this normalization? But it seems to me that the answer
to that question is right here!  They are desperate BECAUSE of
this article, and perhaps others like it, that is, the Resistance
has been doing a spiritual work of mercy to wit:  To Instruct the
Ignorant.  And the devil hates it when the ignorant are
instructed!  Please Note: The murmurings from Fr. Morgan in the
British District that he is due soon to make the announcement of
H.E. Fellay's denouncement of his own AFD (Doctrinal Declaration)
came the very day that this article, below, was posted on
Sacraficium.org! (That would be Fr. Morgan's Denouncement-
Announcement
- coming soon to a venue-near-you!
)
 :popcorn:

Don't miss the discussion thread for "In or Out of the Sea" here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25416&min=10#p2).





(http://sacrificium.org/sites/default/files/logo3_0.png)
(http://sacrificium.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/7436375630_6b6246f941_m.jpg?itok=mf7De0df)


Perception (25 June 2013) (http://sacrificium.org/article/perception-25-june-2013)

When I talk with people, many ask me the same question: “But, Father, why is Bishop Fellay doing this? Why is he, and the other Superiors as well, pursuing this new strategy towards Rome?”

 

Of course, to be able to answer with a complete and absolute certitude, I would need to be God himself! But, as He has chosen me to become His minister here on earth, I do have to try my best to provide some light on the matter.

 

From what I can gather from diverse sources, the superiors of the Society, and those who follow them, believe that the obtaining of a “canonical normalization”, of an “official recognition” by the Roman authorities, would be a means to reach more souls and to be able to help them better to reach their eternal salvation. (They seem to forget that these poor souls have already nine “rallied” communities to turn to...). For Bishop Fellay and his followers, such a “regularization” would also repair an injustice perpetrated against the Society of St. Pius X. These two motives seem, in themselves, to be good ones, and worthy of praises. Good people are indeed attracted by good motives.

 

Before to deal with the first motive, which is more the subject of this editorial, let me dispatch quickly the question of the reparation of an “injustice” done to us: Since when does the fact of being rejected by bad people has become an injustice to good people? To have been rejected by heretics and perverts doesn’t sound too bad to me. I would even say they did me a favor! The Modernists and perverts in Rome didn’t take away my being a Catholic, they just gave me the joy of receiving one of the Beatitudes revealed by Our Lord, that of suffering persecution for justice’s sake! Why would I want this beatitude taken away from me?

 

Let us now proceed with our argumentation: If we were to analyze both motives a bit seriously, we would understand that they have a sandy foundation, and that they cannot stand scrutiny. Indeed, those motives stem from a desire that the SSPX may one day be well perceived by people belonging to the mainstream “Church”. In other words, all the crisis we have been living for the last 15 years or so, since the foundation of the “Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques” (GREC), is based on a question of PERCEPTION, that is to say: On how other people see us.

 

This “Group of Reflection Among Catholics”, founded in 1997 by, among others, Fr. Alain Lorans (in charge of DICI) and Novus Ordo Fr. Michel Lelong, has the official goal of bringing about the reconciliation of the SSPX with conciliar Rome. Fr. Lorans has founded it with the blessing of Bishop Fellay, and he has kept him informed of their work. I have the book written by Fr. Lelong, where he details the history of the group. Among other things, he says that the GREC has suggested to the Society to ask for, and to the Roman authorities to grant, two signs of good will that would help achieve a future reconciliation: 1- The “freedom” of the Old Mass, 2- The lifting of the “excommunications”. The Grec also suggested that the SSPX stops: 1- To criticize harshly the Roman authorities; [and stops] 2- To reject Vatican II as a whole. We know what happened afterwards. The Society asked for the two signs of “good will” from Rome, and it has also changed its style of argumentation. (About this change, I refer you to my sermon of June 2 2013 (http://sacrificium.org/multimedia/video/solemnity-feast-corpus-christi-2-june-2013), on the “branding” of the Society). It is interesting to note that, while the whole question of “reconciliation” is based on perception, the means proposed to achieve it are themselves founded on perception.

 

Indeed, we all know that the Old Mass never needed to be ‘liberated”, since the bull “Quo Primum” gave a perpetual permission to celebrate it, notwithstanding what Novus Ordo bishops may say; that the “excommunications” were never valid; and that the new style of argumentation of the Society is the result of the wish to not be perceived as “bitter”, “harsh”, “disobedient”, etc. But, even if they knew all this, Bishop Fellay and his followers, somewhere along the line, have become afraid of the negative perception the mainstream “Catholics” got from these three elements. They started to think that such a negative perception was an obstacle to the salvation of these poor souls. Therefore, to remove this obstacle, to obtain a good end, they have decided to follow the GREC’s suggestions, which is to say: They have chosen bad means to attain a good end. Everybody with a minimal knowledge of Catechism knows that this is never morally permissible.

 

Moreover, by asking Rome to grant those two “signs of good will”, the leaders of the Society have purposefully acted externally in a manner that contradicted what they believed internally to be true. They therefore increased the confusion in the poor souls they wanted to “save”, because they acted publicly AS IF the Old Mass had been forbidden, and AS IF the excommunications had been valid, and AS IF the Conciliar Rome and Pontiff, and the Council itself, were not that bad anymore. In other words, they have been, for all practical purposes, liars and hypocrites.

 

Later on, Bishop Fellay and his two Assistants, forming what is called the General Council, have presented to Rome a Doctrinal Declaration, dated April 15th 2012, which is a monument of the same kind of hypocrisy. It is a docuмent that tries, by means of subtlety in the choice of words and expressions, to be acceptable both to the Modernists and to Traditionalists. That is why Bishop Fellay himself said repeatedly that our acceptance of this text would depend on our state of mind while reading it (I refer to his expression: “pink or dark tinted glasses”). As far as we know, the General Council has not yet sent another official docuмent to Rome, to say that it revokes this Doctrinal Declaration, and it therefore still represents the official position of the Society on these questions, notwithstanding any declaration to the contrary done in sermons or conferences. Such utterances have indeed no official or juridical value whatsoever, and are only another proof that the leaders of the Society are being hypocritical, not only towards the mainstream “Catholics”, but also with their own faithful who are paying their bills.

 

Another striking example of hypocrisy is the Declaration of the 2012 General Chapter of the Society, and the six “conditions” to a practical agreement. The Superiors pretend to have recovered the unity in the Society, while, in practice, that so-called “unity” has been reached by the expulsion of any dissenting voice, including that of one of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. It is a unity based on fear and on lies. Those who know that the Society is doing wrong fear punishment, and those who think it is doing right have been deceived by the sophisms explained above. Moreover, to affirm that the six “conditions”, weak in themselves, could protect us is to refuse to see the reality in Rome, and to forget what happened to the nine Traditional Communities who tried this before. This is tantamount to voluntary intellectual blindness.

 

What we hope that everybody could realize, is that Bishop Fellay and his followers are doing [making] the same mistake than [as] clergymen did at Vatican II: They found their new strategy on a question of PERCEPTION. Vatican II has indeed been an attempt to improve the perception outsiders had of the Catholic Church. The failed experiment of the Conciliar Church should have prevented the Society leaders from falling into that same trap, but, since when do children learn from the experience of previous generations?

 

What can we do to help stop this non-sense? I think we have to get out of this system of hypocrisy and of that cycle of fear. We have to stand up for the truth, no matter the perception others may have of us, and no matter the punishments. What converted the Pagans in the first centuries of the Church was not Christians who tried to be well thought of. It was the constancy of those who were ready to give their lives to uphold their convictions. Therefore my dear friends, LET US RESIST OPENLY AND STRONGLY!

Abbé Patrick Girouard

    Français

Copyright © Sacrificium, 2013.
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 01, 2013, 08:45:40 PM
Posted by Shamus on Ignis Ardens as a rebuttal to the June 27, 2013 Declaration of the three sspx bishops:

From an Anonymous Religious:



In memory of a principal in danger of extinction:
« NO CANONICAL AGREEMENT BEFORE A DOCTRINAL AGREEMENT »

If Bishop Freppel rightly noted that the abandoning of principles inevitably leads to catastrophe, Cardinal Pie leaves us with some hope in affirming that even a small number of faithful who remain true to those principles is enough to safeguard their integrity and thus keep up a chance of restoring order.

However, since the General Chapter in July 2012, the leadership of the SSPX seems to have abandoned a principle that it had hitherto strongly held; namely that it is impossible to envisage a practical agreement with the Vatican before satisfactorily resolving the doctrinal questions.

On the following 13th October, Bishop de Galarreta might well try to explain that “what was done amounts to taking the whole doctrinal and liturgical question and making it a practical question”, the order is no longer respected and we can but fear the consequences that St Pius X warned of: “If the rule seems to be an obstacle to the action, some might say that to dissimulate and to compromise shall help the action succeed. By doing so one forgets the failsafe rules and obscures the principles on the pretext of a benefit that is nothing but an appearance. What shall remain of this construction without foundations, built on sand?”

The aim of this study is to demonstrate, based on Revelation, Tradition and the concordant declarations of Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated, that the above mentioned principle is absolutely catholic and may suffer neither abandon nor exception, being the will of God Himself and not forged by some traditionalist thinker allergic to all ralliement.


I – Revelation

In the Old Testament as in the New it is God’s firm and explicit will that the men He gratifies with His pure and true doctrine refrain absolutely from mixing with those who profess another, because of the risk of prevaricating.
   
It is the first recommendation the Almighty makes in concluding the covenant with Moses: “Beware thou never join in friendship with the inhabitants of that land, which may be thy ruin: But destroy their altars, break their statues, and cut down their groves” (Ex. 34, 12-13).

In turn, Our Lord often warned his disciples against the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees
(Mt 16, 6 ; Mc 8, 15), against the false prophets disguised as sheep (Mt 7, 15) who lead many into error (Mt 24, 11), even were it possible the elect (Mt 24, 24).

The apostles were so impressed by these warnings from the Divine Master that they forcefully repeated them to their own disciples:
-  “Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.” (Rm. 16, 17).
  -  “As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” (Gal. 1, 9).
-  “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.” (2 Jn 10).

One could add still more passages from scripture but these suffice amply, being dictated by the Holy Ghost, to be convinced that the duty to keep clear of heretics is a God-given law.


II – Tradition

The early Church Fathers, bearing in mind these doctrinal anathemas, were moved to repeat the exhortation of Saint Paul: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid” (Tit. 3, 10).

- “Avoid the heretics; they are the successors of the devil who seduced the first woman”- (St Ignatius of Antioch)
-  “Flee all heretics!” (St Irenaeus).
-  “Flee the poison of heretics!”(St. Anthony the Great)
-  “Do not sit with heretics” (St Ephrem)

And Saint Vincent of Lerins clarifies:
- “The Apostle commands this intransigence to all generations: must always be anathematized  those who have a doctrine contrary to the received doctrine”.

It is why Don Guéranger writes to Bishop d’Astros:
- “One of the means to preserve faith, one of the first marks of unity, is the flight from heretics”.

This « first mark of unity » concerns, naturally, the unity of faith, the first characteristic note of the Catholic Church which can have only “one God, one faith” (Eph. 4,5). This same Church which solemnly tells its future subdeacons to “Remain strong in the true catholic faith, for, according to the Apostle, all that is not of faith is sin (Ro. 14, 23), schism, foreign to the unity of the Church”.

To better understand not only the seniority, but also the uncompromising character of our principle, we must engrave in our minds that during more than a thousand years of schism between the Byzantines and Rome there was never, without exception, concluded one single canonical agreement with the Uniates until they recognized the catholic doctrine over the disputed dogmas (Filioque, primacy of the Pope, etc.).

It is what the Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office, recalled on the eve of the Council:
“Once the truth is acknowledged, this truth over which the Church cannot compromise, all the children who return to her will find a Mother prepared to accommodate as magnanimously as is possible in matters of liturgy, traditions, discipline and humanity” (In Itinéraires No 70 p.6)


III – The declarations of our Bishops

- Archbishop Lefebvre: “supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more.
I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.””
(Fideliter n. 66 nov-dec 1988, pp. 12-13).

- Bishop Williamson:  “The greatest challenge to the SSPX in the next few years is to grasp the primacy of doctrine, and to measure everything else, and to pray, accordingly. In our sentimental world, the constant temptation is to go by feelings. Not going by feelings is what marked out Archbishop Lefebvre, and if in this respect we do not follow him, the SSPX will go the way of all flesh – into the arms of the (objective) destroyers of the Church. […] Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine!” (Angelus Press, 21 June 2008).

- Bishop Fellay : “…the clear awareness of the much more profound key issue which we have just described, forbids us to place the two issues on an equal footing. It is so clear for us that the issue of the Faith and of the spirit of faith has priority over all that we cannot consider a practical solution before the first issue is safely resolved. (…)
For us, each day brings additional proof that we must clarify to a maximum the underlying issues before taking one more step toward a canonical situation, which is not in itself displeasing to us. But this is a matter of following the order of the nature of things, and to start from the wrong end would unavoidably place us in an unbearable situation. We have daily proofs of this. What is at stake is nothing more nor less than our future existence.”
(Superior General's Letter to Friends and Benefactors no.73, 23 October 2008)

- Bishop de Galarreta : “They evidently want to trouble us, to alarm us by pressuring us toward a purely practical agreement, which has always been the proposition of the cardinal [Hoyos]. Evidently you already know our thoughts. This way is a dead way; for us it is the road to death. Therefore there is no question of us following it. We cannot commit ourselves to betraying the public profession of Faith. Out of the question! It’s impossible.”
(Homily 27 June 2008, Ecône)
“This is not the moment to change the decision of the 2006 Chapter: no practical agreement without a solution to the doctrinal question.” (Report read at the Chapter in Albano 7 October 2011)

- Bishop Tissier de Mallerais : “We refuse a purely practical agreement because the doctrinal question is fundamental. Faith comes before legality. We cannot accept a legalization without the problem of the faith being solved. (…) “It is a new religion that is not the Catholic religion. We do not want any compromise with this religion, any risk of corruption, not even any appearance of conciliation, and it is this appearance that our so-called "regularization" would give us.”
(Interview in Rivarol, 1st June 2012).


Conclusion

The principle “No canonical agreement before a doctrinal agreement” is a principle:
1)  Founded on the Word of God, which formally forbids us to associate with those who profess a different doctrine to that which has been handed down by the Church, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1Tim. 3, 15), in particular for over a thousand years in its discussions with the Eastern schismatics.
2)  Absolute and allowing for no circuмventing, reduction or exception, because it pertains of an “order of nature” as bishop Fellay rightly wrote in the past, and not a conventional process.

In consequence, it being true that one cannot expect to recover after having abandoned certain principals, especially those which concern faith, we must today as much as ever not only hold the principal « NO CANONICAL AGREEMENT BEFORE A DOCTRINAL AGREEMENT »,
but we must be watchful that it is not forgotten, altered or by-passed, and we must proclaim it come hell or high water for all good-willed souls to hear.

May the Most Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary come to our aid in the true combat of faith and keep us ever in their love!

A religious.

Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: B from A on July 12, 2013, 06:43:11 AM
I don't know if this letter was in this thread or not, and don't have time to search through 15 pages to find out.  This was an important letter, docuмenting many contradictions coming from Menzingen this past year, and I just had an unbelievably hard time trying to find it.  Partly because the first few hits didn't include the full letter, but just this worthless link:

http://www.ourladysresistance.org/

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

I finally found it here:
http://www.therecusant.com/open-letter-37priests
and here:
http://www.sacrificium.org/article/open-letter-bishop-fellay-thirty-seven-french-priests-28-feb-2013

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

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


Open Letter to Bishop Fellay from Thirty-Seven French Priests (28 Feb 2013) (http://www.therecusant.com/open-letter-37priests)
 
Quote
Open Letter to Bishop Fellay from 37 French Priests (28 Feb 2013)


Original: http://www.lasapiniere.info/lettre-a-mgr-fellay/
(Translated by a priest of the SSPX)


 Your Excellency,

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

 

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

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

But since then, you have changed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 28th, 2013

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

37 Priests




Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 13, 2013, 11:07:01 AM
.

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+

Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 14, 2013, 08:00:50 AM
The Society of St. Pius X and the Diocesan Bishops

The Recusant

February - 2013
 





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


The Record of Events
1) “We must absolutely convince our faithful that is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for 20 years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” (One Year after the Consecrations: an Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, July-August 1989 Issue)    

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

1) If His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay remained faithful to the memory of Archbishop Lefebvre, he would today be saying the following:
“We must absolutely convince our faithful that is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for 40 years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can get further understanding about a personal prelature in this regard by looking at the only personal prelature that exists to date, Opus Dei. On its http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?p=25462 web page, we read:
   "Both the personal prelatures and the dioceses are communities of the faithful of an hierarchical nature. The dioceses are particular Churches and include all the faithful in a specific territory. The personal prelatures live and act within one or various dioceses, with which they cooperate by fulfilling their specific ecclesial purpose, in a complementary relationship."

On its http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?p=25470 web page, we read:

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


Finally on its http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?p=25464 web page, we read:
   "One must also take into account that this prelature, unlike what might happen in the future in others, does not carry out certain functions of ordinary pastoral care (baptisms, confirmations, marriages, funerals, etc.)."

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

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

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


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

It is the hope of this author that this paper has sufficiently demonstrated to the reader that there has indeed been a dramatic change in the wrong direction. Consequently, we cannot continue to blindly trust the current SSPX leadership to guide the large majority of Traditional Catholics into 2013 and beyond; rather, with charity and without judging the interior of those who have defended this perilous stance, it is time for more priests and faithful to help build up again the fortress of Catholic Tradition before the enemy takes up permanent residence. For the Reign of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts!
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 19, 2013, 03:48:23 AM
Source (http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/28621768-asia-report-from-fr-chazal)

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

(http://www.therecusant.com/Fr.%20Chazal.jpg)
by Fr. Francois Chazal


ASIAN REPORT

Dear Fr Pfeiffer

Thanks for waiting so long; as i was preaching a one man show retreat in Tagαytay... and i am not like Josey Wales, capable to preach a whole retreat, carry the sollicitude of all the Churches, run a worlwide resistance network and spiritualdirectionize lost souls on the otherside of the hemisphere via cell phone.

 

Bishop Williamson trip in Asia was a shot in the arm for all centers. He saw 400 people, gave 52 confirmations, lots of speeches, consecrated two Chalices and his good humor, punch lines and british touch were totally enjoyed by everyone. He is up and running, but I agree with you, his fourth piston is yet to fire. but the fact that we discussed so long on the issue demonstrates that at least he is not irritated by the question and expresses a willingness to understand that if he departs this world, leaving us orphans, either his soul is lost or we don't need sacraments. "You are almost making me a Christian"... did he tell me as i was piling arguments sky high. Fr de Tanouarn, a prince among our french liberals, says he will not do it; I think it is an omen to the contrary.

As a consequence i feel fully exonerated from the obligation to come to Virginia. I have done my part. But, could you please give him a copy of "Gods and Generals" as a birthday gift, or at least play Stonewall's Virginia speech on a big screen, saying: "Just as we, would never march into any other place, and novusordoize other people, so we would never allow anybody to march into our place, and novusordoize our people!"

 

The Korean Group is growing; 40 were present for the Confirmation on Sunday. The next Sunday mass after the Bishop's visit, the chapel was almost full, and plenty young with new faces, but i cannot tell if we are going to get back to pre-2012-crisis levels in Korea.

In the Philippines, the Manila ceremonies at Emmy Cortez' went very well for the little group. Again, the house of Julie Cordova is now too small for Sunday Mass. We have to look for another place, all the while the Tanay group is calling us, thanks to Fr Suelo. Manila area is then 100 souls, but i think the XSPX is going to counterattack in Tanay. Fr Suelo says they will hold. The coming of Fr Suelo is the key outcome of the Bishop's visit in Manila. If he continues like that, other soldiers are going to join. For my part i am immensely relieved by this one good old fighting priest. Fr Suelo is as old school as old school can be, as you know so well.

In Leyte 150 people showed up in Maasin, they came also from Santa Cruz, Sogod, Ormoc and Hindang. The Bato people have been totally brainwashed and call us schismatics, like Fr Laisney (who, by the way, refuses to reply to "L'illusion Liberale II" and calls me insane). His Lordship really liked his stay, it was like vacations for him, walking by the sea shore and enjoying my outdoor chess defeat at the hands of Fr Suelo. We had a procession of the Blessed Sacrament down the streets of Maasin, with plenty of missing liturgical items and rubrics, but the Good Lord understand that we come from almost zero. His Lordship looked in the Maasin situation and concludes the same as us: high handedness on good people that should have not be molested or scandalized.

Then we crossed to Dagohoy in Bohol, to a group that has been traditionnal for 20 years, but that was never visited by a bishop for confirmations. They were 40, 13 of them confirmands. The Bishop really liked that little chapel, in the middle of nowhere, and of course our main man, Romeo, was absent! Philippinos will be Philippinos! I wish he could have met Loyd also, the backup man!

Then we crossed to Cebu and met 50 people, half of them so late that those among them who needed it could not receive confirmation. Ramses did a great work. We were in a hurry, but the Bishop gave three speeches (because of the late comers), breaking spears with attorney Bakalso, whom i still respect very much. I also brought the Bishop to Lola Bertha, who was a bit confused because she is being blocked from letting the bishop that blessed the chapel on her property celebrate the Mass and Confirmations ten years later. But again, the Bishop was happy to see her and told her it was all right and that he understood the situation. I am going to begin to give Sunday Masses for Cebu, thanks to the flex given by Fr Suelo, whose health is improving just as we make him move around. The confinement in his room, day after day, in Manila, appears to be the cause of his lung problems. To be confirmed, though. I cross my fingers.

Another thing worthy of note; His Lordship told us to do all we could for the three or four aspirants to the Priesthood; then he went down and blessed the future house in Batangas. It should open in September. But if candidates can be shipped over to you, that would be still a solution that i would prefer, because there is not enough of us, (even if Fr Kramer comes for a few months), to train them fully. The Bishop told me to teach them the elements: Latin, Scripture, Encyclicals, History and English. No spirituality. Nothing going in to their heads, the total opposite of the Castle in Spain in Virginia. I really trust that you are going to do the same with the Seminary on the Hillbelly, under the laughs of the fancy clerics of our time. I am ready, as promised, to give you three months in three installments per year to help you in that task, and if i get a third priest for East Asia, whithout requesting you to swap your Mass circuits with me, even if it would be best. everybody is waiting for you.

Then we flew to Singapore, for 20 people, mostly from the Yeo Clan. They were very good and talked at length with His Lordship. He took a good 48 hours rest, just as we went to admire the glory of Babylon the Great. As it is my custom, I read him the corresponding chapters of the Apocalypse from the top of the Sands Hotel and Casino, the craziest babylonic place that i know of. We also had some tea at the Raffle's Hotel, a brilliant relic of some forgotten power's past.

The key people of the Malaysia group being abroad, i cancelled the visit of the Bishop, but they are going to receive monthly mass starting July. We also omitted Japan (15 souls), Iloilo (20 people yesterday), and other small centers together with the new groups that are calling us now and that i have not started to visit myself.

The news in India is good, Fr Valan is indestructible, Fr Pancras is joining the fray nicely, and preparations for Australia are almost complete. Ils ne passeront pas!

 Come in November.

In Iesu et Maria,

Francois Chazal sspx-mc

 


Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 31, 2013, 10:52:31 AM
delete please
Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 03, 2013, 02:18:40 AM
.

Source (http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/30981941-from-fr-chazal-)  (TheRecusant)



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

SSPX-MC

What's behind the name?


As the forces of the resistance are gathering, tentative names have been given to it, provisionally; the most disastrous denomination being the holier-than-thou "strict observance" qualifier.

The following is just a submission that i make. Many priests of the resistance are in favor, and we are beginning to use the acronym... l hope it is going to stick.

                                               

ONE

The first, and maybe most important point is that we remain and will always be priests of the Society of St Pius the tenth. Our expulsion is invalid because we upheld the will of the Founder, and the goal of our institute which is the Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That Priesthood suffers a terrible offence once Vatican II and the new mass and all wicked reforms, especially the New Code, begin to be recognized suicidally by the top management of the Order itself, notwithstanding the practice of double talk.

Hence we refuse to admit to be the authors of the separation between the official sspx and a remnant of it who adheres exactly to the original notion of the society. Our Anti-modernist Oath, the "promitto" of our ordinations, our original engagement formula and the vows taken by those who can no longer accept the unacceptable, precisely because of these commitments, remain in full force, nay, are indeed fulfilled on this painful occasion.

Moreover, the rules and regulations of our Founder are very wise, and very mild, a little bit like the rule of Saint Benedict. The placing of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost as their common thread gives them a wonderful depth. They have worked very well for forty years, and we do not have the leisure to reinvent from top to bottom an entire set of rules and ceremonies for priests, seminarians and religious. To think ourselves wiser than the Archbishop would be certainly presumptuous. By keeping the name SSPX, we also retain automatically the other name of our order "Apostles of Jesus and Mary". This being said, the same constitutions need to be amended to remedy the disastrous centralization, businessification and bureaucratization of the Society in general, and the dangerous accuмulation of power of the Superior General over an excessive length of time. Some secondary changes may have to be made on the way priests are trained.

                                             

TWO

Hence, while the name sspx has to remain, a qualifier has to be added.

As the xspx, Fr Wegner saying, is clearly rebranding itself as a non fighting corporation, changing the tone of its public speech, while its founder famously described if as a little army of rebuilders, we need to stand firm against the liberal evils of this time:

# the recurrent desire to conform to this modern world,

# the desire to be accepted and recognized in our differences,

# the growing tiredness, apathy and loss of priestly flame, (something not too surprising after forty years of struggle).

# and lastly, the reigning intellectual anarchy.

Hence it would seem fitting to call ourselves an army, or even better, something less than an army, i.e., an army corps.

Army corps were originally designed to engage the enemy more quickly and more flexibly in order to take advantage of opportunities before they fade. Therefore it is a lighter and more adaptable structure than a whole cuмbersome army. At the same time, an army corps includes all three branches: infantry, cavalry and artillery. In the same vein we shall run a whole grid through priories, houses of training (schools and seminaries), and retreat houses, but in a lighter and more efficient fashion.

Therefore we hope to give a harder and more frugal training to our seminarians so that they learn how not to please themselves in a self conceited spiritual ego, but how to please God. "Christus non sibi placuit" (Rom. XV,3). Magnificent buildings are not indicated at this time as families are requested to struggle and be frugal themselves.

                                         

THREE

Then, again, precisely as the Fatima solution is despised, Our Lady remains ever more the "whole reason of our hope" (St Bernard). She leads us into battle like Deborah, because it is the will of God that victory be attributed to her (Iudic. IV,9). As the Archbishop told us on the occasion of her Immaculate Conception she is the opposite of this deathly admixture of truth and error and of this desire to be recognized by any Council of the impious ones, whatever be the place they unjustly occupy.

May she enable us to stand in the truth, in all humility before Our God who is the First Truth or Truth Itself, and then before other men to whom Truth is owed as a first Charity.

Francois Chazal SSPX Marian Corps.

Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 03, 2013, 02:24:50 AM
I just posted this, above, and then the post was not there. I left
this thread and came back, and the post was not there.  So
I posted it again, and then the first post was there after all.  

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

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

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


Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 22, 2013, 08:06:58 AM
.It's been a hot summer and it's getting hotter. Sorry for the delay,
but this article below is from the August Recusant.  It's almost time
for the September issue and I'm still reading the August issue.
These things take a lot of concentration to read, and my hat's off
the Editor, who must be capable of turning out copy faster than
lightening.  There are more equally impressive articles in the August
issue but this one catches my fancy because it contains so much
apt analysis of the SARD, some of which I had noticed earlier and
some of which I had not.  

{As much as I'd like to render just the article, I cannot help but to
put in a word or two edgewise, so they'll be in braces and in blue.
This article begins on page 19 of issue #9, August 2013.}







What’s wrong with Bishop Fellay’s
25th Anniversary Declaration?



What indeed. The answer, alas, is that there is quite a lot wrong with
it, though the task of demonstrating exactly what is wrong is not an
easy one. I hope therefore that I will be forgiven if I borrow heavily
from the excellent analysis done by Fr. Pfeiffer in various talks
available on the internet.

On a first reading, the text appears to be disarmingly sound: ‘staunch’
to use a word beloved of one English priest. It has lots of the right
vocabulary, with particular words and phrases standing out and
lingering in the mind of the reader:

“...duty to oppose errors publicly...”; “...errors...in the texts
themselves...”; “...cult of man...”; “...false concept of living Tradition...”;
etc.  However, the merit of a text such as this stands or falls on the
whole meaning, implied as well as explicit, which is expressed in whole
sentences and paragraphs, not in mere phrases. We must therefore
carefully re-read the whole thing, looking at what it actually chooses
to say and at what this means.

{One thing that echoes in my mind as I read this, and I can't help but
wonder why it isn't mentioned, is this:  Seeing what this docuмent
implies as its true purpose, if you were to have that in mind, why
would you choose to use these terms to achieve it?  All the traddy-
sounding phrases are objectively OUT OF PLACE and would not be
the first choice of any writer with this intention, with one lone
exception, and that is, to give the reader the IMPRESSION that the
docuмent is "staunch" or somehow upright and honorable.  But
seeing the overall effect of the piece, it is clearly not upright, nor
honorable and therefore the traddy terms are merely there for a
lure, and a deception for the unwary:  in a word, they are misused
as a "snare of the devil to entrap the innocent, as he prowls about
the world like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour." It seems
to me that Ed. might have gone that far, but he controls himself
better than I do.  My hat's off to you, Ed.}

On looking closer, it does seem that the text has been prepared with
a very thick layer of “Traditional sounding” rhetoric designed to put the
reader's critical faculties to sleep and obscure the various weaknesses
and loopholes also present. Those readers who have done the
penance of studying the deception practiced at Vatican II will recognise
immediately what is happening here. Texts at Vatican II were prepared
in precisely this way:  lots of traditional-sounding language for most
of the docuмent, and then, buried within it a deliberate and fatal flaw,
a loophole which allows the whole rest of the docuмent to be undone.

As one Traditional Catholic gentleman (himself a lawyer, if my memory
serves) once observed about the texts of Vatican II:  when reading a
contract, a lawyer will pay closest attention not to what the contract
provides for his client, but in what it permits the other party. A chain is
only as strong as its weakest link, and a legal docuмent is only as
good as its weakest loophole.  For example, the docuмent on the
liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) has many wonderful, Traditional
sounding provisions:  that Latin should be retained, Gregorian chant
be given pride of place, etc. And yet somewhere, mixed in with the
rest, it also contains one little part allowing changes and ‘updating’ to
take place.  The rest is history.  

{That one little part allowing changes and 'updating' was then the
basis for Paul VI's 30-some study groups in the Consilium comprising
members numbering in the hundreds, and one of which groups
was the one headed by a particular cardinal in charge of revising
all of the sacraments - starting with episcopal consecrations, mind
you, for no really sound reason, but change for the sake of change.
It is reminiscent of the presidential campaigns Bill Clinton and Barack
Obama.}

So let us try not to be too dazzled by the ‘hard-line’ vocabulary. Let
us look instead at what the text actually says.  Paragraph 1 begins by
expressing “filial gratitude” towards Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de
Castro Mayer. This is fine as far as it goes. It is easy to be theoretically
‘grateful’ to people who are dead.

The voice of the Archbishop lives on in his writings and sermons, which
is why we note with interest that nowhere does this 25th anniversary
text quote from Archbishop Lefebvre’s sermon at the consecrations.
Does the gratitude professed in the first paragraph not extend to
allowing Archbishop Lefebvre to explain his reasons for performing the
consecrations in his own words? Or Bishop de Castro Mayer, for that
matter? The signatories are so “eager to express their gratitude” to
Archbishop Lefebvre that they forgot to include him, and all-but left
him out, except for a few harmless references, some soft-sounding
quotes which suit the new agenda of diplomacy towards Rome.

{Please note:  this is typical of the Menzingen-denizen approach
of late, to downplay everything "staunch" and militant about what
ABL ever said or wrote, and only allow commemoration of the
soft, easy, pious and spiritual things he left behind.  In this way they
attempt to re-make ABL into a figure of their own image, now that
he's no longer here to defend himself, and those who would stand
up to defend him are accused of being "disobedient."}

Archbishop Lefebvre talking in his letter to the Bishops elect about
‘remaining attached to the See of Peter’ is included (in paragraph 2 ),
but Archbishop Lefebvre talking about how Rome is leading everyone
down the road of apostasy? Or Archbishop Lefebvre expressing doubts
over the new sacraments and the intentions of the Novus Ordo clergy?
Perhaps we’re not so grateful for those little bits. Interestingly enough,
the same two historic sermons (and Bp. de Castro Mayer’s was a very
short, succinct sermon) appear to be absent from all the official SSPX
websites as well.  Paragraph 3 concerns the errors of the Council. It
mentions that it is not a question of interpretation (hermeneutic of
continuity or that of rupture), which appears very good.  Here is the
relevant part:  “Following Archbishop Lefebvre, we affirm that the
cause of the grave errors which are in the process of demolishing the
Church does not reside in a bad interpretation of the conciliar texts ...
but truly in the texts themselves, by virtue of the unheard of choice
made by Vatican II.  This choice is manifest in its docuмents and in its
spirit; ...”

Look carefully at the subject of the sentence: what exactly is it that
‘resides in the texts themselves’? Not errors, but the cause of errors.
What is this cause? We are not told.  However, as Fr. Pfeiffer says, only
God causes Himself;  otherwise, a cause and the thing it causes are
always distinct, they are not one and the same, like rain and the black
cloud from which it came. The point can perhaps be best illustrated by
taking, as a concrete example, one of the most notorious teachings of
Vatican II, religious liberty: that man by his nature has an inaliable right
to profess and practise error. Can one claim that this teaching is a ‘cause
of error’?  Is it not rather an error itself? So what is meant by a cause
of error;  what causes errors?  Pride, laxity, worldliness, imprecision,
taking God’s grace for granted, lack of studiousness ... who knows;  how
far back need one go?  Is this text being deliberately imprecise in
employing such unusual terms?  What must be considered is that this is
a very pointed and precise phrase.

The normal thing is to speak of ‘the errors of the Council’ - that is a
phrase which we are all used to and which trips off the tongue easily.
Why suddenly change and speak of ‘the cause of errors’?  We believe
that it is a deliberate exercise in deception.  It sounds sufficiently
Traditional that to us it appears to be a restatement of Archbishop
Lefebvre’s position.  Future generations, further removed from the
Archbishop and the SSPX he founded, and as a consequence less
‘hard-line,’ will be able to interpret this in a more Rome-friendly,
conciliar-friendly sense.  After all, it does not tell us what this “cause”
is.  It only tells us that it was “by virtue of an unheard of choice,” again
another unusual and quite deliberate expression.  When did Archbishop
Lefebvre ever lament that Vatican II had made “an unheard of choice”?

What was this choice? We are not told. It is so “unheard of” that we’ve
still never even heard of it!

{The more I think about this section the more sinister it seems.  This
is a thing that has power to grow under your skin, like Morgellon's
disease.  This Internet rumour of "unheard-of choice" is so unheard-of
even after finding exposure in +Fellay's little SARD, it's STILL quite
unheard-of!  My goodness, it's really got a lot of stealth power,
whatever it is.  Maybe it's a fantasm of some demon, and that's why
we haven't been able to identify it. Hmmmm???}

What is happening is that although this text sounds sufficiently
Traditional to pass through the scrutiny of its contemporaries, yet it
is sufficiently ambiguous and novel that it leaves the door open to
future interpretation by more liberal minds, in much the same way
as some of the ‘time bombs’ in Vatican II.

The rest of the paragraph then goes on to talk about how the true
religion cannot be reconciled with the cult of man, and to criticise
some words of Paul VI.  In itself there is nothing wrong with this, but
following on from the talk of the causes of errors and ‘an unheard of
choice,’ it leaves the impression that the two are somehow connected,
that the one explains the other.  Whereas, on re-reading the paragraph,
the reader will notice that there is no explicit connection between the
two.  Yes, the cult of man is radically opposed to the Catholic Faith -
what does that have to do with Vatican II?  We are not told, we are
left to assume.  This way of speaking and thinking is most certainly not,
as the opening words of the paragraph claim, “following Archbishop
Lefebvre”.

{Actually, by putting two important topics in subsequent sentences,
but topics which have no explained relationship to each other, the
overall effect is to nullify the reality of BOTH of them, so as to, as it
were, remove them from the list of controversies by merely bringing
them up.  For if anyone asks about the one, then the Menzingen-
denizen can refer to the other, and if about the other, the one, and
in this way, no answer is made intelligible, but many words are spoken.}

In summary: that the texts of the Council “contain the cause of error”
can only mean that that the texts of the Council do not contain error.
(So when Vatican II tells us that we have a right to choose to be
Mormons or Bhuddists, this is not an error.) It looks traditional, sound
and orthodox, but its meaning is most definitely not.


Paragraph 4 seems very much concerned with the magisterium.
Magisterium
refers to the authority of the Church, and thus it is helpful
to look at this paragraph together with paragraph 8. On the one hand,
it is true that Vatican II has effectively undermined authority in the
Church. On the other hand, that is not the main problem with the
Council. The problem is doctrinal, it is one of false teaching. Problems
with authority necessarily come in the wake of that, since authority is
at the service of the Faith, and not vice versa.

Archbishop Lefebvre was disobedient and strong in the Faith; Paul VI,
although utterly heterodox was a man who ruled the Church with a
rod of iron.  A delinquent father undermines and loses his authority
over his family, but the problem is his delinquency;  his loss of
authority is only a by product of that delinquency.  Despite
appearances, the Social Kingship of Christ is not mentioned in
paragraph 5, although “The reign of Christ” may well be the same
thing.  Or it may not be:  perhaps we are once again being allowed to
make our own assumptions, assumptions which will not necessarily
be made by future generations who read this same text.  As Fr.
Hewko says, a modernist can want “the reign of Christ” in his heart
but that is not necessarily the same as the Social Kingship of Christ.

We are told that from the time of the Council onwards, the “reign of
Christ” was “no longer the preoccupation” and sometimes was “even
combated.” (Even combated? Just imagine that!) Any Catholic
following the nefarious goings on in the conciliar Church knows that
Christ’s Social Kingship is not just ignored or “even combated”, it is
consistently and constantly denied and contradicted! Archbishop
Lefebvre wrote a book entitled:  “They Have Uncrowned Him.”
Not, “They Are No Longer Preoccupied With His Crown”! One implies
a willful and positively malevolent act; a positive action consonant
with diabolical disorientation, Rome losing the faith, and all the
other ominous prophecies. The other implies a neglect or absent
mindedness, irresponsible perhaps, but hardly of the same order of
magnitude;  a sin of omission at best. A similar distinction comes to
mind every time one hears an SSPX worthy talking about “helping
the authorities in Rome to rediscover their own Tradition” or
something similar, as if the authorities in Rome had accidentally
mislaid Tradition these last fifty or so years and had not been
waging an out-and-out total war of extermination against it!
Lest we
forget exactly what is at stake, it should suffice to recall one or two
of the actual effects of the wicked teaching of Vatican II.  Reading this
text, one might forget that in South America, hundreds of thousands
if not millions of souls leave the Church every year to join ‘evangelical’
Protestant sects, as a direct result of Rome having ordered those
countries to abandon their Catholic constitutions and fall into line with
the teaching of Vatican II by accepting and enshrining religious liberty.
And let us not forget the appalling betrayal of General Franco and
many heroic Spaniards who, having literally fought, risked their lives
and in many cases shed their blood during three long years of civil
war in order to establish a Catholic constitution in Spain, were then
rewarded for their loyalty to Rome by Rome ordering them to undo
what they had established and open their constitution to all religions.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not famously say
to Cardinal Ratzinger:
“Eminence, if only you were more preoccupied with the
Christianisation of society! We are preoccupied with the reign of
Christ whereas you are not, and you even sometimes combat it.”


He said:
“Eminence, you are working for the de-Chrsitianisation of society
whereas we are working for the Christianisation of it.”


Incidentally, various people are reporting difficulties in obtaining ‘They
Have Uncrowned Him’ -of course, that might just be pure coincidence,
and not at all because it does not fit the new idea that Vatican II’s
religious liberty “is in fact a very, very limited one. Very limited. ”

Paragraph 6 in a similar manner appears at first glance to deal with
Religious Liberty, but ducks out at the last moment. This paragraph
tells us the Religious Liberty “leads to” demanding that God renounce
His reign. The problem here can be summed up easily: it does not
“lead to” it - it is it!

{Ed. gives credit to Fr. Pfeiffer for some of this material, but it has
come to my attention that since this Recusant came out, Fr. has
made the point in his sermons that this phrase "that God renounce
His reign" is rather gutless.  How can God "renounce His reign?"
Perhaps if the devil had his way, this would be his demand.  And
what exactly is this curious "reign" anyway:  is it the Social Kingship
of Christ, or is it some vague second thought in the heart of some
heretic who doesn't really want to think about God very much?}

This is akin to saying ‘the teaching “Jesus Christ is not God” leads
to heresy’. What nonsense. Once again, what can be seen here is
a refusal to deal with the problem of the Council.  Is the error in the
text, is it the Council itself which contains error, or rather is error
something which the Council merely leads to?  (Perhaps because
you make an ‘unheard of choice’!?)  As elsewhere, paragraph 6
appears to imply the former whilst actually saying the latter.

Paragraph 6 also tells us that the Church is being guided by human
prudence.  It may seem at first a relatively minor point, but we should
recall St. Thomas’ teaching that in the end we will be guided by the
good spirit or the bad spirit, either by Christ or the devil.   Especially
since we are talking about the Church, with a supernatural mission.
When the anti-Christ emerges, will he follow ‘human prudence’?  This
author thinks it fair to say that it is something far above human
intelligence, namely a diabolical ‘prudence’ which is guiding the Church.
The crisis in the Church is not due to bumbling, incompetent men
following their own flawed human intelligence.  The massive loss of
faith and loss of souls is the work a diabolical conspiracy, ultimately
the work of the devil.

Paragraph 7 tells us that due to ecuмenism and interreligious
dialogue, “the truth about the one true Church is silenced.”  Once
again, this is misleading.  The truth about the one true Church is not
merely silenced:  it is denied and contradicted.  

{It seems to me that what has been silenced is the voice of a
lot of otherwise good priests who now are terrorized into not
standing up and crying "FOUL" when idiocy like this SARD* is
cranked out like one of Teilhard de Chardin's "clandestines."}

Similarly, ecuмenism has not merely “killed the missionary spirit,”
it has killed the missions, and today is still killing millions and millions
of souls!  Teaching the truth only to your friends, not preaching the
truth to outsiders, not being welcoming of newcomers to your
Mass centre, these are things which merely kill the missionary
spirit.  The missionary spirit appears to be dying or dead in large
parts of the SSPX, but even we would stop short of accusing those
parts of the SSPX of being ecuмenical! Just as paragraph 6
pointedly does not say that religious liberty is an error, paragraph 7
likewise pointedly avoids saying anything similar about ecuмenism.
It tries to sound like it is against it without actually saying anything
of real substance against it.

As mentioned above, Paragraph 8 deals with authority, an interesting
subject given Bishop Fellay’s own preoccupation of late, and on closer
examination it is very revealing.  We are told that:  “The weakening of
faith in Our Lord’s divinity favours a dissolution of the unity of authority
in the Church.”

Leaving aside yet another example of weak and equivocal language
(‘favours’?), let us examine what this means.  What exactly is the
main problem being lamented in this statement?  The dissolution of the
unity of authority.  The secondary thing which is mentioned as a problem
only insofar as it ‘favours’ this dissolution of authority is Faith (‘faith’) in
Our Lord’s divinity.  Implication:  unity of authority is more important
than Faith in Our Lord’ s divinity.

“The destruction of authority,” we are told, “represents the ruin of
Christian institutions: families, seminaries, religious institutes.”
So once again, it is not a loss of Faith which has caused the destruction
of Christendom which we witness all around us.  The withered remnants
of the Catholic Church, closed convents, barely-any-longer-Catholic
schools, increasingly anti-Christ laws being passed by the governments
of once-Catholic nations, the almost complete apostasy of at least two
generations:  these are all things which we thought were the result of
Vatican II spreading its errors throughout the Church like deadly poison.
But no, according to this docuмent, it is as a result of a destruction of
authority. ‘If only there were enough authority, then everything
would be fine.’
 We mentioned the preoccupation with authority
earlier on when passing over paragraph 4.

{It's nice to see an editor who doesn't forget to take up a topic
later when he said he would postpone it earlier.  I usually forget all
about it when I do that!!  HAHAHAHA}

Perhaps this is the right time to remind the reader of the words of the
scandalous General Chapter Declaration of 2012, which begins by
stating that, at the conclusion of its meeting, the General Chapter
“stands at the tomb of Archbishop Lefebvre, united behind the
Superior General Bishop Fellay.” It has been the contention of some
that this amounts to official recognition that the new principle of unity
for the SSPX, the thing which unifies it, from now on is the Superior
General. Previously it was the Faith, but the SSPX is no longer united
in doctrine. The idea of unity in truth is conspicuously absent in this
text.

{And please don't forget that the word enscribed on ABL's tomb,
TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI, should evoke some inkling of tradition
in the hearts of the capitulants who stood there, but alas, they are
quite content instead to "Do as thou wilt, is the whole of the law,"
as Alstair Crowley wrote in his abominable screed.}

Paragraph 9 attempts to speak about the new Mass, but once
again cannot quite summon the courage to attack it directly. We are
told that the New Mass “diminishes”, “curtails”, “obscures” and
“undermines”, all of which appear to be sins of omission. Cannot
worse be said?  Once again, one notices what it avoids saying.

Incidentally, one notices that the paragraph makes a point of
beginning not merely with “The New Mass...” but with “The New Mass,
promulgated in 1969...” as its subject. Perhaps it was thought that
this would satisfy the faithful that Bishop Fellay no longer believes the
New Mass was legitimately promulgated [Doctrinal Declaration, April
2012]. Apart from the problem of a Traditionalist Bishop who can
change his mind from one month to the next about a question as
important as the legitimacy of the New Mass, it is a fact that
“promulgated in 1969” does not contradict “legitimately promulgated
by Pope Paul VI.” The two statements are not mutually exclusive, and
therefore the one cannot be taken to represent a correction of the
other. It looks diplomatic, but its value is nil. Besides which, there is
no indication that Bishop Fellay has in fact changed his mind since he
composed the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. He has never yet
admitted that he made a mistake in admitting that the Novus Ordo
was “legitimately promulgated”, nor even that he had ever admitted
it. He usually tries to dodge questions about it and on the rare
occasions where he cannot avoid being asked, he retreats into his
standard defence of ‘I was misunderstood’, ‘I didn’t mean to say that’
etc.) Suffice it to say that this is as big a problem as ever it was.
Worse: it is a problem which now involves Bishops Tissier and de
Galarreta also.

Paragraph 10 begins thusly: “Fifty years on, the causes persist and
still engender the same effects.” Which causes, exactly? The “causes”
in question are what the first nine paragraphs of this declaration have
so skilfully avoided identifying, all the while equivocating and
downplaying “the effects”.

{Anyone who contends that the mention of these mysterious
"causes" was some kind of a fluke that should somehow be
overlooked, cannot anymore so blithely ignore them because
here they are AGAIN.  These same unidentified "causes" have
been persisting for 50 years, already!  You'd think that someone
could have bothered to say what they are when they've had
half a century now to speak up about them, but NO!  Not a
word, until The Great One comes down the pike muttering "the
causes"
as if everyone should immediately know what he's
talking about.  This is beyond the pale!!  In consistent form,
the Liberal doesn't want to be specific because then he will
be accountable.  His comfort zone is vagueness, so that later
on he can claim to have been "misunderstood," and can more
readily deny that's what he meant.  He likes, in other words, to
keep his options open.  THE BUCK, MOST ASSUREDLY, DOES
NOT STOP HERE!!  Perhaps Incredulous could give us a
graphic image with that written on HEBF's desk!?!?}

It continues: “Hence today the consecrations retain their full
justification.” Notice the sleight of hand here: the Archbishop’s
justification for the consecrations, in his own words, is nowhere to
be found.  It is not even alluded to, much less quoted. So how is
the reader supposed to know what this retained “justification” is?
Presumably we are supposed to take Bishop Fellay’s version, as
presented in the preceding nine paragraphs, as being the reason
why Archbishop Lefebvre performed the consecrations in 1988.  

{Once again, right on par with the same-old, same-old.  This
is more of the same, the re-forming of the image of ABL, the
making over of his memory into something he was not, the
RE-BRANDING of the FOUNDER as well as the Re-Branding
of the SSPX, in the style of 1984, "We have always been at
war with Eastasia!"  Down the memory hole with the real ABL
and the new ABL miraculously arises like the Phoenix bird from
his own ashes.}

A very brief quote from Archbishop Lefebvre’s Spiritual Journey,
clearly [having] been lifted from a longer sentence, is offered as a
justification for stating that the SSPX, “at the service of the Church
... asks with insistence for the Roman authorities to regain the
treasure of doctrinal, moral and liturgical tradition.” Surely this sort
of language speaks for itself.  Did St. Augustine, St. Patrick, St. Isaac
Jogues or any one of the legions of heroic missionaries ever “ask
with insistence” that the pagans discover the treasure of the Catholic
Faith?  Or rather, the treasure of the “doctrinal, moral and liturgical
tradition” of Rome?  Did St. John Fisher “ask with insistence” that Henry
VIII rediscover the treasure of his moral tradition?!  Does the Church no
longer preach?  Did Our Lord and his Apostles never command?  How is
Rome likely to view a Society of St. Pius X which used to demand that
Rome convert and abandon the errors of the Council but which now
employs such timid, deferential language?  “Following Providence”
is the subject of paragraph 11, although we are never told exactly what
this means, nor are we given any kind of example to illustrate it.  What it
amounts to is a pious platitude:  it sounds nice and holy and it means
virtually nothing.  Three of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop
Lefebvre in 1988, as signatories of this declaration and on behalf of the
SSPX, say that “we mean ... to follow providence ... and not anticipate
it”.  What we can gather is that they at least mean well (or at any rate,
they say they do)!  Isn’t that nice!  More than that is unclear.  For
example, what are they actually going to do in the future?  Who knows!
Perhaps whatever they feel like doing.

Whatever this ‘following of Providence’ actually amounts to, it will be,
we are told, “either when Rome returns to Tradition and the Faith of
all time” or “when she [Rome] explicitly recognises our right to profess
integrally the Faith and to reject the errors which oppose it, with the
right and the duty for us to oppose publicly the errors and the
proponents of these errors, whoever they may be” - never mind the
fact that the correction of errors and the denunciation of the
purveyors of error is precisely what the SSPX has now ceased doing,
as the rest of the declaration makes abundantly clear.  Oh the tragic
irony.  So, the SSPX will “follow Providence” (whatever that means)
either when Rome returns to Tradition and the Faith of all time, or
before Rome returns to Tradition and the Faith.  That ought to be clear!

{Any thinking individual reading this would be pulling his hair
out with frustration, but somehow the Accordistas keep on
claiming that they defend this nonsense -- defend the
indefensible!  That ought to be their motto:  The Fellayites'
Defense of the Indefensible!
 - and, of course, the British
version:  The Fellayites' Defence of the Indefencible!}

Paragraph 12 concludes the statement with another hand picked,
suitably innocuous quote from Archbishop Lefebvre about remaining
faithful to the Mass and the glory of Christ in heaven (it is doubtful
whether the worst modernist in Rome would have a problem with
that!), and a prayer to the Trinity “by the intercession of the
Immaculate Heart of Mary”.

The latter is notable in one sense as being the only time that Our Lady
ever gets a mention in the whole of this rather long docuмent.  Nothing
about Fatima, La Salette, Quito... one might be forgiven for thinking
that Our Lady has little to no role to play in bringing Our Lord’s triumph
out of this era of apostasy.

{When Our Lord told Sister Lucia that His intention was to do things
so as to place devotion to His mother's Immaculate Heart alongside
devotion to His Own Sacred Heart, we ought to recognize that He
is not making way for anyone to think that Our Lady has "little-to-no
role to play in bringing Our Lord's triumph out of this era of apostasy!
Perhaps one who thinks so may be "forgiven" but that won't make
the course of history any less painful when so many refuse to give
Our Lady the recognition that God Himself demands we give to her!}

What is the standing and significance of this declaration? It is another
official, ‘signed, sealed and delivered’ statement of the position
of the SSPX. It takes its place along side the General Chapter
statement of 2012 with its six useless ‘conditions’ of surrender,
and along side the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration.
It is the
studied opinion of this author that the June 27th 2013 anniversary
declaration {the Silver Anniversary Re-Declaration} is no less
alarming and dangerous than its predecessors, in fact in many ways
more so, since it ‘looks Traditional’, whereas at least the April 2012
{AFD} had the virtue of being a straight-forward ‘warts and all’
representation of where Menzingen now stands.  It did what it said
on the tin.  This declaration does not:  the tin is labelled “Tradition”
but it contains the same sour contents which are the staple fare of
Modernists.

What will Rome make of it? Who knows, but as has been said before,
in one sense it hardly matters. The danger of a deal was that it would
lead to the Society liberalising and dropping its war footing against the
new conciliar religion. In fact, even without an official deal the Society
has now been liberalising for some time already, a process which
continues apace, and the war footing against the new conciliar religion
is truly a thing of the past. When a deal finally happens, it will be a
deal made by a Society which already accepts everything that the
Romans would have reasonably wished for.
 

‘Accept us as we are’ does have the drawback of making the matter
dependent on how we are.  And ‘how we are’ will continue to worsen
with the passage of time.

{Think of that, the next time someone asks "How are you?"}

Keep working and praying! Stay vigilant!



{*SARD = Silver Anniversary Re-Declaration}



Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 22, 2013, 07:00:55 PM
.

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

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

Thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Paul-Aulagnier)

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




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



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




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

Here is the link below:


http://www.sacrificium.org/multimedia/video/fr-jean-violette-condemns-bishop-fellay-4-august-2013





Title: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
Post by: MaterDominici on September 22, 2013, 12:47:31 AM
Open Appeal to the Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X, By Fr. David Hewko

                                                                +
                                                                M

September 21, 2013
Feast of St. Matthew

OPEN APPEAL TO THE SUPERIORS OF THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X


Your Excellency, Bishop Fellay and Society of St. Pius X Superiors,

In the face of a Pope in the Chair of St. Peter, wielding the sledge-hammer like a second Goliath, dismantling and smashing what is left of the Traditional Teachings of Christ and His Mass, your silence has become alarming and has become a cooperation in extinguishing the Catholic Religion and His True Adoration from the face of the earth.

The “children” of the Society of St. Pius X have cried out for 40 years in this last hour, led by the most child-like Archbishop Lefebvre, who loved and defended his Father’s honor. The time has come for the “stones” of the street; the most unworthy, unglamorous, despised and the “off-scouring of the world” to cry out. Those of the SSPX Resistance can no longer be silent in the face of the present leadership of the Society, shamefully silent at the most necessary hour! All our letters, appeals, filial rebukes have been returned with silences, monitions and expulsions.

All of us who were alive under our saintly Founder, Abp. Lefebvre, remember his letters to the priests and faithful, his sermons crying out against the abominations of the Ecuмenical Assisi Meeting, the Pope’s scandals against the True Faith and Our Lord Jesus Christ, the True God! All of us remember hearing these, like a beacon of light in the darkness of the modern apostasy. A voice of the fearless Good Shepherd roaring out, like a second David or Samson, to protect the flock of Christ from the masked wolves inside. These wolves, tearing out the Faith of Tradition and ripping out the hearts of those consecrated to God, with the fatal blows of Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, Collegiality, the baneful New Mass and all the artful lies to seduce the handful of Traditional Communities into the Conciliar Church.

The catechism teaches there is a time when silence becomes gravely imprudent, reckless and even cooperates with sin and darkness. That time is now! From the SSPX pulpits, websites, magazines, articles, etc. comes a shameful silence. A silence that uses the “liberty of prudence” as a cloak for malice, a silence equivalent to those passively standing by, while their mother is defiled and violently ravaged by the very ones vowed and ordained to defend Mother Church!

The reason for this guilty silence is now known to all the world. It is expressed in the General Chapter Statement of July 14, 2012, which was the “Vatican II Revolution” within the last bastion of Catholic Tradition. In it, the Society binds itself to the six Conditions for the canonical normalization. An agreement with whom? With the Conciliar Church! The Archbishop was never silent about the Pope’s scandals and respectfully wrote to him, defied his ecuмenism and sins against the Faith, before the whole world, and even resorted to drawings showing the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II being excluded from the gates of Heaven for leading the world to believe that the gods of the gentiles are not devils, as at Assisi!

Now, Pope Francis has surpassed his predecessors in scandals against the Faith by the ecuмenical call for prayers for peace from all religions, celebrating the ecuмenical rite in St. Peter’s; by the unheard of scandals of World Youth Day in Brazil; with the shameful dancing of bishops who, like salt that has lost its savor, have become the laughing stock of the world, worthy to be stepped on for betraying the True God. His sweeping statements on atheists, the divorced, the Sodom and Gomorrhites, clerical celibacy, etc., etc., have misled millions of souls into error and, no doubt, sins. Sins that seem “not so bad,” since according to him, even “atheists can go to Heaven,” and “who am I to judge the gαys?”

Since the new policies of the Society fit the new principles of compromise, now it has lent its hands to abolishing what is left of the True Faith and Adoration of God from the face of the earth, by its shameful silence!

It is useless to pretend that the seeking a “canonical normalization,” an “agreement,” “recognition,” a “union” with Modernist Rome can be pleasing to God, before Rome’s conversion to Tradition. The six Conditions themselves, betray the clear teaching of our Founder who insisted that we never have to ask permission to preach Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ, Crucified! That we openly preach against Vatican II errors and prelates who attack the Faith, because Christ Himself gave that command to the first Pope and Bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre would shudder with horror at the thought of the Indifferentism subtly expressed in the six Conditions and would absolutely condemn the new policy of silence and expulsion of his priests who speak out, against a false union with the Conciliar Church that is aggressively wrecking the Faith and Mass of All Time.

Would he approve of your calling the New Mass “legitimate” or “legitimately promulgated” (which is the same thing)?

Would he approve of all the statements on the Council “not being the cause of errors,” Religious Liberty being “limited,” 95% of the Council acceptable, that the teachings of Vatican II “enlighten” and “deepen” Catholic Tradition?

Would the Founder approve of your signing the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012, which undermines everything he fought for to save the Faith?

Would he approve of the acceptance of the New Code of Canon Law without the clear distinctions he laid down?

Would he approve of the personal Prelature of the Society that submits to the present Roman authorities, who he called “dishonest men” seeking to remove Christ from society? Have his warnings been forgotten when he said: “With the See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is rapidly being carried out, even in His Mystical Body here below…That is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. This Rome, Modern and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove…” (Abp. Lefebvre, Letter to Future Bishops August 29, 1987).

Would Abp. Lefebvre even recognize his Society today when its leader says: “Vatican II is no longer in people’s heads,…fewer and fewer believe it”? “We have observed a change of attitude in the Church…towards Tradition,” or “Within the Society some (like Abp. Lefebvre himself!) are making the conciliar errors into ‘super heresies’”…or “the present situation in April 2012 is quite different from that of 1988”? That, having said and signed all these ambiguous statements, compromises and decisions, none of them have yet been rejected or condemned? None of them, neither clearly nor publicly!

Would Abp. Lefebvre look favorably on the expulsion of a bishop that he himself sent as rector of the Seminary in the USA and being fully aware of his “unpopular views,” chose him personally to be one of his bishops, as well?

Your Excellency, the grave dangers against the Faith which you have placed the priests and faithful into,