Author Topic: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings (Read 205191 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #20 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

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #21 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.

PAT317 · « **Reply #22 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
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 Jews 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 Jews’ 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.

PAT317 · « **Reply #23 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

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 Jews 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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #24 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.