CathInfo.com

Suppressed Letter of Fr. Paul Morgan
British District Superior
November, 2011

(Removed from the British SSPX website the following day)


The meeting of the Society’s superiors took place at Albano on 7-8th
October as announced in last month’s newsletter, and Bishop Fellay
did indeed use this opportunity to discuss the ‘Doctrinal Preamble’
text as received from Cardinal Levada on 14th September.
The first day of the meeting covered three issues: an overview of
the contacts with Rome since 1987; a summary of the doctrinal discussions;
and an oral exposition of the Doctrinal Preamble docuмent
itself.
With regard to the doctrinal talks it was disappointing to note that
the Roman commission failed to acknowledge the break between
traditional and conciliar teachings. Instead it insisted upon the
5
‘hermeneutic (interpretation) of continuity,’ stating that the new teachings
included and improved the old!
It was interesting to learn that the 14th September meeting had not
touched upon the doctrinal talks at all, but rather was dedicated to expounding
possible practical solutions for the Society.
So it was perhaps not surprising to learn that the proposed doctrinal
basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements
which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of
the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism.
Indeed, the docuмent itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis
in the Church...
Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal
Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly
not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal
issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should
continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts
with the Roman authorities.
In many ways we can see the hand of Providence in this meeting, falling
as it did on the Feast of the Holy Rosary, given the clarification of
Rome’s persistence in the modern errors, and the consequent necessity
of continuing with the fight against modernism through fidelity to
Catholic Tradition.
The second day of the meeting was dedicated to its original theme, that
of communications and the media.

THE CURRENT CRISIS

I) DOCTRINAL TREASON


CONSIDERING


1) a) What Archbishop has said about the greatest danger to traditionalists was to put themselves in the hands of modernist Rome and b) Bishop Fellay recently saying those who want the good of the Church want also the Society of St. Pius X to be officially recognized by modernist Rome (which is the same as being put in the modernist's hands);

2) a) What Archbishop said about Rome preparing a trap by offering us every advantage we could desire to settle our situation and b) Bishop Fellay saying that to currently think this way is a lack of realism and supernatural spirit;

3) a) What Archbishop said about Benedict XVI (then Cardinal still) looking to deschristianize the world and b) Bishop Fellay saying Pope Benedict XVI takes very seriously the situation and life of the Church;

4) a) When Archbishop said he could not get along with Benedict XVI (then Cardinal) and b) Bishop Fellay getting along quite well with Benedict XVI;

5) a) When the Archbishop said that we should not put ourselves under the authority of those who do not profess the integrity of the Faith b) Bishop Fellay said that not want to put ourselves under the authority of Pope Benedict XVI (who does not profess the integrity of the Faith ) is to have schismatic and sedevacantist spirit;

6) a) What Archbishop said about a conspiracy of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ against Holy Church, in which she was infiltrated by this sect to the highest levels of the hierarchy even in Rome and b) that Bishop Fellay does not believe or does not take seriously enough these conjurations, saying that it is a too human vision of the Church, too fatalistic; seeing only the dangers, difficulties and cօռspιʀαcιҽs;

7) a) That Archbishop Lefebvre made a public manifest repudiating the ecuмenical meeting in Assisi, a grave sin of the Pope against the first commandment of God and b) that Bishop Fellay did not do the same when the current Pope repeated this sin in "Assisi III"[1];

8) a) That Archbishop has said that religious freedom sponsored by Vatican II is the height of impiety, equivalent to the principle of the state's secularism, considering the atheistic state and not taking into account the difference between truth and error and b) that Bishop Fellay has said that Vatican II presents a very limited religious liberty;

9) a) That Archbishop has said that the docuмents of Vatican II are a total perversion of the spirit and that this council was the biggest disaster of all centuries since its foundation and b) that Bishop Fellay has said that Society of St. Pius X was exaggerating Vatican II's heresies;

10) a) What Archbishop Lefebvre, in view of his experience and contacts with members of the Vatican, took from 1988 a more uncompromising position in regards a possible canonical recognition of the Society and b) that Bishop Fellay quoting Archbishop Lefebvre has been silencing this last position of his, implying that the thoughts of Archbishop Lefebvre has always been on his pronouncements before 1988.


WE JUDGE


That the way of speaking and acting of Bishop Fellay is a betrayal of the doctrinal legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre in regards the attitude to take on the current crisis in the Holy Church, and a refusal to recognize, accept and assimilate the experience of Archbishop Lefebvre in his contacts with Rome.


ON THE OTHER HAND


Some will say that Bishop Fellay recanted saying he has been deceived.


WE ANSWER


Bishop Fellay was not very clear on what he was wrong and his attitude toward those who were not deceived nor deceived him makes us think he keeps essentially the same positions as before.



II) A SPIRIT THAT IS NOT GOD


CONSIDERING


1) What has been noted in more than one occasion (as we have said in response to the objection the topic above) Bishop Fellay has spoken and acted in a contradictory manner to accomplish his purposes;


2) That this way of behaving with duplicity does forfeit the due credit of those who behaves likewise.



WE JUDGE


1) That the spirit animating Bishop Fellay is not the spirit of God, therefore we can and should judge before putting our trust and our salvation (in a certain way) in the hands of someone;


2) That he is unworthy of this confidence we normally would have for him as the highest authority within the Tradition.


III) THE MASTER BLOW OF SATAN


CONSIDERING


a) That Archbishop has said the masterstroke of Satan was to cast all Catholics in disobedience (towards the Church, Tradition and, ultimately, to Our Lord) through obedience (to the Conciliar Popes) and b) that Bishop Fellay is conducting all those associated with the SSPX to disobey Archbishop Lefebvre (and, ultimately, the Holy Church, Tradition and Our Lord) by obedience to himself.


WE JUDGE


We must resist and, moreover, publicly denounce his doctrinal deviations in order that people do not continue to be deceived, following the false path by which he is leading the Society: a spirit of sympathy towards the present Pope; of decreased aversion of Vatican II; of desiring to join the "Conciliar Church", identifying it with the Holy Catholic Church; the decrease in fighting the progressivists.


IV) REBELLION? NO. JUST RESISTANCE? YES!


CONSIDERING


1) That the members of the SSPX who publicly oppose the new orientation and doctrines of Bishop Fellay are being expelled from the Society for this very reason;


2) This being the cause, the so called expulsion is unfair because the attitude of these members are just;


3) That being unfair, this expulsion is invalid;


4) And being this expulsion invalid, by right and before God they remain true members of the Society of St. Pius X.


WE JUDGE


That these members of the SSPX should not be considered as rebels but on the contrary, as faithful children of Archbishop Lefebvre, who before the Conciliar Popes had the same attitude that they are now having towards Bishop Fellay.


V} THE ACTUAL AND VERY GRAVE SITUATION OF HOLY CHURCH


CONSIDERING


1) That lately on the doctrinal talks, we witnessed the incompatibility of Church doctrine with the doctrine of the current holders of authority in Rome;


2) That Benedict XVI renewed in 2011 the ecuмenical meeting in Assisi;


3) That Benedict XVI beatified Pope John Paul II;


4) That Benedict XVI said in 2012 that any renewal of the Church should be based on the deepening of the docuмents of Vatican II;


5) That Benedict XVI signed in 2012 the decree of "heroic virtues" (?) of Paul VI;


6) That the Principality of Liechtenstein in late 2012 was in the process of ceasing to be an officially Catholic State due to the pressure from the doctrine of the Council on Religious Liberty;


7) That the two signals in which Archbishop Lefebvre recognized he should consecrate bishops without the Pope's permission were an ecuмenical meeting in Assisi and the reaffirmation of the errors of Vatican II on religious freedom by Rome.


WE JUDGE


That the current situation of the Church is very serious, similar (or worse) of that we found ourselves in 1988, contrary to what Bishop Fellay affirm.


VI) A DRASTIC REMEDY FOR A DRASTIC EVIL



CONSIDERING


1) That those who remain in the SSPX are in tremendous need to choose between remaining silent or being expelled for opposing the current direction imposed by Bishop Fellay;


2) That the work of Archbishop Lefebvre should not become extinct because of this new direction;


3) That Bp. Williamson alone is unable to meet all the appeals of the priests and faithful throughout the world, to administer the sacraments and give them sound doctrine, as received from the Archbishop;


4) That the same reasons that led the Archbishop to make the consecrations of 1988 exist today and therefore currently justify new episcopal consecrations for Tradition without permission of the Pope.


WE JUDGE


That is most convenient that Bp. Williamson proceeds in a timely fashion to these consecrations, for the good of the Church, waiting for better days, when things will normalize.


It's up to him to set the most convenient time and to do it.


Arsenius



[1] Please note that these meetings have taken place regularly after 1986, almost every year in different places with the participation of members of the Conciliar Church.

The Current Crisis

In reference to the above post:

Arsenius is a monk of Holy Cross Benedictine Monastery in Brazil