Fr Juan Ortiz:

Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Preamble
   
It seems necessary to comment on the April 15th, 2012 Doctrinal Preamble proposed by His Excellency Bishop B. Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, to Cardinal Levada. It was a secret for almost a year and was finally made public this past few weeks. This version of the Doctrinal Preamble met strong protests at the General Chapter. Consequently Bishop Fellay withdrew it without however repudiating it. This text consequently gives us an idea of the concessions, which Bishop Fellay would agree to concede, should he be allowed to do so.

As a matter of fact, Bishop Fellay seems to accept to some extent:
1.- Vatican II
2.- the N.O.M.
3.- the New Code of Canon Law.

The Council

“II.- We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council. (1)”

“(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749, 750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.”

This profession of faith says: “I also adhere with religious obedience of will and faith to the doctrines which, either the Roman Pontiff, or the college of bishops, pronounce when exercising an authentic magisterium, even if they have no intention of proclaiming them in a definitive act.” This profession of faith is preceded by an introduction explaining the meaning of the said profession: “It consequently proved essential to prepare adjusted texts in order to update them as far as their style and their contents were concerned and attune them with the teachings of Vatican II and docuмents developing them.”

This is Archbishop Lefebvre’s comments about this docuмent issued by Cardinal Ratzinger: “The errors of the Council and its reforms remain the official norm that has been confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger’s March 1989 profession of faith”. (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey)

“The new profession of faith which was drafted by Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly includes the acceptance of the Council and its consequences. It is the Council and its consequences, which have destroyed the Holy Mass, which have destroyed our Faith, which have destroyed catechisms and the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over civil societies. How could we accept this! [...] We have to keep the Catholic Faith and protect it by all possible means.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Le Bourget, November 19th, 1989)

“This is leading us to a contradiction since, since at the same time as Rome gives to the Fraternity of St Peter, as an example, or to Le Barroux Abbey or some other group, an authorisation to say the traditional Mass, at the same time they ask young priests to sign a profession of faith in which they accept the spirit of the Council. This is a contradiction: the spirit of the Council is expressed in the New Mass. How can one wish to keep the Traditional Mass and accept the spirit that destroys the Traditional mass? This is a total self-contradiction. One day, slowly, they will demand from those to whom they have granted the Mass of St Pius V, the Traditional Mass, that they also accept the New Mass. And they will just say that this is only complying with what they have signed, since they have signed that they accept the spirit of the Council and the Council’s reforms. One just cannot place himself in such a contradictory situation, in such an incredible non sequitur. This is quite an uncomfortable situation. This is what makes things so difficulty for these groups, which have signed this: it is a dead end for them.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Friedrichshafen homily, April 29th, 1990)

“III, 1.- We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de Episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.”

“III, 3.- Tradition is the living transmission of revelation ‘usque as nos’ and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, not as a contrary novelty, but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith.”

There is a contradiction between these two sentences, inasmuch as the expression “living” has precisely been constantly used by the Modernists in order to imply their doctrinal evolutionism and their “contrary novelties”.

“III, 4.- The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated (8).”

“(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, No. 21.”

This means that not only the Council in the light of Tradition, but also Tradition in the light of the Council.

To say that the Second Vatican Council “in turn, enlightens – in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit – certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated” is absurd as far as it flatly contradicts a number of them.

“III, 5.- The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, (1) must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, (2) without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.”

Bp. Williamson, who used to be Bp. Fellay’s professor, explains:
The first part here (1) is perfectly true, so long as it means that any Conciliar novelty “difficult to reconcile” will be flatly rejected if it objectively contradicts previous Church teaching. But (1) is directly contradicted by (2) when (2) says that no Conciliar novelty may be “interpreted” as being in rupture with Tradition. It is as though one said that all football teams must wear blue shirts, but football team shirts of any other colour are all to be interpreted as being nothing other than blue! What nonsense! But it is pure “hermeneutic of continuity”. (Eleison No. 300 and Open Letter to the Priests of the Priestly Society of St Pius X of Maunday Thursday 2013 by Bp. Williamson)

The Mass

“III, 7.- We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.”

Archbishop Lefebvre said that it could be valid, but that it was nevertheless dangerous since it furthers heresy (favens haeresim). As Fr. de La Rocque explained in his two conferences of May 12th and 18th, 2012 on the Roman doctrinal discussions, to acknowledge the validity of the N.O.M. without mentioning that it is dangerous would be hypocritical and an unacceptable mental reservation.

Moreover, this “legitimately promulgated” expression has always been disputed, and not only in traditional circles. In his editorial to the Friends and Benefactors of the French District, Fr. de Cacqueray wrote: “The new Mass can in no way be pleasing to God because it is misleading, harmful and ambiguous”.
It just cannot be enforced by a law as such in the whole Church. As a matter of fact the purpose the liturgical law is to serve with authority the common good of the Church and all that is required. Paul VI’s new Mass being short of this cannot be supported by a law: it is not only evil, it is illegitimate, despite the apparent lawfulness it was enwrapped with and still is (Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, Disputed Vatican II)
http://www.laportelatine.org/district/france/bo/lab80_130103/lab80_130103.php

The Novus Ordo Missae, in particular, is far too dangerous for the Common Good of the Church to be regarded as a true law.

The Canon Law

“III, 8.- In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.”

Bp. Fellay accepts the new Code of Canon Law, “in the light of Tradition” (III, 5), while Abp. Lefebvre had declared “this Canon Law is unacceptable”. (COSPEC 99B, March 14th, 1983) For him it is more even harmful than the Council itself, since it puts into laws the letter and the spirit of Vatican II, going as far as ignoring important corrections like the Nota explicativa.

In 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre, who had already progressively been disappointed by Modernistic texts from Pope John Paul II, was terribly shocked by the new Code of Canon Law converting into laws the deviations of the Council. » (La Porte Latine, quoted by Avec l’Immaculée:
http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.jp/2013/03/i-quelques-citations-de-ou-sur-mgr.html)

“Our concern became even more vehement with the aberrations of the new Code of Canon Law, not to say its heresies.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, chapter 21)

“One discovers an entirely new conception of the Church.” (Conference, Turin, March 24th, 1984)

“We can find in it the doctrine that was already suggested in the Lumen Gentium text of the Council, according to which the college of bishops united to the Pope holds the supreme power in the Church, and this in a regular and permanent way.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, chapter 12)

“This work, namely the Code, is in perfect accord with the nature of the Church, especially as has been proposed by the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, this new Code can be conceived as an effort to expose in canonical language this doctrine, i.e., conciliar Ecclesiology. The elements of this Ecclesiology are the following: Church = people of God; hierarchical authority = collegial service; Church = communion; and lastly the Church with Her duty to ecuмenism. Each one of these notions is ambiguous and will allow Protestant and Modernist errors to inspire from now on the legislation of the Church. It is the authority of the Pope and of the Bishops which is going to suffer; the distinction between the clergy and the laity will also diminish; the absolute and necessary character of the Catholic faith will also be extenuated to the profit of heresy and schism; and the fundamental realities of sin and grace will be worn down.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 24, March 1983)

“Well, in the new Code of Canon Law there are two supreme powers in the Church: the supreme power of the Pope, and then of the Pope with the bishops. Consequently there are two ordinary subjects of this supreme and total power in the Church. It is exactly what the Nota explicativa had corrected during the Council. For, if the bishops have with the Pope and not without the Pope the supreme power in the Church, they have a right to demand to exert this power which is theirs with the Pope and to demand from the Pope that they may participate in the exercise of this power over the Universal Church. This never ever happened in Church history. They exercised this power when the Pope summoned them in a council and allowed them to participate in his power in the council. It is in fact because they were meeting with the Pope that they then by an extraordinary act [...] had this power over the Universal Church and not in an ordinary manner! Consequently this is restricting the power of the Pope. This means that in practice they are not taking into account the Nota explicativa of the Council in the new Canon Law. That had been a small revolution in the Council. And the Pope felt obliged to intervene and to correct what was in that decree of the Church and adjust it according to the faith of the Church. These are examples I am giving you, which matter to our faith.” (COSPEC 100A, May 20th, 1983)

“The faithful are those who, inasmuch as they are incorporated in Christ by baptism are constituted as the people of God, and who for this reason, having been made partakers in their manner in the priestly, prophetic and royal functions of Christ, are called to exercise the mission that God entrusted to the Church to accomplish in the world. [...] There is no longer any clergy. What, then, happens to the clergy? [...] It is consequently easy to understand that this is the ruin of the priesthood and the laicization of the Church. [...] This is precisely what Luther and the Protestants did, laicizing the priesthood. It is consequently very serious.” (Conference, Turin, March 24th, 1984)

“You know that the new Code of Canon Law permits a priest to give Communion to a Protestant. (Canon 844) It is what they call Eucharistic hospitality. These are Protestants who remain protestants and do not convert. This is directly opposed to the Faith. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist is precisely the sacrament of the unity of the Faith. To give Communion to a Protestant is to rupture the Faith and its unity.” The Protestants must make “an abjuration in order to remove this obex [obstacle] that their baptism might bear fruit. After this, grace will remain in their souls and they will be worthy of salvation. But, as long as they remain attached to their errors and deny truths which are part of the faith, they cannot receive grace.” (Conference, Turin, March 24th, 1984)

“What is the object or aim of canon law, of the fundamental canonical laws? You have two books, which you may read on that subject: De norme generales juris canonici. Two volumes by Professor Michiels, a Franciscan, which give the answer – the general norms of law – and consequently the foundations of the ecclesiastical law itself, and of canon law. Well, he says it openly: Ut patet fondamentum vitae supernaturalis ecclesiae curae et potestati concreditae, est fides. This aim is the faith. [...] Take as an example the fact that the new canon law no longer requests in a Protestant Catholic mixed marriage to commit in writing to the Catholic baptism of the children, this a serious violation of the faith, a serious violation of the faith.” (COSPEC 100A, May 20th, 1983) “Then what should we think about this? – Well, this Code of Canon Law is unacceptable.” (COSPEC 99B, March 14th, 1983)

This is certainly enough to prove that this Declaration or Doctrinal Preamble of April 15th, 2012 by Bishop Fellay is blatantly at variance and even in contradiction with the line of the Archbishop about the Council, the Mass and the Canon Law. He was however just about to sign an agreement on this basis on June 13th, 2012, if it had not been rejected by Cardinal Levada – as not enough –, a refusal confirmed by the Pope’s letter to Bishop Fellay dated June 30th.

So despite the fact that the Superior General has been roaming all-over the world these past eight months in order to reassure people that he was not going to “sell” the Society, one may still be somewhat sceptical. This docuмent is evidence that the worst so-called “gossips” were not that wrong.


Top Priority

The top priority to “overcome the crisis” clearly is not to “overcome our abnormal canonical status”, of which the Archbishop was saying that it is “secondary”, but to keep our Catholic Faith, without yielding to Liberal pressures, which would make us lose it. Let us always remember these words from the Archbishop during a spiritual conference to his seminarians on December 21st, 1984, which, after unsuccessfully trying the impossible in May 1988, he supported until his death:

“Some are prepared to sacrifice the fight for the faith by saying: ‘Let us first re-enter the Church! Let us first do everything to integrate the official, public structure of the Church. Let us be silent about dogmatic issues. Let us be silent about the malice of the [New] Mass. Let us keep quiet over the issues of religious freedom, Human Rights, ecuмenism. And, once we are inside the Church, we will be able to do this, we will be able to achieve that...’ That's absolutely false! You don't enter into a structure, under superiors, by claiming that you will overthrow everything as soon as you are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They have all the authority.

“What matters to us first and foremost is to maintain the Catholic Faith. That's what we are fighting for. So, the canonical issue, this purely public and exterior issue in the Church, is secondary. What matters is to stay within the Church... inside the Church, in other words, in the Catholic Faith of all time, in the true priesthood, in the true Mass, in the true sacraments, and the same catechism, with the same Bible. That's what matters to us. That's what the Church is. Public recognition is a secondary issue. Thus, we should not seek what is secondary by losing what is primary, by losing what is the primary goal of our fight!

“We cannot place ourselves under an authority whose ideas are liberal and who little by little would condemn us, by the logic of the thing, to accept these liberal ideas and all the consequences of these liberal ideas, which are the new Mass, changes in the liturgy, changes in the Bible, changes in catechism, all these changes...”

AMBIGIOUS LANGUAGE-THE DEVILS QUICKSAND

by Fr. David Hewko

May, 2013




 

"And the Light shineth in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it" (St. Jn. I:5).

 

When the Divine Saviour stood surrounded by the pharasaical pack of wolves as they tried to catch Him in His speech, Our Lord answered them, "If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe Me?...I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of My Father, they give testimony of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep" (St. Jn. X:25). St. Paul calls Our Lord "Splendor Gloriae";The Brightness of the Father's Glory" (Heb. I:3) in Whom "there is no change, nor shadow of alteration," nor confusion. The Holy Ghost relegates the state of confusion to the enemies of God "who loveth and maketh a lie" as a punishment for obstinately refusing the Light of the Truth (Apoc. XXI: ).

 

"Ambiguous" means something that can be interpreted in two ways. When such language is used in matters of the Faith it causes immense confusion! St. Pius X in his Encyclical "Pascendi" exposes the tactic of the Modernist clergy who resort to ambiguous language in order to introduce their wicked novelties. He condemns such deliberate craftiness meant to muddle the meaning of any doctrine, or worse,lead to the loss of Faith!

 

Such deviant tactics triumphed in all the docuмents of Vatican II, as Abp. Lefebvre himself witnessed and Michael Davies treated in his "Liturgical Timebombs." Abp. Lefebvre refers to this during the course of the Liberal Council when the Modernist, Schillebeeckx himself, wrote, "We know very well what we are doing in having EQUIVOCAL PHRASES in the schemas of the Council. We shall proceed from there AFTER the Council" [Emphasis mine]. Recently an arch-Modernist, Cardinal Kasper, testified to this deliberate use of double speech in the Council docuмents. He said, "In many places the [Council Fathers] had to find COMPROMISE FORMULAS, in which, often the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the Conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception IN EITHER DIRECTION" [Emphasis mine].

 

Ambiguous language is the friendly atmosphere for heresies and Modernism ("the synthesis of all heresies" - St. Pius X) to take root and grow. That is why the Catholic Church in Her Tradition vigorously defends Scholasticism, St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy and theology, and the "unevolving" language of Latin. For clergy, faithful to Tradition, clarity of doctrine is crucial in this Combat for the Faith and nothing can be more repulsive and abhorrent to the Catholic mind than the use of ambiguous language. It has no place in the writings, docuмents or sermons of any Catholic, especially priests and bishops,....and popes!

 

St. Athanasius saw the entire Catholic Faith hinge on one Greek dipthong! The entire future of the survival of the Catholic Faith hung on two letters! "Homoousion" meant: "Christ is of ONE SUBSTANCE with the Father" (i.e.: "Consubstantial"); and the heretical: "Homoiousion" of Fr. Arius could be interpreted in two different ways, Catholic or heretical. Either "Christ is of ONE SUBSTANCE, or, of LIKE SUBSTANCE with the Father." How many Martyrs died to defend the Truth of the clear Catholic doctrine of "Homoousion"! Words, like the glass that holds the wine, hold the meaning of things. If the glass is shattered or cracked, the wine is lost. So too, misuse of words can shatter or change the meanings of words.

 

Let us come to the facts of the present crisis in Tradition. At the time of the Second Vatican Council, the Liberals had to invent loopholes in the docuмents to attain their desire for the Church to compromise and "be accepted" by the world. Is it no less true that Liberal minds in Tradition wanted to compromise clarity of language in order to"become more acceptable" by the Conciliar Church? It became official in July, 2012 with a whole new orientation towards "normalization" with Modernist Rome. Ignoring the warnings and direction of the Founder (who has the special grace of state as "Founder"!), the Society of St. Pius X leaders had to re-define "conversion of Rome", make a false separation between "principles of prudence" and "principles of the Faith" in applying the questions of canonical normalization with Modernist Rome, and utilize ambiguous language to advance their goals. To demonstate this, try figuring out what some of these quoted texts and interviews actually mean:

 

1. "Many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council, but the common understanding of it.... The Council is presenting a religious liberty which is in fact a very, very limited one. A very limited one. It would mean our talks with Rome, they clearly said that to mean that there would be a right to error or right to choose each religion, is false." (Superior General CNS Interview May 2012).

 

2. "As for the Council, when they asked me the question, 'Does Vatican II belong to Tradition?'" I answered, "I would like to hope that that is the case." (Superior General, DICI 6-8-12)

 

3. "Tradition is the LIVING transmission of revelation "usque ad nos" and the Church in it's doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition PROGRESSES in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, not as a contrary novelty, but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith" (Doctrinal Preamble, III, [Emphasis mine]

 

4."The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the, SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, which, in turn, ENLIGHTENS - in other words DEEPENS and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or NOT YET CONCEPTUALLY FORMULATED" ( Doctrinal Preamble, III, 4). [Emphasis mine]

 

5."We declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments...LEGITIMATELY promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II" (Doctrinal Preamble III,7) [Emphasis mine].

 

6."Concerning the reply I sent to Rome...from what I gather from private sources, I have the impression it is acceptable. Amongst ourselves, I think it will have to be explained properly because there are (in this docuмent) expressions or declarations which are so very much on a tight rope that if you do not have a positive mind or if you are wearing black or pink glasses, YOU WILL SEE IT AS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. So we shall have to properly explain that this letter changes absolutely nothing of our position. But, if one wants to read the letter in a crooked way, it will be possible to understand this letter the wrong way"(SSPX Superior General, Birgnoles, May 2012 - Nouvelles de Chretiente no. 135).

 

 

7. "It should be noted, by the way, that we have not sought a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused 'a priori', to consider, as you ask, the Pope's offer. For the common good of the Society, we should prefer by far the current solution of an intermediary 'status quo', but clearly, Rome is not going to tolerate it any longer" (Superior General & Two Assistants, letter dated April 14, 2012). N.B.: The Doctrinal Preamble for a practical agreement was sent the next day!


How is it possible that those trained to refute Modernism and denounce the tactics of the modernists could possibly resort to using those very same means to attain their new goal; to be "recognized as we are" and have "justice done" to unjust penalties? What happened to the primacy of THE FAITH? Whatever happened to "no agreement until Rome converts to Tradition"? What happened to Abp. Lefebvre's proof for the moment of Rome's conversion, namely, the professing of all the papal teachings and condemnations from the Council of Trent down to Pius XII's "Humani Generis"? A few "crumbs of acknowledgement" to some aspects of Tradition are far from proofs of Rome's conversion! "Summorum Pontificuм" and the so called "lifting" of excommunications that never existed, are mere tactics and maneuvers, as Abp. Lefebvre himself named other supposed moves on the part of the Holy See, and are none other than attempts to swing the SSPX into the Conciliar Church. Again and again, the proof is in the consequences of all the Traditional Catholic communities that made agreements with Rome. The proof lies in the Roman authorities unwavering adherence to Vatican II!

 

Have the men of Tradition forgotten the Divine Words of the only Savior; "Take up your cross daily and follow Me?" Have the defenders of the Deposit of Faith grown weary in the long battle?

 

"When those chosen to defend the Faith don't want to carry this cross, and choose to exchange resistance and self-sacrifice for compromise and "recognition" in the name of a "utopian unity", then, what happens to Truth? What happens to the only True Faith? What happens to the souls?

 

"The Doctrinal Preamble of April 15, 2012, OFFICIALLY signed and submitted to Rome by the Society superiors, is a testimony of the willingness to surrender the Fight for the Faith through explicit expressions of ambiguity. This ambiguity (similar to the practice of freemasons, moranos and enemy infiltrators) justifies the SSPX Resistance! The facts speak for themselves. Ever since the General Chapter Statement & 6 Conditions, the Letter of Response to the 3 Bishops (April 14, 2012), and the notorious Doctrinal Preamble, there has been a weakening of doctrine, loss of souls and confusion. The crisis becomes more severe. Clarification becomes essential!" (Dom Daniel Joaquim Maria de Santana, FBVM).

 

 

"Affirm the Truth!" the Archbishop used to tell the young priests. Why? Because, as Bishop Williamson used to say, "The Truth stands on its own." St. John calls it "the victory which overcometh the world, our Faith!" (1 Jn. V:4) It is not ours to change or modernize, nor does it come from us, but it is the Sacred Deposit that must be handed down from generation to generation ("tradere" means "to hand down", in Latin, from which "tradition" is derived). Is this not the glory of Catholic Tradition, that, like it's sacred Founder Himself, is always the same, victorious over devils and men, over heresies, and always beautiful? "Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same forever!" (Heb XIII:8)

 

 

"It is on the battlefield of Doctrine that the battles are won or lost, and what decides the future," said the great Cardinal Pie of Poitiers. If the Society recovers its former clear defense of Catholic doctrine, which, in turn, demands the public rejection and repudiation of the compromising language used in recent docuмents and interviews, then God may let the "pilot light" carry on. If not, it will continue the path of compromise towards the open jaws of Conciliar modernism and "official recognition" at the price of the unambiguous Truth and countless souls! What then? ...Our Lord put it this way, "I say to you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out!" (St. Lk. XIX: 40) The Faith will be kept, even if its reduced to a handful!

 

Let the great Abp. Lefebvre have the final word about liberals and their love of ambiguous words - the Devil's quicksand!

 

"Catholic liberals have kept on saying that their will for Tradition is equivalent to that of most intransigent persons. The compromise they have sought is not theoretical but practical....They always come back to this reasoning. They are telling us: 'See, we are shepherds. We accept the reality, we are concrete people, we are practical!' But what is this practice? The practice is the implementation of principles with the help of the virtue of prudence, it is nothing other than that.

 

"What is the practice when the principles are missing?...'Yes, yes, yes, we agree, we share the same Credo, etcetera. Yes, but when we find ourselves in the world, then one must adjust oneself to the level of the others, one must live with the others, if not, you will never convert others.' To say this is a total error!...Popes have perceived the danger of those Catholics that are elusive because they claim, when one wants to corner them: 'No, no, I agree.' But afterwards, they come to terms with the enemies of the Church...they are traitors...more dreadful than avowed enemies...they divide the minds, destroy unity, weaken strengths that, instead, should be all together coordinated against the enemy...You will be told that it is you who cause division, but it is not possible to divide when one abides in the Truth...those who divide are those who try to diminish the Truth in order to find agreement with everyone...Those who have it wrong must convert to the Truth and should not try to find common grounds between Truth and error..." (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Conference, Econe, Jan. 1974).

Part 1-3 of 5:

(Originally Posted by "Parents for Truth")




Essay #1: Resistance to What?
Introduction:
A Response to Fr. Daniel Themann’s Lecture Piece by Piece.

by Fr. Don Rua, SDB

How happy I was to receive and listen to the talk of Fr. Themann’s concerning the crisis which the Society of St. Pius X is experiencing. Finally there is a concrete statement concerning the principles by which the Society operates. I want to thank him for his presentation and encourage him to enter into the essays which I will write in order to methodically come to the truth which determines the prudential action in the circuмstances in which we find ourselves. Now let us consider a word about the talk’s presuppositions and definitions.

“Truth is first” initiates Father’s preamble and all must agree to serious and precisely define the truth which causes us to act. The primary truth which is not stated in the address is the fact that “one must save one’s soul.” This is the underlying truth in everything we say, think or do. Our Lord remarks, “What good is it if a man gains the whole world but loses his immortal soul.” This truth is a metaphysical truth as opposed to an intellectual truth or a physical truth. It is a truth of the faith and so surpasses and encompasses all other truth.

Truth is not romantic but serious. Yes, Truth is serious for it is the word of God. I am the Way, I am the Truth thus spoke Our Lord. He, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is the Truth incarnate. This is serious because every word He spoke and every deed He performed draws us into union with the eternal truth. Through a correspondence to eternal truth we can arrive at judgments that are clear and prudential. Our judgments will follow the Truth which we hold.

Our judgments can be speculative, practical and prudential but they must be based upon a serious reflection of the truth and the circuмstances in which we live, move and have our being. Hence speculative judgments which deal in the truths of the faith are non-negotiable (e.g. murder is a mortal sin; there are three Persons in the Blessed Trinity). Judgments that are prudential and practical are determined by the circuмstances.

Father states: “Prudential truth is to say that within a given set of circuмstances, which is a reality, such and such a course of action is prudent. It is the correct way to act in order to achieve what is good. As concrete circuмstances change what is prudent changes as well.” Here then is a key – circuмstances. We must correctly assess the circuмstances in which a prudential judgment is made. If then the circuмstances are not correctly assessed then the prudential judgment will be in error. In his address Father will present the circuмstances as he views them which make the actions of the leadership prudential. We will note that our assessment of the circuмstances may call into question the prudential judgment of the same leadership. Hence keep this key in your mind – circuмstances help to dictate our prudential judgment.

Now the danger is exposed when Father tells us that “there is no faster way to get people at each other’s throats than to confuse a question of principle with a question of prudence.” When one makes a prudential judgment one already knows the good (the principle) and now we must decide how to accomplish that good in prudence.” Therefore the principle must be clearly presented as the good to be achieved. If we find that the good to be achieved is not a good then we must contest it with a greater good. Now we have two things to keep well in mind: the circuмstances and the good to be achieved.

Finally we come to the last key in the introduction to the address: “Remember a question of risk does not in itself make a course of action imprudent because any course of action involves some risk and so it is a question of balance weighing the risk with the good to be achieved.” Third element for the discerning listener is the element of risk. I took a risk in listening to this talk in order to achieve a greater understanding of the problem facing the Society. Risk is balanced with the good to be achieved. Keep in mind these three keys: circuмstances, the good to be achieved, and the risk to be taken.

During the body of the address truth will fluctuate from eternal to physical, good will be defined as a response to the authority of Rome, circuмstances will be accepted as favorable to tradition and risk will be accepted for the good of regularization. The great good is the legalization of seminaries, churches, schools, chapels and whatever else comes under the SSPX umbrella. So our desire is to analyze this address from the perspective of eternal truth, which is our faith. Is the risk that is being taken for the protection or the destruction of our faith?

Conclusion of Essay 1 – The Introduction.


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essay #2: Principles Upon Which the Society Has Always Acted. Comment upon Fr. Daniel Themann’s Address
By: Fr. Don Rua, SDB

After the preliminary remarks concerning truth, correct judgments, understanding circuмstances and the acceptance of risk, Father leads us into what he calls the first problem in understanding the Society’s direction in these days. It is the question of the principles upon which the Society is founded and continues to operate. The principles he enumerates are these two:

1. The Society has and continues to recognize the authority of Rome and Rome’s right to govern the Church (e.g. the Pope is the Pope, the Cardinals and Bishops hold offices of authority). For this reason the Society has never fallen into sedevacantism nor followed the route of the Ecclesia Dei communities.

2. The crisis in the Church is based on Vatican II and the new mass.

Considering these two principles we respectfully submit the words of Archbishop Lefebvre concerning the principles that form the foundation of the Society. I quote from the Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger July 8, 1987:

“In order to prevent the auto-demolition of the Church we beg to Holy Father, through your mediation, to allow the free exercise of Tradition by procuring for Tradition the means to live and develop itself for the salvation of the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls: that the traditional foundations may be recognized, especially the seminaries; that His Excellency de Castro Mayer and myself may consecrate some auxiliaries of our choice in order to give to the Church the graces of Tradition, the only source of the renewal of the Church.”

Upon reading this text to Cardinal Ratzinger, the basic principle of the Archbishop seems to be the preservation of the Tradition of the Faith at all costs.
Flowing from this desire to preserve the faith is the action of Rome to protect and foster the faith through recognition of its essential structures (i.e. seminary).

In reality the essential principle guiding the work of the Archbishop was to preserve the holiness of the priesthood and the holiness of the faith. Secondary to this was his effort to bring Rome back to the Tradition of the Church as understood be the Church of all ages. Did he try to establish a canonical structure for the Society – yes but as he remarks in a 1987 ordination sermon in Econe:

“There you have 20 years that I have been going to Rome—writing, speaking, sending docuмents to say: ‘Follow Tradition. Come back to Tradition, or else the Church is going to her ruin. You who have been placed into the succession of those who have built up the Church, you must continue to build Her up, and not demolish Her.’ They are deaf to our appeals!
“This is why, if God asks it of us, we will not hesitate to give ourselves auxiliaries in order to continue this work; for we cannot think that God wants it to be destroyed, that He wills that souls be abandoned, and that by this fact itself the Church will have no more pastors. We are living in an age that is completely exceptional. We must realize this. The situation is no longer normal, quite particularly in Rome.”

Society of St. Pius X we live in abnormal times where the auto-demolition of the Church seems willed by those who ought to build her up. The Assisi event, the uncrowning of Christ in the Catholic countries of the world, the refusal to listen to the pleas of our Blessed Mother, all this argues against a canonical recognition from those who hold position but fail to act according to that position.

These circuмstances have not changed from 1987 but have worsened as now the Church seeks ways to placate the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ life style. The one bastion of true Catholic life came to us from the Archbishop who recommended the fostering of large families, the development of serious seminaries and the mission of priests to go everywhere to preserve the faith. Their battle cry against the Council and the new mass used to be heard and united the flock.
Now the confusion caused by the desire for legal recognition is more than risky it is suicidal.

As the Archbishop remarks this is a battle against the powers of Satan which are found in the deceitful tongue. That tongue is operative in Rome as the Archbishop learned. His experience ought to guide our relations with the Modernist Rome that is currently playing a cat and mouse game with the leadership of the Society.

In the Arian crisis the visible Church was Arian while Athanasius remarked that they have the churches but we possess the faith. It is the faith that saves our souls not the canonical regularization of our Society. The greater good is the salvation of our souls from a house united around the guidance of its founder. We appeal to you to recognize that the visible church is not the Catholic Church.
It is the Conciliar Church, the Church of the new Advent as they call themselves.
This Conciliar Church is suicidal and will bring about the institutional death of the Catholic Church but the faith will remain and hence the Mystical Body will remain for all days.

The root cause of the crisis is not per se the Council but the ones who robbed the Council and used it for their liberal agenda. Those individuals continue to elect each other and the battle continues. Archbishop Lefebvre did what he had to do in 1988 to preserve the Faith of all ages. He consecrated four bishops with the prayer that they would stay the course and rebuild the church.

Dear Society and leaders in the Society your greatest good is the salvation of the souls entrusted to your care. The circuмstances have become more dangerous now than in the times of the Archbishop. The risk accompanied with union is the death of the society. Re-evaluate those who love you and desire your greatest welfare for they only seek to preserve you from a decision that will kill you.
Prudence demands that you re-consider. Your principles are out of order and need to place the priority of salvation over regularization. The history of the good Archbishop’s attempt to work out some kind of canonical status ought to be a warning to you of the deceitful tongues found in Rome. We pray in the wonderful Our Father …. Lead us not into temptation.

Applying your own words Father, the society must hold to its consistent principles (goods) and make a prudential judgment based upon a clear and precise evaluation of the circuмstances then take the risk to save the souls of its families and not put them and their faith in jeopardy. Keep Christ as the Lord of this holy Society and recall the words of warning from your founder:

“Who has been uncrowned? Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Who has uncrowned Him? The Roman authorities of today. …This is a tremendous scandal for souls, for Catholics, to see thus cast into doubt the universal Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is precisely that which is called Liberalism.” (p. 17 Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, Rev. F. Laisney)

End of Reflection on Point One in Fr. Themann’s Address



 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESSAY 3: THE MEANING OF THE TIMELINE IN
FR. THEMANN’S ADDRESS.
By: Fr. Don Rua, SDB

Our next “worry” as Fr. Themann calls it is the timeline which has not been outlined clearly and presents the faithful with doubts. Returning to the Roman
Pilgrimage of 2000 in which a strong presentation of the traditional faithful impressed modernist Rome with the strength of the movement and consequently caused Cardinal Hojos to contact Bishop Fellay to discuss an eventual agreement. In 2001 the General Council met and proposed two conditions to prove the sincerity of the Roman approach. The two requirements were:
1) The liberty of the Tridentine Mass which was never abrogated; 2) the admission that the excommunications were null and void.

Father remarked that Bishop Fellay stated that given “that Rome made the effort it is normal for the Society to take it with the seriousness it deserves.” In order to assess this section it seems good to this author to summarizes Fr. Themann’s chronology and then to fill in the chronology with missing elements. From those two lists the question will arise: Why be selective and why not show the complete actions of Menzingen? So we proceed to Fr. Themann’s chronology:

1) Jan. 2001 – General Council met and established two conditions for initiating a discussion with Rome. (cfr. Above)
2) 2006 – Election of Pope Benedict XVI – Tradition receives the Motu Proprio 2 years later freeing the Tridentine Mass – not a perfect docuмent but significant (Fr. Themann’s statement concerning the Society’s opinion).
3) Jan. 14th, 2009 – withdrawal of the decree of excommunication from the 4 bishops but does not mention Archbishop Lefebvre or de Castro Meyer. Again the docuмent is:”not perfect but significant”.
4) 2009 – 2011 Doctrinal discussions take place under Bishop De Galleretta and other outspoken Society leaders. Bishop Fellay could have chosen others who might “sweep the issues under the rug” but he didn’t.
5) Sept. 2011 Card. Levada invites BF to come to Rome “to make an assessment of these discussions and to consider prospects for the future.
6) Mid-Aug. Sources close to the Pope let BF know that the Pope wishes to recognize the Society unilaterally. In other words, no concessions and the Society will be recognized as it is.
7) Sept. Bishop Fellay meets with Card. Levada and receives a doctrinal preamble and in the following month the superiors meet in Albano to discuss this preamble. It is rejected. The hermeneutic of continuity cannot cover up the Vatican II docuмents which contradict the previous Church teaching.
8) Jan. 2012 Bishop Fellay is asked to send a more detailed explanation concerning the unacceptable preamble. He writes a more detailed explanation while holding to the first response – rejects preamble.
9) Bishop Fellay insists that the Society must be recognized as we are and in teaching as we do according to the principles that define us. Unofficially, BF is told that the Society can continue to attack the errors of Vatican II and the new mass and yet be recognized canonically.
10) March, 2012 BF meets with Card. Levada who gives him a harsh letter which CL says has been approved by the Pope. This letter mentions an excommunication of the Society (threatens the Bishop) if the preamble is not accepted in the present form. This will prove that the Society does not accept the authority of the Pope no matter what you say. BF has one month to reconsider.
11) Bishop receives the conviction that Rome does not think that the Society accepts anything that the Church has done since 1962. Fr. Themann “says that this is a false impression and in April Bishop Fellay will submit a response to that impression and his letter is designed to indicate that the Society does recognize much good and consequently BF will be attacked for this attempt to shatter that impression held by Rome.
12) The unofficial response from Rome is that the Pope accepts it. Now go through the proper channels (i.e. Card. Levada and the Commission). It is sent to the Commission but again it is rejected and the Congregation of the Faith changes it despite the fact that BF said if you change one word we will not accept it.
13) Early June Bishop Fellay grants an interview with DICI to test Rome by attacking Vatican II as erroneous. Pope has no problem saying that Vatican II has been abused but you cannot say it has errors. This is the issue. Bishop Fellay criticizes the new mass and the interview goes to the Pope via Card. Levada. The Cardinal says to BF that he has no right to say that the teaching of the Church today is in opposition to what it said in the past. Bishop Fellay answer that it is a fact. The Cardinal response that you have no right and then hands him the revised text in which words were changed hence makes it unacceptable.
14) Bishop Fellay writes to the Pope concerning this changed docuмent and the Pope then confirms that he approved the re-introduction of the objectionable material. He also states three conditions:
A) That Rome has the authority to determine what is part of tradition and what is not. This condition is true and part of the faith (Fr. Themann’s remark). “It may be your job but does not mean that you get it right.”
B) Vatican II is an integral part of tradition.
C) The new mass is valid and legitimate. Society has always said that the new mass is valid but not that it is good or legitimate.

15) July 2012 – The General Chapter condemns the three major errors of Vatican II in indirect terms.
16) Oct. 27, 2012 – Observatore Romano has an article stating that the Commission is still waiting for an answer from SSPX. However, Bishop Fellay has stated three times that he cannot sign it.

This is the summation of the timeline given by Fr. Themann in his address and now we shall proceed to fill in the missing data.

1. Normality – these are not normal times for Rome has “lost the faith” as the Archbishop pointed out to the Society years ago. In “normal” times the Church focuses on its goal “to save souls.” In abnormal times the Conciliar Church favors the temporal over the eternal. Fr. Themann shifts the term “normal” from the eternal life to the temporal life and loses.
2. Motu Proprio is not only an imperfect docuмent but a deceitful ploy since it presents the new mass as the “ordinary” rite of the Church thus usurping the position of the only legitimate mass which is now consider the “extraordinary” form. It weighs on the new mass over/against the Mass of the ages.
3. The Roman authority “lifted” (as opposed to repealing) the decree of excommunication. From an illegal act on the part of the authority we are presented with another ploy which denigrates the bishops as well.
4. This doctrinal preamble runs contrary to the Archbishop’s warning that “the superiors form the inferiors; not vice-versa….We were protected by God when He allowed the agreement of May 5th to come to naught.” (Letter June 12, 1988)
5. In Albano Bishop Williamson was left out of the proceedings and relegated to a position of silence.
6. The recognition that Rome offered to the Society was similar to what they offered La Barroux, Fraternity of St. Peter, Campos….
7. The harsh letter caused Bishop Fellay to cower whereas the Archbishop was ready to “lay down his life for the faith.” Quite a difference in the leadership one might remark.
8. April 7th, 2012 Bishop Fellay received the letter of the three bishops begging him to stop this madness.
9. April 12th Bishop Fellay responds that these bishops have no faith and are favoring “sedevacantism”.
10. April 15th Bishop Fellay submits the Doctrinal Preamble as a compromise to Rome. Here he does walk a fine line; we might say that he crosses the line in fear of the pseudo-authority of a modernist authoritarian mechanism.
11. May 11th CNS interview reveals the ambiguity in the Bishop’s statements.
12. June 8 – DICI Interview Bishop Fellay remarks that the SSPX has new friends of Tradition in Rome. It is recognized that the Society would naturally fall under the local bishops. This is not a trap by the Pope but an opportunity for the Society.
13. April 15th secret docuмent comes to light in March, 2013 and reveals that Bishop Fellay admits that Vatican II “enlightens and deepens” Tradition? He also called the new mass valid and “legitimately promulgated”. Thus the new mass can sanctify those who attend it.
14. July, 2012 – General Chapter presents the new principle differing from 2006 – which stated there should be no agreement without the conversion of Rome; but in 2012 the Chapter said: “we approve and determine an agreement without Rome’s conversion!” In paragraphs 6 and 7 we find ambiguity rivaling Vatican II. Six conditions are listed: a) Society “agrees to disagree” in order to make an agreement; b) exclusive use of 1962 Liturgy and retention of the current sacramental structure: c) one bishop offered the Society but from whom and from where? Now the desirable conditions (3) follow; d) Ecclesiastical tribunals first instance (but decisions could be overturned in second or third instance); e) placed under diocesan bishops (!?); f) Pontifical Commission (under whom?)
15. On Oct. 4, 2012 Bishop Williamson is expelled on the grounds of disobedience and fomenting rebellion.
16. On October 29, 2012: US District Superior, Fr. Rostand, in his Post Falls conference stated: “Will recognition of the Society make the Society grow and influence the Church? More to the point, that even to have to ask permission to the other bishops will become, over time, not a problem; it is a question of prudence.”(sic)
17. Finally, to date there has been no rejection, repudiation or correction of the main ambiguous statements from: a) CNS and DICI interviews; b) General Chapter statement and the Six Conditions; c) April 15, 2012 – Doctrinal Preamble
18. Consider the manner in which the Society chastens those who in one way or another raises questions of the prudential policy change. We can docuмent that priests have been expelled, silenced, punitively transferred. Our faithful have been refused communion; have had their children expelled from their schools; seminarians have been indoctrinated in a false obedience and to desire a union with modernist Rome; priests and laity have been blackballed from Society property. All this because the Society now desires to protect their new orientation in the name of unity. Faith is no longer the principle of unity but has been subordinated to the prudential policy change.

Now why would one who is presenting the chronology omit the 18 salient points that fill in the SSPX story? Could it be embarrassing to the record? If these facts were presented to the people at large could they recognize the duplicity in the leadership? Could they see that the priests of the resistance have a point to make? Could they recognize the Communist-style of leadership which brooks no opposition and crushes sincere questioning priests and laity? It causes this author to wonder and wonder and wonder. What about you, Fr. Themann?

Don Rua
 
 

http://www.therecusant.com/letter-of-entreaty

A Letter of Entreaty
to
Fr. Morgan and the Clergy of the British District

21st May, 2013

(St. Godric; Bl. John Haile)



Dear Fr. Morgan, Dear Fathers,


We beg of you in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, high priest and lover of souls, in the name of his Blessed Mother, in the name of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and in the name of all the wonderful, holy ideals which led you to answer the call to become a shepherd and a lover of souls – aid our souls now, in our moment of need.

The Subversion of the Society of St. Pius X

For some time now, we have felt betrayed by one portion of the SSPX and let down and abandoned by the lack of response from another portion. The leadership of the SSPX are wilfully pursuing a new direction and a new agenda, remaking the Society in their own image with reckless disregard for the souls which Divine Providence has placed in their care. Every month, sometimes it seems every week, some new, fresh piece of evidence emerges of the liberalism at the top which is being forced downwards upon the lower members and faithful of the Society. We have heard not one single convincing explanation, nothing to put our minds at rest, although it is not uncommon for Menzingen or DICI to issue “clarifications” or for Bishop Fellay to claim that his words have been misrepresented in some way.


What concerns us especially is that we see what amounts to a new direction officially enshrined in the SSPX. Recently we have seen proof of the liberalism of Bishop Fellay in the form of a modernistic “Doctrinal Declaration”, a declaration of the his own doctrinal position, presented to Rome with his signature as supposedly representing us also. Amongst other things, we are now able to see that Bishop Fellay accepts the legitimacy of the New Mass which Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX always held to be illegitimate; he accepts the idea of collegiality which Archbishop Lefebvre fought against at the council since it undermines any previous notion of the Church's Magisterium, replacing it with a sort of 'teaching democracy' in the form of the modern Bishops; he accepts the 'hermeneutic of continuity' and the idea that Tradition and the revolution can be thought of as consistent with one another; he accepts all of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which John-Paul II said was Vatican II translated into law, and which includes Canon 844 which provides for the giving of the sacraments to non Catholics; he states explicitly that diabolical modern ideas such as ecuмenism and religious liberty are reconcilable with the true teaching of the Church and with Tradition; and finally he also explicitly states that Vatican II “enlightens and deepens... the life and doctrine of the Church.”


Father, you can see as clearly as we that this Doctrinal Statement is a serious insult to Almighty God, and a total betrayal of the mission of the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. It is also a personal betrayal of every soul who has reposed confidence in the SSPX and worked to build it up and strengthen it, and of course a personal insult to the Archbishop who, far from accepting the New Religion of the conciliar church, declared that it “begins in heresy and ends in heresy, even if not all of its acts are formally heretical.” Let me remind you, Father, that this docuмent in question is not a throwaway remark, a bad translation, or an unfortunate choice of words made in the heat of the moment – it took months to prepare, and once handed over two months were waited to see whether it had been accepted or not. This docuмent, furthermore, is a Doctrinal Declaration: its purpose is to declare doctrine. If one declares something, surely one declares it in public and not in secret? How can one have 'secret doctrine'? Furthermore, since it is a declaration of doctrine, i.e. Bishop Fellay's “Declaration of what I believe”, it is perfect nonsense for him to say that he has “withdrawn it” - in what meaningful sense can one possibly “withdraw” doctrine? If Bishop Fellay was prepared to believe those things recently, but claims to have “withdrawn” his secret docuмent now that it has come to light, then we can take it that he as good as believes them still today. Since he has been caught betraying the Society, it would be “optimistic” to the point of reckless irresponsibility simply to pretend to ourselves that he is one of us once again. Neither he nor any of his allies can be trusted, and we think that if you are honest with yourselves you must admit that.

How are we to remain faithful to Tradition?

Taken together with all the other signs of the past year, and especially the General Chapter's scandalous “three conditions” (and “three desirable conditions – which in effect amounts to “three things we are not prepared to fight for, and are thus quite happy to lose”) which took the revolution in the SSPX and the Superior General's disobedience to the 2006 Chapter and legitimised it and made it the official position of the Society – what we now see is the revolution inside the SSPX fully established in power. Ideas not personalities are what concern us most. And in the persons of Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, and a large number of Superiors and members of the General Chapter we see new ideas which we abhor, and with which we wish nought to do. We do not wish to be underneath these clerics, whose ideas and doctrinal position are so much at variance with our own, and we do not wish there to be any risk or danger to the Faith by continuing under priests with whom we disagree. We cannot help but be reminded of the simple but insightful words of Archbishop Lefebvre: it is the superiors who form the subjects, not the subjects who form the superiors.


It is clear to us that the SSPX is now a sinking ship. The men who hold authority over it are the problem, and yet they cannot be removed from their positions (the only real opportunity to do so would have been at the last General Chapter). The very thing on account of which Almighty God blessed the SSPX, its faithful adherence to Tradition and its determination not to compromise with modernism, has been officially jettisoned and is now gone. Its absence is the one essential difference between the SSPX of yesterday and the SSPX of today. The good priests opposed to compromise who remain inside the SSPX are now good in spite of their being in the SSPX and not because of it. Since you cannot serve two masters, you must ask yourselves this: to which SSPX do you wish to remain loyal? Although you may have been left comparatively unmolested by Menzingen thus far, you cannot be unaware of what is happening all around the world in the Society. Which being the case, it is now only a matter of time: sooner or later if you do not choose to remain traditional at the cost of SSPX membership, you will find that you chose to remain SSPX members at the cost of your fidelity to Tradition.


Fathers, please consider: at your judgement Almighty God will not judge you faithful servants on account of what you said or thought in secret, but rather what you spoke openly and what actions you did in public. We your faithful have waited now for a year since the liberalism became apparent. We did not wish to act rashly. We have been giving you an opportunity to lead us. If, however, you will not do so, then we must reluctantly part company. It is clear that the situation can only become worse, and in such cicrumstances we can see no alternative but to start again. We can be confident for the future, however, since the only thing being begun again would be the administrative structure. The Faith remains, and that is what matters. If we do the right thing, everything else will be taken care of: God helps those who help themselves, as the saying goes. We beg and implore you to come to our aid and not to abandon souls which need you, especially not on account of a false obedience to superiors who regard you as, at best, a problem and with whom you will have increasingly little in common.


God bless you and reward you for your years of work caring for our souls.



Gregory Taylor
Waltraud Taylor
Olivia Bevan
Jeremy Bevan
Susan Warren
Alun Rowland
Anna Thompson

1st Sermon of Fr. Girouard in New Resistance Chapel:
The "Branding" of the SSPX by Fr. Wegner (Canadian District Superior)
June, 2013


In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

I will be brief in this sermon because I have to read that statement again, and you already had it before mass, but what I want to say today is that, obviously, this is my first mass since I came back from exile, and I would like to say a little bit to correct a little bit things that had been said about me when I was away by Father Wegner and the other priests. They said that basically I had not talked with Father Wegner before to preach my sermons, and so forth and so on. So this is not correct, this is not a true statement. In fact I have talked with him many times...

Like in July last year, on a phone call of 80 minutes, and I mentioned all the problems in the Society; and in October, when he came to visit in Langley, we had a two hour conversation, and I told him of these problems in the Society; and then, in November, I sent him two emails with a very important question about Bishop Fellay, and I am still waiting for the answer to the second email. So if I would wait for the answers all the time, I would probably reach the age of retirement before I get the answers! And, therefore, I decided to preach. The other reason also is because the reason why someone asks a question is because he has a question to ask. If you know already the answer, it is no use to ask the question, unless you are a teacher! So I don't have any questions to ask him anymore.

I saw the docuмents that came out from Bishop Fellay, especially his Declaration of April the 15th 2012 that he brought to Cardinal Levada, as the basics for an agreement with Rome. And when you read that, you realize the Society is in deep trouble! Because in that Declaration, in that draft for an agreement with Rome, Bishop Fellay accepts the New Code of Canon Law. He also says that the new mass has been legitimately promulgated. He also says that he recognizes the Magisterium of the Church of today and that he is ready to sign the 1989 Profession of Faith of Cardinal Ratzinger. Which Profession of Faith, as I have explained to you before in one of my sermons, is very bad, especially the third , which basically means that the priests who will take this oath of fidelity, the one drafted in 1989, will accept to submit to the modern Magisterium, that is to say to the modern teachings of the Pope.

Anyway... So I have preached against this Preamble, and I have preached, as I said, in my announcements on March 10th, about the Preamble, and about the letter from the 37 priests, and also the fact that the Carmelites in Germany have decided to leave the Society because of the same reasons; and also I have talked about the expulsion from the Monastery of Silver City of Father Raphael. So I thought that the faithful needed to know. But the reaction was to transfer me to St. Césaire, with the specific order that I should be silent. I should not communicate these things to the faithful. I should not criticize the Superiors. I should not show nor express any distrust for them or their actions. So it was kind of a pact that was asked of me: We will take care of your material needs, you will have a house and beautiful chapel in St. Césaire and in exchange for this security you will remain silent; so I refused. I cannot remain silent.

It would be a sin for me to remain silent, so therefore I refused and went into exile, as you know, and came back a couple of weeks ago because you have had a series of meetings, once a week, and you studied these docuмents; and you studied some articles that I wrote from afar for you, and you studied some copies of the magazine The Recusant, and so forth and so on. And you have had the same reaction any good and normal Catholic would have in front of those docuмents: You have understood that you, that we, have been misled for the past couple of years; that the Society has done a 180 degrees; and this is why you have decided to start your own chapel. Because you knew you could trust me to preach you the truth, because I have to suffer, and I have to make sacrifices to do it now. And we have organized and have now founded, this is our first mass, St. Joseph Defender of the Church Chapel.

And one of the things I would like to share with you about my conversations with Father Wegner in October... The thing that will explain why you do not anymore see the Society criticize in a strong manner, in a vigorous manner, the evils of Vatican II, the evils of the New Mass and what happens in Rome. You would think that maybe it's just that we forget, the Society is... it has forgotten its role of explaining the truth and battling against error. Maybe it's just a coincidence; just because your priest at that parish didn't think to talk about it... Well, that's what I said to Father Wegner; I told Father Wegner, I said to Father: “Look at the DICI website; look at the Angelus magazine; look at the website of the SSPX in the United States; look at the website of Father Couture in Asia; look everywhere, and you don't see any spirit of fight anymore against Vatican II and the New Mass! It seems to me that the Society has become a blunt sword in the hands of the Lord! There is no cutting edge anymore, it is useless!”

And I thought he would say: “Oh, you are wrong” or, “really, Father, we are still strong, and we are still fighting, and you are, you know, it's a misconception that you have. How can you say this?” So I was really taken aback when he agreed with me, and he said: “But yes, Father, it's true!” Well, Father Wegner agrees with me! So I thought I was making headway! I thought: “Well, that's good! Now that he understands the problem, maybe we will start to fight again!” But when my jaw dropped, was when he said that this was a good thing, this change was a good thing! Okay! Also, well, he explained to me how it came to be. He said this is not just a coincidence, or it is not because priests are becoming lazy or they are afraid of Rome. No, no! He said: “This is a decision that has been made in Menzingen, okay? Yes, Father Girouard, and this decision in Menzingen was made because we have been branded!”

So here, I don't know... You know, normally, you brand a cow! But he tells me now that the Society has been branded! So I was able to keep walking, I did not drop dead but... And then he told me: “Yes Father, that is true, and I did it!” Oh! You did it. How did you do it? “Well, when I was in Holland, District Superior, I met with somebody, I became friend with the President of a company...” (and then he named me the name of the company, it is a Flemish name which uh... is too strange to remember) but he said: “This is the fifth most successful company in Holland, so it is a very important company, a very successful company, and a couple of years ago I visited them and I met again with this man, and I asked him to take care of the Society and to do the branding of the Society, because that company is specialized in branding.”

So for those of you don't know what branding is, I will explain briefly. Branding is... That company who makes a branding, suppose it takes as their customer Coca Cola. So Coca Cola would hire that company, and would ask that company "do my branding". And that company will send men to Coca Cola offices, and everywhere, to study the whole industry of Coca Cola, to study all the advertising of Coca Cola, to drink a lot of Coca Cola! And to basically have as much knowledge of Coca Cola as possible. And then they will study all the other companies that make cola; so they will study Royal Cola, Pepsi Cola, King Cola, and so forth and so on. And they will try to figure out, and they will drink a lot of cola of course, and then they will try to figure out how could the Coca Cola company distinguish itself in a very striking manner from all the other brands. That’s the branding: To find out the striking difference of your customer and then, with the branding, they will say: Well, your product is more... It has a little bit more bitterness, or a little bit more fizz in it, and the color is more dark than the others, and so your branding should be that uh... I don't know, “Cola Cola... gives you a kick!” I don't know: “Coca Cola is a product that has more kick than all the others!” That is as an example of branding.

And so Father Wegner asked that man of that company to do the branding of the Society, and so that man said: “I will look into the Society on the website; I will let you know.” A couple of weeks later he phones Father Wegner, and he says: “Father, I refuse; I refuse the contract, because I looked over your name SSPX, and you don't have a good name out there, and I don't want my company to have the blemish of having you as a customer.” So Father Wegner says: “Well, at least give us a chance! Let's hear our own side, what we have to say. I will organize a meeting for you and Bishop Fellay in Menzingen, in Switzerland, and at least give us the chance to answer all of your questions, and after that you will decide!” So the man said : “Fair enough.” So they organize the meeting in Menzingen, and Father Wegner told me that the man went there and asked one hundred and fifty questions to Bishop Fellay, and Bishop Fellay answered all of these questions, and it lasted six hours! For six hours! And, at the end, that man said: “Okay, I will take the contract of the Society, and I will do your branding.”

So I don't know exactly how long this took... A few months... And I don't know how much it cost, but... I talked with some people, and they think it was a bundle of money, and I wish they would have given it to us, so we could have a nice church by now! And afterwards he gave the conclusion to Father Wegner and to Bishop Fellay, the conclusion of the whole survey of the branding, and he said to Father and Bishop Fellay: “Bishop Fellay, the result of my survey, is that for the last fifteen years, you had it all wrong! You will never get more faithful and more people to come to your churches if you continue this way, because right now, the Vatican II Church is like an old man dying, and it's like dying flat on the street. Like they lose their seminaries, they lose their monasteries, they sell their churches, and it is a dying church! And you are really looking bad when you continue to fight that Church! It makes you look like a cruel... or like you exaggerate, or like you are kicking somebody who is already dying! So your new branding has to change you completely! You have to stop arguing; you have to stop fighting; you have instead to go on the positive side, and to show the beauty of the traditional liturgy, the beauty of the traditional theology, and that way people will not see you as cruel, or bitter, or things like that.”

And this is why, since the branding of the society, DICI has changed; the SSPX websites have changed; the Angelus has changed. And in fact, interestingly enough, if you go back to the first issue of the new Angelus, what does Father Wegner say? Go back if you have it, and read it. He says: “We will not anymore put the emphasis on the battle and the fight, but we will put the emphasis on the beauty of the Gregorian chant, the beauty of art...” And so forth and so on. Go ahead and read it. It is exactly the branding of the Society and, really, I had to put my jaw back into place, because I said to myself: “I thought that if there was one person in the world who was authorized, and who knew better, as of the branding or the definition of the Society, that would have been its founder, the Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre! Not a layman who is not even a Catholic, who is not even a traditional! How can you go ask a pagan to define what we are, and what we should do? It is a complete madness!

They accuse us of not being supernatural, and what is that: to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to that company, a pagan company, and to say: “Well! Forget about Coca Cola! And do the SSPX, brand us!” Instead of listening to the founder, instead of reading the founder, who said who we were! As if what the founder said was not good enough, and now we have to have pagans telling us what to do!

So we refuse to do that, and this is why we have started our chapel here, of “Saint Joseph Defender of the Church”. And today, this morning, you have read and you have signed this mission statement that says to everybody why we are doing what we do, and it is not because of emotions, or anger, or resentment, or bitterness. It is because we have read these docuмents and we have understood that the Society has been changed, and has been doing a one hundred degree cycle, and we are not anymore doing what we should do. And, therefore, this is the only way we can continue. We are not making anything new here! You know that I have not preached to you, I have not shown to you any article that is new! We are continuing exactly what you came to Langley for, and Langley is not doing it anymore, and no other parish is doing it anymore in the SSPX. Because they have to follow the General Chapter of 2012, where now they accept the principle of signing a deal with Rome. It doesn't matter if it's not signed yet, because you have accepted the principle: “But yes! We can do a deal with Rome without the conversion of Rome!” And we refuse that, because it's a Revolution. We just continue here, in this hall, what we have been doing from the beginning.

So, my dear friends, we will have to continue to pray for each other to be strong, and to pray for all our other friends who remain in Christ the King. I am in contact with others who are not here this morning, and I have given them these articles and docuмents, and they are studying them. I will not name them. They have to take the time to study, and to be convinced. But, you know, you are not alone here. There are other people who want to continue the real fight of the SSPX. Let us pray for each other and for them.

In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Amen

.


Update for the above post, A Letter of Entreaty:

There are now, as of today (June 8th, 2013), 50 signers.
Source

The original 7 are in bold:

Gregory Taylor
Waltraud Taylor
Olivia Bevan
Jeremy Bevan
Susan Warren
Alun Rowland
Anna Thompson
Michael Morley
Paul Whitburn
Alex Williams
Albrecht Maria Bastian
Benedikt Maria Bastian
Caecilia Maria Bastian
Daniel Starck
Clare Starck
Antonio Vitiello
Peter Biosah
Mary Fryd
Peter Wimberley
David McNee
John Britten
Michael Rooney
Margaret Rooney
Monica Beckingham
Angela Straughair
Veronica Whitburn
Alexandra Robson
Jacinta Cooper
John Jensen
Francisca Alacar
Sokia Cotee
Janello Burns
John Gill
Lucky Nwachukwii
Patricia Finlay
Catherine Gaskin
Matthew Gaskin
Mervyn Gaskin
Charlotte Rogers
Brenda Bailey
Ciaran Dennehy
Mary Dennehy
Robert Lane
Juan Zapato
Maria Elizabeth Cacho
Elaine Wakeling
John Harmsen
Mary Codd
Alexandra Dew
Vincent Withams

.

A most excellent and timely article by the formidable Fr. Patrick
Girouard - takes on the question of - Why are the Menzingen-
denizens pursuing this path of normalization with modernist
Rome?  What could be their motivation?  Why do this?*

He endeavors to 'shed some light' on the topic, and true to
form, he does not fall short of his mark.  Many thanks for this
great article from us to you, Fr. Girouard!

*A topic not unrelated would be, why has the leadership of the
Society tried so desperately to CLAIM that they are NOT in hot
pursuit of this normalization? But it seems to me that the answer
to that question is right here!  They are desperate BECAUSE of
this article, and perhaps others like it, that is, the Resistance
has been doing a spiritual work of mercy to wit:  To Instruct the
Ignorant.  And the devil hates it when the ignorant are
instructed!  Please Note: The murmurings from Fr. Morgan in the
British District that he is due soon to make the announcement of
H.E. Fellay's denouncement of his own AFD (Doctrinal Declaration)
came the very day that this article, below, was posted on
Sacraficium.org! (That would be Fr. Morgan's Denouncement-
Announcement - coming soon to a venue-near-you!)
 

Don't miss the discussion thread for "In or Out of the Sea" here.









Perception (25 June 2013)

When I talk with people, many ask me the same question: “But, Father, why is Bishop Fellay doing this? Why is he, and the other Superiors as well, pursuing this new strategy towards Rome?”

 

Of course, to be able to answer with a complete and absolute certitude, I would need to be God himself! But, as He has chosen me to become His minister here on earth, I do have to try my best to provide some light on the matter.

 

From what I can gather from diverse sources, the superiors of the Society, and those who follow them, believe that the obtaining of a “canonical normalization”, of an “official recognition” by the Roman authorities, would be a means to reach more souls and to be able to help them better to reach their eternal salvation. (They seem to forget that these poor souls have already nine “rallied” communities to turn to...). For Bishop Fellay and his followers, such a “regularization” would also repair an injustice perpetrated against the Society of St. Pius X. These two motives seem, in themselves, to be good ones, and worthy of praises. Good people are indeed attracted by good motives.

 

Before to deal with the first motive, which is more the subject of this editorial, let me dispatch quickly the question of the reparation of an “injustice” done to us: Since when does the fact of being rejected by bad people has become an injustice to good people? To have been rejected by heretics and perverts doesn’t sound too bad to me. I would even say they did me a favor! The Modernists and perverts in Rome didn’t take away my being a Catholic, they just gave me the joy of receiving one of the Beatitudes revealed by Our Lord, that of suffering persecution for justice’s sake! Why would I want this beatitude taken away from me?

 

Let us now proceed with our argumentation: If we were to analyze both motives a bit seriously, we would understand that they have a sandy foundation, and that they cannot stand scrutiny. Indeed, those motives stem from a desire that the SSPX may one day be well perceived by people belonging to the mainstream “Church”. In other words, all the crisis we have been living for the last 15 years or so, since the foundation of the “Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques” (GREC), is based on a question of PERCEPTION, that is to say: On how other people see us.

 

This “Group of Reflection Among Catholics”, founded in 1997 by, among others, Fr. Alain Lorans (in charge of DICI) and Novus Ordo Fr. Michel Lelong, has the official goal of bringing about the reconciliation of the SSPX with conciliar Rome. Fr. Lorans has founded it with the blessing of Bishop Fellay, and he has kept him informed of their work. I have the book written by Fr. Lelong, where he details the history of the group. Among other things, he says that the GREC has suggested to the Society to ask for, and to the Roman authorities to grant, two signs of good will that would help achieve a future reconciliation: 1- The “freedom” of the Old Mass, 2- The lifting of the “excommunications”. The Grec also suggested that the SSPX stops: 1- To criticize harshly the Roman authorities; [and stops] 2- To reject Vatican II as a whole. We know what happened afterwards. The Society asked for the two signs of “good will” from Rome, and it has also changed its style of argumentation. (About this change, I refer you to my sermon of June 2 2013, on the “branding” of the Society). It is interesting to note that, while the whole question of “reconciliation” is based on perception, the means proposed to achieve it are themselves founded on perception.

 

Indeed, we all know that the Old Mass never needed to be ‘liberated”, since the bull “Quo Primum” gave a perpetual permission to celebrate it, notwithstanding what Novus Ordo bishops may say; that the “excommunications” were never valid; and that the new style of argumentation of the Society is the result of the wish to not be perceived as “bitter”, “harsh”, “disobedient”, etc. But, even if they knew all this, Bishop Fellay and his followers, somewhere along the line, have become afraid of the negative perception the mainstream “Catholics” got from these three elements. They started to think that such a negative perception was an obstacle to the salvation of these poor souls. Therefore, to remove this obstacle, to obtain a good end, they have decided to follow the GREC’s suggestions, which is to say: They have chosen bad means to attain a good end. Everybody with a minimal knowledge of Catechism knows that this is never morally permissible.

 

Moreover, by asking Rome to grant those two “signs of good will”, the leaders of the Society have purposefully acted externally in a manner that contradicted what they believed internally to be true. They therefore increased the confusion in the poor souls they wanted to “save”, because they acted publicly AS IF the Old Mass had been forbidden, and AS IF the excommunications had been valid, and AS IF the Conciliar Rome and Pontiff, and the Council itself, were not that bad anymore. In other words, they have been, for all practical purposes, liars and hypocrites.

 

Later on, Bishop Fellay and his two Assistants, forming what is called the General Council, have presented to Rome a Doctrinal Declaration, dated April 15th 2012, which is a monument of the same kind of hypocrisy. It is a docuмent that tries, by means of subtlety in the choice of words and expressions, to be acceptable both to the Modernists and to Traditionalists. That is why Bishop Fellay himself said repeatedly that our acceptance of this text would depend on our state of mind while reading it (I refer to his expression: “pink or dark tinted glasses”). As far as we know, the General Council has not yet sent another official docuмent to Rome, to say that it revokes this Doctrinal Declaration, and it therefore still represents the official position of the Society on these questions, notwithstanding any declaration to the contrary done in sermons or conferences. Such utterances have indeed no official or juridical value whatsoever, and are only another proof that the leaders of the Society are being hypocritical, not only towards the mainstream “Catholics”, but also with their own faithful who are paying their bills.

 

Another striking example of hypocrisy is the Declaration of the 2012 General Chapter of the Society, and the six “conditions” to a practical agreement. The Superiors pretend to have recovered the unity in the Society, while, in practice, that so-called “unity” has been reached by the expulsion of any dissenting voice, including that of one of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. It is a unity based on fear and on lies. Those who know that the Society is doing wrong fear punishment, and those who think it is doing right have been deceived by the sophisms explained above. Moreover, to affirm that the six “conditions”, weak in themselves, could protect us is to refuse to see the reality in Rome, and to forget what happened to the nine Traditional Communities who tried this before. This is tantamount to voluntary intellectual blindness.

 

What we hope that everybody could realize, is that Bishop Fellay and his followers are doing [making] the same mistake than [as] clergymen did at Vatican II: They found their new strategy on a question of PERCEPTION. Vatican II has indeed been an attempt to improve the perception outsiders had of the Catholic Church. The failed experiment of the Conciliar Church should have prevented the Society leaders from falling into that same trap, but, since when do children learn from the experience of previous generations?

 

What can we do to help stop this non-sense? I think we have to get out of this system of hypocrisy and of that cycle of fear. We have to stand up for the truth, no matter the perception others may have of us, and no matter the punishments. What converted the Pagans in the first centuries of the Church was not Christians who tried to be well thought of. It was the constancy of those who were ready to give their lives to uphold their convictions. Therefore my dear friends, LET US RESIST OPENLY AND STRONGLY!

Abbé Patrick Girouard

    Français

Copyright © Sacrificium, 2013.