Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:

Author Topic: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings  (Read 97369 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14757
  • Reputation: +9763/-3139
  • Gender: Male
Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« Reply #90 on: December 16, 2013, 09:41:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Deja Vu:
    What Fr. Cyprian Used to Think
    (Originally Posted by "B of A" in the "Eleison Cmments: Fr. Rioult II" Thread)

    An Interview with Fr. Cyprian, O.S.B.

     Le Barroux was a Traditional Benedictine monastery affiliated with Archbishop Lefebvre until last July's Consecrations. The Archbishop had been the one ordaining their priests, and members of the Society often found Le Barroux to be an excellent place to make a retreat. After working so closely with Archbishop Lefebvre and supporting the consecration of new bishops in the work "Five Reasons in Favor of the Consecrations," the abbot, Dom Gerard suddenly did an about-face after Cardinal Mayer visited the monastery. Fr. Cyprian details the events that led up to this sudden break with Archbishop Lefebvre, and his own eventual decision to leave Le Barroux in September of 1988.

     Q. Father, most of our readers know you as an American who became a Benedictine monk at the Le Barroux monastery in France where you lived from late 1980 until you left under tragic circuмstances in September, 1988. Father, why did you go to Le Barroux in the first place?

     A. I left my work at the Society's school at St. Mary's, KS to go to Le Barroux after a long search for the true monastic life. For several years I had been visiting various monasteries in America and then I found out about the SSPX. Through the Society I rediscovered the traditional practice of the Faith and from that moment everything began to fall into place. I went to St. Mary's and heard Archbishop Lefebvre speak during a pilgrimage. His approach to the crisis in the Church made a tremendous amount of sense. I asked the priest of St. Mary's if a monastery existed that shared that same approach. He told me that there was only one traditional monastery in the whole world. It was Benedictine and it was in absolute harmony with the Archbishop and the Society. So the choice was easy to make. I went to France that same year in the fall of 1980.

     Q. Father, why did you leave?

     A. Several monks as well as myself left the monastery at Le Barroux right after the consecrations at Ecône because from that summer of 1988 onward, things had radically changed at our monastery.

     For the monks at Le Barroux, two opposing events took place even though they revolved around the one historical event of the consecrations themselves. First, our superiors had just finished a long, careful preparation of our community of monks and nuns, as well as our faithful and benefactors, so that everyone understood exactly what would take place on June 30th. They even went so far as to publish a brochure entitled, "Five Reasons in Favor of the Consecrations" so as to dispel any worries among our followers.

     Then, all of a sudden, only weeks before the consecrations would take place, the totally unexpected arrival of Cardinal Mayer and Msgr. Perl was announced to the community. A secret council of monks was immediately called together and for the next few days of the Cardinal's surprise visit negotiations took place twice a day in private. The rest of the community being excluded from these meetings, we had to wait until the evening Chapter gathering that we have each day before Compline to hear any news of the secret meetings. Dom Gerard only asked us for our prayers, saying that something very good was about to happen to the monastery.

     After Cardinal Mayer and Msgr. Perl left to return to Rome, our superiors had been successfully dissuaded from their support of the upcoming consecrations. Dom Gerard then announced to all of us, with an air of victory, that the monastery would soon be regularized with Rome; reinstated into the Benedictine confederation, and that as soon as a letter arrived from the Nuncio in Paris, all our priests would no longer be under the pains of the suspension "a divinis" and the other irregularities incurred through their being ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. All of these so-called wondrous things were brought to our doorstep because the Archbishop had denounced the protocol of May 5th, and now Cardinal Mayer had just given it to us instead.

     Q. Father, didn't these words arouse a little suspicion among the monks?

     A. Many of us were very worried and were wondering what exactly must have transpired during those secret council meetings with Cardinal Mayer and Msgr. Perl. Later on we all found out. There was a catch to all of this. The condition placed on the monastery's regularization with Rome was this: no more Lefebvre; period. Archbishop Lefebvre cold no longer have any contact with Le Barroux: he could no longer be our bishop. In other words, no more ordinations for our candidates to the priesthood, no more consecrations for our nuns, no more dedications of our buildings and churches, no more confirmations for our faithful from anyone in the Society of St. Pius X, and so forth. But Cardinal Mayer finally had a change of heart and conceded that the Archbishop could maybe visit the monastery as a mere guest like any layman.

     Q. Given those conditions I don't see why he would ever want to return. Didn't any of the monks or nuns seem surprised by those conditions?

     A. Many of the monks seemed very shocked; it seemed too absurd to believe. But now all of a sudden our superiors were doing some very fast talking to try and make everything sound reasonable. We began hearing things like this: 'After all, Msgr. Lefebvre is only a bishop like any other in the Church, and besides, from our viewpoint we really shouldn't favor one bishop over another.' Now we had free choice of any bishop who seemed to qualify for our requirements of orthodoxy" - any bishop at all except, of course, Archbishop Lefebvre. And whenever the name Lefebvre was brought up, immediately there were connotations and accusations of schism and excommunication from our superiors. For some strange reason, Dom Gerard came out of the secret talks with Cardinal Mayer asking us to pray hard for poor old rebellious Marcel Lefebvre who was now on the brink of an irreparable schism with Rome.

     Q. It really seems like somewhere along the line the superiors of Le Barroux made a drastic about-face in their position regarding the consecrations.

     A. Yes, and that is precisely what became, for several monks, the problem of conscience compelling them to leave the monastery. The same Dom Gerard who, until June, 1988 always took the public defense of the Archbishop, was now rabidly opposed to him. Now all of a sudden, we were hearing such things as "the Archbishop is a senile old man who has clearly shown signs of losing his mind, and he is nothing less than obsessed by his hatred of Vatican II, and he is formally schismatic and most definitely excommunicated. All he wants to do is play polemics and dialectics with Rome, etc., etc." I couldn't believe my ears! And now, according to Le Barroux's theologian, "all marriages performed by priests of the SSPX are invalid and no Catholic in his right frame of mind can follow the Archbishop."

     Q. But Father, we read that Dom Gerard announced the consecrations as a kind of "prophetic act," to use his own words. Did he really say that?

     A. Oh yes; and Fr. Joseph cites him in his famous letter he published in the French Catholic paper, "Monde et Vie" to explain why he, too, left Le Barroux. I recall Dom Gerard saying that the decision to proceed with the consecrations against all apparent opposition was indeed a prophetic act, and that the Archbishop is a saint having enlightenment from heaven to go through with them. In contrast to such compliments, we were now hearing the same Dom Gerard denounce the same Msgr. Lefebvre as a schismatic, etc., as I mentioned earlier.

     Q. Did any other monks leave Le Barroux in protest?

     A. It was never in a spirit of protest that anyone left Le Barroux. It was something much more serious than simply trying to prove a point. Monks do not leave their monastery and abandon their vows of stability and obedience merely in order to try and prove something. All those monks who left were, in conscience, left with no alternative. It had become virtually impossible to support Msgr. Lefebvre and remain living at Le Barroux at the same time.

     Q. But you say that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained some twenty priests of your community. Didn't they disapprove of Dom Gerard's new stand?

     A. Only six of the twenty left. Three in Brazil, two in France, plus myself and one other who is still wavering back and forth. Also, there is a professed brother, and an American novice who is now a seminarian in Winona. I do not count the novices and postulants in our monastery in Brazil who remained with their superior, Fr. Thomas Aquinas, when he refused to accept the Rome deal.

     Q. And what about the nuns? Aren't there three Americans in the convent?

     A. Yes, and one of them wrote me a letter after I left. It was clear to me that, after I re-read all the adjectives she put to my name, she knew nothing of the truth about what really happened at Le Barroux. The nuns only know what they are told by their superiors. Normally, this would be absolutely legitimate, but under the present circuмstances it is very sad. Now there is no way to get through to them. All mail and phone calls are screened.

     Q. Father, we read in other publications various arguments in support of the present situation at the monastery. They would lead us to believe that things really aren't all that bad at Le Barroux. Could this be the reason why so few monks have left?

     A. I'll relate to you one more little incident.

     A few days prior to my departure, I had a rather heated discussion with my superior. He knew I was still very perplexed by the sudden drastic change in the monastery's orientation. He knew I remained strongly in favor of the Archbishop and that I wasn't swallowing any of the excuses I was hearing. That particular day, one of the priests walked out, and on his way out the door he said I was about to do the same. I was summoned to my superior's room where he said to me somewhat furiously, "My dear Father, either you are with us or you are against us; which one is it?" On that very same day news of Fr. Thomas' refusal of the Rome deal was announced. Fr. Thomas decided to stand firm as the superior of the Brazilian monastery, complaining that he had been completely eclipsed from the secret meetings held with Cardinal Mayer. Dom Gerard, who was about to catch a plane to Brazil "in order to rescue the monastery from Fr. Thomas and his pirates," gave us a report of the incident before leaving. After commenting on the apparent disobedience and revolutionary behavior of the Brazilian monks, he concluded by exclaiming, "Now we see the true work of Lefebvre: he destroys monasteries by turning the monks against their father!" He said this because Fr. Thomas called Econe to ask Msgr. Lefebvre's advice before publicly rejecting the Rome deal to maintain possession of his monastery.

     The gist of these incidents is this: We are now seen by the community as monks who have discarded their sacred vows of obedience by preferring to remain supportive of the Archbishop, and thereby succuмb to the worldly interests of the Church actuality in preference to being good monks. We had all been exhorted several times to make the "little sacrifice" of mortifying our natural human attachment to the Archbishop in order to be more supernaturally docile to our superior and more faithful to God through our vow of obedience.

     Q. In other words you were being ordered to shut up, close your eyes and obey?

     A. Yes. Obedience in this case was supposed to overrule all else. And when our superiors were reminded that it was a question of the Faith being in danger by going along with the Church of Vatican II, the reply was this: "That is merely a simplistic slogan typical of uncultured people."

     Q. Did all the monks who heard Dom Gerard's account of the Brazil incident really believe what they were hearing?

     A. Of course not. Many of us were suspicious that someone might be twisting the truth. Several of us felt sorry for Fr. Thomas Aquinas because his case was grossly mishandled by the superiors in France. Now, according to the Rome deal, he could have no more relations with the diocese of Campos, which is Bishop Castro Mayer and all of his priests who up until then, were helping to found the monastery in Brazil. Just as Rome prohibited any contact between Le Barroux and Msgr. Lefebvre, so too, contact was prohibited between Santa Cruz and Bishop de Castro Mayer. Fr. Thomas was never told what was going on in clear terms. His reaction was more than understandable.

     Q. Father, all of this news is most saddening. How do you explain the speed with which your superiors made a complete about-face in their support of the Archbishop?

     A. The monks who left, as well as many concerned benefactors, feel as though a long discreet preparation was made for the present position of Le Barroux. They do not think the superiors were ever completely convinced that Msgr. Lefebvre had acted appropriately in his dealings with Rome ever since 1976 and the famous suspension "a divinis." They have followed the archbishop reluctantly, cringing every time he criticizes the strange behavior of our Holy Father. Many of them say the Archbishop must be sedevacantist.

     Q. You showed us a clause in the Rule of St. Benedict requiring the vote of the entire community before any important decision is made. Didn't your superior comply with this when he presented the protocol to all the monks?

     A. Apparently he didn't feel this decision was important enough to consult the whole community. He secretly picked certain monks to attend the negotiations. No one except themselves knew about it. The decision was made immediately when Msgr. Perl threatened Dom Gerard that, if he did not decide right away, the monastery would never be regularized. Such is what one of the council monks confided to me. I was not allowed to attend the secret meetings.
    [why am I getting so much déjà vu?  :confused1:  ]

     Q. Such a decision, as to altogether abandon the Archbishop and almost twenty years of collaboration with the SSPX, did not require the consent of the entire community?

     A. Not in our Superior's thinking.

     Q. Didn't any of the monks begin wondering when they saw their brethren walking out the door?

     A. The departure of the six monks from Le Barroux, and the breaking away of the community in Brazil, was portrayed as something which had nothing at all to do with the consecrations at Econe and the protocol which dissolved our relationship with the Archbishop.

     Q. Maybe things were not so explicit at Le Barroux in the summer of 1988?

     A. The monastery in Brazil was considered to have been taken over by a band of "possessed pirates" (Fr. Thomas and his monks). Each of the other monks who left was discounted as not having a real vocation, being mentally retarded, or some other incredible accusation. Had we all left the same day, things surely would have been more difficult to cover-up before the eyes of the community.

     Q. What conclusion do you draw, Father?

     A. I think the conclusion is possibly threefold. First; the radical change in position of Le Barroux regarding the crisis in the Church - this change became most acutely manifest during the summer of the consecrations at Econe.

     Secondly, there is all of a sudden, a pernicious campaign against the Archbishop and the SSPX.

     Thirdly, the strange abuse of the vow of obedience.

     Q. Father, would you mind elaborating very briefly?

     A. First, regarding the change at Le Barroux: there is presently a definite opening-up to the ideas of Vatican II, especially to the Religious Liberty of Vatican II. This is central to the revolutionary theology of the Council. The monastery's theologian has made a very lengthy exposé of the question and now concludes that Vatican II was right, and that Msgr. Lefebvre's position is unjustified and doubtful at best. And when I left, I was hearing things from the superiors such as, "Where is the real crisis in the Church?"; now there is a flat rejection of the Archbishop's entire approach to the crisis. For Le Barroux, the position of Archbishop Lefebvre is no longer worth the consideration of intelligent Catholics.

     Secondly, the anti-campaign launched during the summer of 1988: when I joined the monastery in 1980 the Archbishop was revered there as a champion of the true Catholic faith chosen by God to save the Church from apostasy. When I left in 1988, that same Archbishop was now "a senile old man; the leader of a sect vowed to religious fanaticism. " The man who gave the monastery most of its benefactors, the man who sent the monastery most of its vocations - that man is now its enemy. He no longer has any value to Le Barroux, nor to anyone who wishes to remain Catholic, as it is now said there. Now Le Barroux's needs are entrusted to the Church of Vatican II.

     Q. And it seems like the obedience you were being ordered to practice has many parallels with the obedience imposed on all of us in the early 1970's; when the bishops were forcing their dioceses to take on the bizarre changes said to be promulgated by Vatican II.

     A. True. Neither of these two kinds of so-called obedience has any semblance to real obedience. It is all mere double-talk.

     Q. Father, what do you intend to do now?

     A. I have chosen to remain unchanged in my support of the archbishop and the SSPX. I would rather continue just as I started out at LeBarroux in 1980. Now I'll simply put one of the Archbishop's favorite expressions into practice:

     "On continue..." It means, "Let us simply go on..."

     Q. You will remain a Benedictine monk?

     A. Just after I left Le Barroux in September of last year, I went to Econe to talk to the archbishop about my future. I offered to join the Society as a gesture of my gratitude to him. He only laughed and said, "You are a monk. You must continue as a monk of the Church and leave the rest in God's hands."

     Q. There is a rumor saying you will be starting a Benedictine monastery in Kentucky.

     A. It is only a rumor, but if any young men are interested in the monastic life such as we lived it in Europe, I am considering teaching them what little I know so as to pass on the tradition. If anything materializes, it will be in complete harmony with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. God will then show us where to go from there. I leave all the rest up to His Providence.

     Fr. Cyprian, O.S.B.
     1730 North Stillwell Road
     Boston, Kentucky 40107
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14757
    • Reputation: +9763/-3139
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #91 on: January 07, 2014, 04:14:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Letter of Fr. Altamira (SSPX) to Fr. Bouchacourt (SSPX District Superior, South America)
    Refusal to Accept Transfer for Rejecting Rosary Crusade
    Published on the Nonpossumus Blog (Spanish Original; Google Translation Follows):

    Here we publish the letter wrote by Father Altamira to Father Bouchacourt.

     Dear Father Bouchacourt,
     After my sermon of December 22 about the new Rosary crusade, you asked me to do two things, to avoid “measures”.
    I said no to both, for the reasons I expressed there. As a result of my refusal, you told me I’m transferred to Buenos Aires as assistant of the prior (Father Rubio) and in Bogota there will be a new prior (Father Francisco Jiménez).
     The situation of our Society, the Society of Saint Pius X, has a good number of years. It worsened dramatically in the last two and half years, and became more evident and explicit for many of us priests.
     This state of things is caused by the ideas, words and mistakes of our Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay. Likewise for the actions he has made during his government. Bishop Fellay has made disappear in him the language of The Truth, making reign - in the minor of the cases - THE EMPIRE OF THE AMBIGUITY, and in other worse cases expressing errors against the Catholic Doctrine (see the Doctrinal Declaration of April 2012). And better not talk about his statement on the modern mass: if Archbishop Lefebvre had seen the Mass celebrated properly, he would not have taken the step that he did (Card. Cañizares); and taking the name of our founder to say that!
     Also a key point: The Second Vatican council.
     He is doing a whole movement in order that we end up by agreeing and recognizing as “Catholic Teaching” the mentioned Vatican II. His words: we accept it with reserves, they do not ask us for the total but a partial acceptance, we support 95 % of the Council, there is good and bad in it.
     I believe that this point is one of the most important of all in his agenda, since we know that Modernist Rome will never accept that we do not recognize as "Teaching" the mentioned council. Could it be a "teaching" something that has good and bad, truth and error? Bishop Fellay has "good" theologians who had written to him articles demonstrating that Vatican II "represents the Teaching of the Church ". This way we are.
     But the Vatican II is just an invalid council, VATICAN II IS NOT THE TEACHING OF HE CATHOLIC CHURCH, and as Father Calderón and other teaches, “it is necessary to declare solemnly (for us) its total nullity ".
     Moreover, this kind of fixation that Bishop Fellay has to think as if we were not in the Catholic Church. Let’s read some of his words: To les Nouvelles caléedoniennes”.- “The Pope has revived traditional ideas” (this is completely false, Benedict XVI is very modernist, including his heart)… We are perhaps much closer to the Pope's position than we appear to be. (…) So a simple decree from Rome will enable us to COME BACK to the Church. But that will come. I am very optimistic about that”. (Dec. 27/2010) It is the others who are gone: The fake "Conciliar Church". We have the four notes (read Archbishop Lefebvre in my sermon of 22 December). This crisis in the Church, I believe, will be arranged by God alone, and meanwhile we have to keep doing what we've always done (or did?).
     I do not want to extend, perhaps I’ll write an open letter to Bishop Fellay.
     Undoubtedly, my decisions are not taken "because" the last crusade, but rather "on occasion" of the crusade. This crusade is not an isolated fact, and in my case it was “the final drop", after a state of things that has lasted years. WE NEED TO SAY ENOUGH, I believe that many of us the priests must say enough, and I think that our patience has been EXCESSIVE.
     In conclusion: I will not do as you told me (to go to Buenos Aires, etc). I remain in my prior's position and in my house, the Priory of Bogota, waiting the two canonical admonitions and the process of a very probable expulsion (invalid?).
     In the process that may begin, almost surely there will be argued that it is because I did not go to Buenos Aires:
     I declare since now, that the motive is not that one, THE MOTIVE IS DOCTRINAL, THE MOTIVE IS THE DOCTRINE: The errors, sayings, words and AMBIGUITIES of Bishop Fellay, which will probably end up destroying our Congregation EVEN WITHOUT MAKING AN AGREEMENT with the false "conciliar Church".
     Receive my regards, in Our Lady. Father F. Altamira (Monday January 6: Feast of Epiphany).

     Dear faithful:
     I want to talk about a current issue. But before, let me introduce another issue that is related to everything we are living in this crisis of the Church, facing the false "Conciliar Church" which has been formed with Vatican II, and also between us, the Society of Saint Pius X.
     The topic is: THE PRIMACY OF THE TRUTH. . I.e.: The Truth must be told and defended, because doing so is the same as preach and defend Christ, Our Lord: He has said, and rightly so, "I am the Truth, the Way and the Life."
     This primacy of Truth is -worth a certain redundancy- first and it is the point of departure: Precedes Charity, pity, the false obedience, and the diplomacy! Not to mention politics, or "doing politics", which obviously must be preceded and based on the Truth. Those things should serve, should be "servants" of the Truth, and not vice versa (with a caveat that corresponds to the Charity).
     The Charity, supreme love due to God and to the neighbor as to one self, is the most important of the virtues, is "the queen". But undoubtedly, she bases (and must be based!) on The Truth. There is no charity based on lies or falsehoods, in error. The Charity must base on what the things are (the being of things), and not on justifying errors, justifying wrongdoings: It is a false charity.
     Obedience: Must be based on Truth, on the Faith: I cannot obey orders based on error or bad orders. That would be a false obedience, since the OBEDIENCE IS FOR THE TRUTH; THE OBEDIENCE IS FOR THE FAITH, and not the other way round. God tells us in Scripture: “We must obey God rather than men”. And this prevails before any authority. And on the diplomacy let's not even speak: It is a false diplomacy, a diplomacy of the flesh, of sin, which ignores The Truth, which ignores The Faith, or worse if it is based on lie, on the falsehood, and also if it is based on ambiguity: The diplomacy is for The Truth and for The Faith, and not the other way round.
     Let’s enter the current issue.
     In "The World of Tradition" we now have a new "crusade" of Rosaries. The second intention of this “crusade” is wrong or at least ambiguous (as always: ambiguous language), and for being such, it is not possible to accept it. Which is this point "two" or second intention?
     We should pray: “Pour le retour de la Tradition dans l’Eglise”: "the return to Tradition within the Church".
     (A) If the word "Tradition" is understood in strict, theological sense: "Tradition" is the set of Truths that God reveals in oral form, it forms THE DEPOSIT OF THE FAITH. We cannot ask for the" return to Tradition within the Church ".

     The Catholic Church cannot lose Tradition, because the Tradition cannot stay outside the Church. In order to be "The Catholic Church”, she must have, as always has had, the writing DEPOSIT (Written Revelation: Sacred Scripture) and oral DEPOSIT (oral Revelation: Tradition). It cannot be asked "the return to Tradition within the Church.
     Again: It cannot be asked the return to Tradition within the Church: The Tradition has never gone; the Tradition cannot leave the Catholic Church ever.
     B) If the word “Tradition” in the second intention means us, the SSPX, we cannot ask for the “return to Tradition within the Church” because WE HAVE NEVER LEFT THE CHURCH, because we have never changed one iota of Catholic Doctrine, of the Faith of always, of the Popes’ Teaching before Vatican II. This council did change the Faith, did change our Catholic religion, and created a false church "THE CONCILIAR CHURCH” as Archbishop Lefebvre called it.
     All the problems we have had, the members of the SSPX, were because we did not change the faith, we keep the Catholic Faith.
     If the second intention refers to us with that phrase “return to Tradition within the Church”, it is insinuating that we want to return to where we have never gone: the real Catholic Church, we have changed nothing and we don’t want to change the Catholic Doctrine of St. Pius X, St. Pius V, the same Saint Peter.
     With this expression, with an AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE, it is implied our return to "The conciliar church of Francis" to "the church of Vatican II". It is insinuated -perhaps- making an agreement with the conciliar Rome: Again the negotiations again ... again...
     (C) All this instead of asking: The return of ROME (Modernist Rome) to Tradition, her return to the true Catholic Church, from where the neo-Rome fled, for the Vatican II and the things that followed it. It is necessary to speak clearly, we must speak out.
     It must be asked: The return of the Roman authorities, Francis, to the Catholic Faith, the True Catholic Church.
     .... Who has to return, who left the Catholicism? The Tradition, the SSPX? Or the Conciliar Rome, the Conciliar Church? Bishop Tissier de Mallerais calls the Church of the Council "a sect".
     Finally we ask again: Crusade for "the return to Tradition within the Church"? Who has to return? Modernist Rome must return, "conciliar church" must return. Tradition has never gone.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14757
    • Reputation: +9763/-3139
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #92 on: January 07, 2014, 04:39:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Rioult Responds to Fr. de Cacqueray's Proposal to Deal with SSPX Issues at 2018 General Chapter Meeting
    Posted on LaSapiniere January 6, 2014

    (Google Translation Follows):

    Abbe de Cacqueray is one of the few major superiors to measure the exceptional gravity of the situation of the Fraternity. He hopes , with other prominent members of the Fraternity address these issues in terms of 2018.

    But in four years it will be too late, it is perhaps too late. To enter , the faithful must first measure the weakness of official interventions of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X and the public acts of violence Francis.

    Interventions Bishop Fellay

    "Francis is careful, he does not rush things [...] . In his sermons , we see he has faith [...] we do not see yet practical application , but the sermons are not bad ... "( Bishop Fellay , Lille, May 7, 2013 )

    "On moral issues , he had amazing positions , for example the question about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs : " Who am I to judge ? " [...] The faith and morals are two points where the infallibility can be engaged , and suddenly we see a pope who launched the blur ... [ ...] I think he talks too much . [...] So far, nothing has been done to bring the situation of deviance, decadence of the Church. Mention may encyclical on faith, I do not think we can consider it as being an effective measure . "( Bishop Fellay , November 2013 KID No. 286 of 12/06/13 )

    "The recent Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium illustrates the difficulty of identifying a person outsized [...] . It provides many real problems , but we can question the effectiveness of the measures recommended , and doubt their realization. [...] It's not the canonization of two popes closely related to the maintenance and implementation of Vatican II arrange the dramatic situation of the Catholic Church. "( Bishop Fellay , Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 81 KID - December 6, 2013 )

    Public acts of François

    Here are excerpts from a video circulating on the internet on the thinking and acts of Francis, well done to the factual . We retain the facts presented and not all thought the director . Well there designates Francis as antipope , where Archbishop Lefebvre would have rather used the term antichrist .

    The facts presented in this video shows the current words of Bishop de Castro Mayer when he arrived in Écône , June 25, 1988 . He declared before Archbishop Lefebvre and seminarians : "The world may say, ' but without the sacred union with the visible head of the Church ' ! But where is the visible head of the Church ? We can not accept as visible head of the Church that raises the same side pagan deities and our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not possible. " Similarly, August 31, 1985 , Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer wrote to John Paul II to mean that if he did not renounce the errors of Vatican II , they will conclude that it is" no longer the right pastor . "

    These facts having been recalled , we must point to the Abbe de Cacqueray he should stop doing the splits for his personal balance for the good of the Catholics and the love of the truth. Dear Father , the faithful and the clergy clairvoyants expect you firm and healthy reaction from you. If you have the opportunity to meet the Abbe de Cacqueray , you can submit our questions:

    1st point : Bishop Fellay continues not contradict .

    " This is pure modernism, my dear brothers. We have before us a true modernist . "( Sermon of Bishop Fellay about Francis KID No. 283 of 18/10/13 )

    "I used the word ' modernist ' , I think it was not understood by everyone. Perhaps we should say a modernist in action. Again, it is not the modernist sense of pure , theoretical , a man who develops a coherent whole . "( Bishop Fellay , November 2013 KID No. 286 of 12/06/13 )

    Question: Abbe de Cacqueray in an editorial , wrote emphatically : "As just said Bishop Bernard Fellay, we have a true modernist at the head of the Church. "( Fideliter No. 216, November - December 2013 ) . In a next editorial will he rectify the real and contradictory thought of Bishop Fellay ? Will he admit , once again , to be one of those " senior members of the fraternity " that does not have "understood" the "subtle " Superior General thought!

    Point 2 : Major superiors servile and failing .

    Mr. Jacques Régis - du Cray and Abbe Thouvenot , Internet , denounced a " heterodox theory," yet with nuance described by Bishop Tissier in Salt of the Earth , which would be " to believe that the popes post- Vatican II would not pastors of the Catholic Church, but a new independent entity called the Church conciliar ' "to conclude that the" immense respect for the Holy See and the Vicar of Christ " Archbishop Lefebvre " has nothing to do with the state of mind of the propagators of the new theory called rather to condemn systematic way with words and a rare virulence successor of Peter as an outcast and deny it any word happy " . ( Credidimus Caritati - December 7, 2013 ) .

    Abbe Schmidberger delivered a critique of the Exhortation Evangelii gaudium Francis . He cites "positive considerations that can not be ignored " without specifying that most often the terms ' traditional ' are called with a modernist logic. In the second part , Father Schmidberger certainly criticized the "ecuмenism overflowing " of the " last fifty years " but with an expression of " Cardinal Ratzinger " ecuмenist itself ... In addition, he felt to "rectify the ambiguities of the texts of Vatican II , except frankly erroneous points" (KII , December 17, 2013 ) . Archbishop Lefebvre , he thought otherwise : "one solution " is possible " abandon these dangerous witnesses to tie us to the Tradition " ( I accuse the council ) . For the Archbishop , he was " virtually impossible to redact [ Vatican II] spirit [ liberal and modernist ] should redial completely to give it a Catholic spirit . "( COSPECSimon 63 B , 14 December 1978)

    Abbe Rostand gave the order to withdraw discreetly displays all the chapels of the district of the USA, the Dominican Avrillé letter of April 2013 , speaking of the conciliar Church , under the pretext that the brotherhood had to follow the Courier Rome Abbe Gleize actually censored by Bishop Fellay himself, purporting to show that the conciliar sect was only a state of mind in the Catholic Church and not a company organized as it shows.

    In an interview with the Argentine magazine , Clarin , December 1, 2013 , Father Bouchacourt has disowned the faith witness of priests and faithful, the rosary , at an ecuмenical ceremony in the Cathedral of Buenos Aires , calling this act of " stupid, sterile . I was against . " Father Bouchacourt also stated that" the Jєωιѕн people did not commit deicide "and Francis " could do more "to" give us the truth and help us to live as good Catholics . "

    Abbe Wuilloud warned the faithful against Swiss "priests and faithful disagree with the line followed by the Brotherhood " and invited the faithful to them the words of Peter NSJC but this time in favor Brotherhood : " ' Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. [ ... ] ' ; Even if your way of acting surprised , we have no one else to turn soft . [...] Dear friends, this is forty years , in our communities , we criticism rightly or wrongly authority. This has left deep scars , which we suffer the consequences. "( The Rock, 86, Jan 2014)

    Abbe le Roux also recently intervened against an alleged "subversion" that distillerait , inappropriately, " distrust against the authority in charge of tradition" ( The Latin Gate - November 2013 ) .

    Question: Given these declarations major superiors , ask the Abbe de Cacqueray if it maintains its decision in July 2013: " Whatever the difficulties of the past two years " now , since June 27, 2013 , " positions Brotherhood are clearly expressed ... the banner of the Faith is proudly made ​​against heresies ... "? ( B.O. district of France , No. 251)

    If yes , stop the discussion here : there is nothing more to do . If not , tell him that the next chapter is already lost. Remember that after the chapter of 2012, he had been " devastated by the level of thinking of some Chapter members . " What makes him today hope neutralization of the Chapter for the poor and servile Chapter 2018 ?

    Point 3 : Bishop Fellay will take time but will go through

    "Some people say that I think differently than I do. They are not in my head. "( Bishop Fellay , Angelus Press, 11 and 12 October 2013)

    " There are two types of jurisdiction. There is a normal court , a superior general regular exercise among its members and secondly the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop . "( Bishop Fellay , The Angelus, April 20, 2013 , the KID 07/06/13 )

    Everything is clear in the subtle bishop. Bishop Fellay can say what he wants on the pretext that people " are not in his head" and he can do whatever he wants under the pretext that " as superior general " he "jurisdiction . "

    Bishop Fellay has to specify in a last Cor unum far will extend its jurisdiction. It requires "a profound unity" and demand ( other course) to " silence our particular judgments and our close personal interest" to establish "the need to ask permission before any statement on Roman matters. "(No. 106, November 2013 )

    Tyranny has no limit if no obstacle stops . The Ordo 2014, with its repertoire of traditional places of worship removed from its list the Benedictine monastery of Santa cruz (Nova Friburgo , Brazil). But since the coronation , his theological position has not changed one iota and his Catholic faith can not be questioned . The sisters have Trévoux they made ​​this suppression freely and according to objective criteria or Catholics under a tyrannical pressure on subjective and sectarian lines ?

    Liberalism being defined negatively by the lack of condemnation of error is insensitive disease that slowly suffocates . As time passes, we see that the Brotherhood , through its Liberal leaders becomes increasingly liberal who empties his fighting company .

    Question: Given the master stroke of Satan who is breeding : subversion by obedience and in the name of unity, let us remember that Archbishop Lefebvre did not want that at the time of his death, he can " hear from the mouth of the Lord : '' You helped destroy the Church with others '' ." A good pastor, before the abomination of desolation which reigns in Rome, should he call his " immense respect Holy See " as does the party Menzingen ? Can it wait for a "necessary authorization request " to cry wolf ? Before Apathy in Menzingen a major superior can it simply remain personally illiberal liberalism without denouncing its leaders and believe and have done everything he could and should do to counter the current subversion of Tradition ?

    The coming months will be important if not crucial to stop the faulty policy of the General House . We will , in France , probably four or, God willing, a dozen , thirty , a hundred ... It depends on the clarity and courage of leaders. But with or without them , by grace, we will be faithful ' Ut fidelis inveniatur ' said the motto of our bishop. Anyway we better understand why Our Lord wanted to die in an exemplary manner by the treachery of an apostle. Pray for us and say your Rosary to confuse the betrayal of elites.

    Father Olivier Rioult
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14757
    • Reputation: +9763/-3139
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #93 on: January 09, 2014, 05:09:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Resignation Letter of Fr. Martin Fuchs from the SSPX
    (Translation Courtesy of The Recusant)



    Fr. Martin Fuchs, SSPX

    With a very heavy heart, I communicated to the Superior General my resignation from the Society St. Pius X on 30 December. In all eternity I will be grateful to Archbishop Lefebvre for the Catholic Faith and for the priesthood! With regret, however, I have had to realise in recent years that they have deviated bit by bit from the path laid out by him:

     - The “Te Deum” in thanksgiving to the Motu proprio in which the Tridentine Mass was inextricably linked with the mass of Paul VI and in which the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council was demanded. Up until recently one could read on the internet that at the Priory St. Pius X in Munich the 'Holy Mass (in the extraordinary form)' was offered. In the seminary I learnt that we read the mass in the Tridentine rite, there is no ordinary or extraordinary rite, this is a completely untenable construct of Pope Benedict XVI. He who talks of an extraordinary rite, consequently must have in mind and accept an ordinary rite, the new mass.

     - The gratitude for the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre said at a press conference in 1988: “So we are excommunicated by modernists, by people who would have been excommunicated by the preceding popes. What is this? We are condemned by people who have been condemned and who should be publicly condemned. That leaves us indifferent.” Archbishop Lefebvre always regarded the excommunication as null and void. But what is null and void does not need to be lifted. – Besides, with the lifting the injustice perpetrated against Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer continues to remain in force.

     - The willingness to negotiate with Rome, although Archbishop Lefebvre already laid out clearly and unequivocally under which conditions this should happen in future. “Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put in conditions and ask: Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Quas primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII. Are you in full communion with these popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favour of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” (Fideliter Nr. 70)

     - The bringing forward of a practical arrangement without a doctrinal clean-up of the heresies of the Second Vatican Council. In a spiritual talk on 21 December 1984 the Archbishop said: “So the canonical issue, this purely public and exterior issue in the Church, is secondary. What matters, it 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.”

     - Again and again I had to realise that no clear language was being spoken any more. So the second intention in the rosary crusade reads: “for the return of Tradition into the church...”. What is meant by “the church”? The Catholic Church as she was founded by Jesus Christ or the post-conciliar church? If it means the Catholic Church then no return is possible because Tradition is an integral part of the Catholic Church; if the post-conciliar church is meant then it is her who left Tradition. Then it is her who has to return to Tradition, not Tradition to the church.

    These are the main reasons which have led to my decision. Despite warnings from the three auxiliary bishops, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Bishop de Galarreta, despite warnings from the Society of the Good Shepherd, despite the knowledge of the attitude of Pope Benedict XVI, where nothing would move forward without the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council, the talks and negotiations were continued.

    One might argue: “Our Superior General did not sign anything.” – But he would have been ready for an agreement, without having solved the doctrinal differences, as his letter from 17 June 2012 proves. They were ready for the worst, but Rome did not want it. – Trust in the Superiors is now somehow shaken, it is destroyed.

    At this point, I thank with all my heart my dear faithful for all your prayers and sacrifices, with which you have supported my priestly ministry. Gladly I recommend myself also in future to your prayers,

    Fr. Martin Fuchs

    Jaidhof, 5 January, 2014
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14757
    • Reputation: +9763/-3139
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #94 on: January 12, 2014, 10:15:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Letter of the Faithful of Bogota, Colombia to Fr. Bochacourt in Support of Fr. Altamira

    Santa Fe of Bogotá, January 10 2014.

     Fr. Christian Bouchacourt
     District Superior of South America.


     As it is public knowledge, our Prior, Fr. Fernando Altamira, has recently stated from the pulpit some criticism of doctrinal nature for certain current guidelines of the authorities of the SSPX. The reaction of the Society has been to dismiss him as Prior and to move him to another country.

     Given this, the signatories, faithful of the SSPX Colombia, respectfully express to Your Reverence the following:

     1. The Colombian faithful, thanks to the constant formation work carried out by the SSPX in this country, is a Catholic group solid in the Faith, and therefore is aware of the doctrinal deviation of the SSPX, particularly regarding the relations with Rome.

     2. Regarding the relations with Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX priests taught us this principle: The SSPX won’t be engaged in negotiations to achieve an agreement with apostate Rome, as long as it is not converted, as long as Rome doesn’t return to the Truth. (General Chapter 2006)

     3. On 2012, it cause us a great surprise and perplexity to learn that the SSPX leaders were carrying out in secret, efforts to subdue the AB Lefebvre wok to the apostate, modernist, blind and erratic Rome sacrificing the very same Truth.

     4. Moreover, this intention of the SSPX authorities was not justified before the faithful in a frank and transparent way, on the contrary, they have been using, for achieving the agreement or the regularization, a constant ambiguity in the language, abuse of authority, excessive diplomacy, secrets, political work out and strange stratagems, like the launching of Rosary Crusades which manipulates the piety and good will of the faithful, etc.; ., all of which has sowing doubt and confusion among the faithful. This unfortunate state of affairs has generated a total loss of confidence in the superiors. All of this constitutes a never seen situation in the history of the Society.

     5. Furthermore, this strategy of ambiguity and similar signs, make us believe that the same organization denounced and condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium, the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr that occupied Rome and introduced the modernism (the sum of all heresies) within the Church, is influencing the decisions of the Society. It’s working with the same cunning and brutality as it did when occupied Rome: trying to destroy the Society by means of false obedience.

     6. We are painfully aware that the battle against the enemies of Truth, the battle in defense of the Faith, is no longer the combat of the leadership of the Society or its priority. The authorities do not speak or write with clarity as they did before, nor denounce the errors strongly as they did before, nor allow the publication of good docuмents relative to this glorious fight, which was the fight of Archbishop Lefebvre, and which led him to the isolation, the calumny and to the spiritual martyrdom. .

     7. On the other hand, the priests who have had the courage to remain unshakable in the truth, have been expelled by means of illegal judgments and without obtaining doctrinal answers sufficiently clear, proving that into the leadership of the Society there is a liberal pollution, giving rise to foreign interests away of the defense of Faith and the Archbishop Lefebvre principles.

     8. The SSPX taught us that Vatican II was the council which broke with Tradition and imposed a different religion to Catholics; however, we frightened realize that the SSPX, and especially the Superior, has softened the previous position of categorical rejection of Vatican II.

     9. The authorities of the SSPX do not show us the real enemy. In the case of Fr. Altamira, he has demonstrated to have the preparation and doctrinal formation to recognize the external and internal enemy and to defend our souls against the wolf, and so we trust him to be guided by him as pastor.

     10. We understand that obedience must be directed towards the Faith and Truth. Therefore, all obedience regarding to seek unity with apostate Rome, is false, illusory and involves a grave a betrayal to the Truth which is Christ the Lord.

     11. Because of the deviation of the authorities of the Society, the battlefield seems to be today inside the Society and not outside where the real enemy is. One example is that Father Altamira is attacked while the powerful and ancestral enemies of the Church are feared and even praised and defended.

     12. In summary, we realize with sadness and pain that our good father and pastor, father Altamira, is persecuted for combating the error, while the leadership of the SSPX stopped denouncing and fighting resolutely the new heretical doctrines and the liberal and modernist hierarchy that spread it, but as St. Pius X said: "not to combat error is allowing it. "

     In consideration of the above, we declare:

     1. We reject, as gravely unjust and unfounded, the measures of dismissal of Fr. Altamira as Prior of Bogota and his transferring outside Colombia.

     2. That we will support the Father so that he continues consolidating his holy apostolate, supporting us in the combat and working for the sanctification of our souls. Because Fr. Altamira resists any change in Catholic doctrine, we will follow him in that resistance.

     3. We judge as absolutely unacceptable, and wholeheartedly reject the liberal drift of the SSPX, for which the authorities must respond before God. We are witnessing the self-destruction of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre. We pray to God that these authorities, for the sake of their own souls and the good of the Church, rectify their mistakes and take with Christian heroism the challenge all Catholics must face in the worst crisis in the history of the Church. May they remember that the true Church has always been willing to martyrdom for the sake of Truth. Bear in mind these timeless words of Christ, our Lord: "Whosoever will come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and follow me."

     God keep you, protect you and bless you.

     Looking forward to your prompt response to email (…)

    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14757
    • Reputation: +9763/-3139
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #95 on: January 13, 2014, 05:10:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Williamson Sermon – Sunday 22nd December 2013  

     Let’s be clear that the resistance is not organised. It is actually a spontaneous uprising all over the world. Just like after Vatican II, the movement of tradition was called tradition and they’re called traditionalists, arose spontaneously all over the world. Archbishop Lefevre did not create tradition, he simply responded to the needs of Catholics recognising that there was a serious problem in the mainstream church, and who needed to have access to sacraments and to sermons free of the modern contamination which was infecting almost the whole church. It was an uprising, given the name of tradition, but basically in defence of the faith.  
     Parallel to that, what is getting the name of the resistance today is simply an uprising of Catholics all over the world. I am in a position to say that because I travel – to provide the sacrament of confirmation for instance –and it’s simply Catholics wanting to be free of the same contamination that has invaded the universal church and is now infecting the movement of tradition.  
     We are not against the Society of St Pious X nor against the universal church – that is ridiculous. It is simply that want to keep the faith, defend the faith and if we could in a very difficult world, promote the faith, but that is easier said than done. Telling the truth today to most souls is like talking Greek to them, they just don’t understand, they haven’t got the means of understanding. It’s an incredible situation but God has foreseen it, God has allowed it. It’s going to be worse at the end of the world, many of you have heard me say many times that I think we are in the dress rehearsal for the end of the world, then there is going to be the chastisement, then there is going to be the period of peace which Our Lady spoke of – which will be an extraordinary triumph of the Catholic Church. I don’t think it’s far off, but that is in God’s hands I don’t know. Then the corruption of that great triumph will be the arrival of the Anti- Christ. In any case, it all fits into a great plan of God that he has left in the hands of churchmen with free will. God is not going to take away our free will. Very exceptionally will he make us act in such a way that we hardly choose.

     There’s a collect in the Missal, I think it’s the fourth Sunday after Pentecost which is a prayer to force our rebellious wills. So, God can do it, he doesn’t normally do it, because he has given us free will. He doesn’t want robots in His heaven and we’re going to choose whether we want to spend eternity with him or without him and he leaves us the choice, he is not going to force our choice.  
     If he leaves his church in the hands of churchmen, who have got free will and who can therefore merit and demerit in the way in which they use their considerable responsibilities. If he leaves his church in the hands of men who have free will, it’s always possible that they will turn against him. The devil is always there especially to work over churchmen and priests. Pray for your priests because if they are worked over by the devil you will lose them. Your prayers will protect your priests and you will have the priests that you deserve.
     In the wake of Vatican II there was enough faith still amongst the people for God to give them the great Archbishop but today there is enough tepidity or ‘luke-warmness’ or what you will in amongst the faithful of the society for God to have been taken away and in the process of taking away and number of good priests are sliding with this movement inside the society and the leadership of the society is gone. It’s terrible.
     The latest bad news is that the leadership of the society is banning the book of Father Pieuvre, a French priest of the Society. A book consisting largely of quotations of Archbishop Lefevre, and the leadership is now pretending that this is not the complete thought of the Archbishop and that Father Pieuvre is presenting just one side of it but the book is very substantially what the Archbishop himself said. So, it is clear that the leadership of the society is striking out in a different direction from the Archbishop. Many Catholic souls recognise it, they don’t like it, they’re afraid of it. they’re afraid of being exposed themselves to this false direction because the Archbishop was the leader given to us by God to show the Catholic way amidst this terrible crisis caused by the failure of the churchmen. At the time of the Arian crisis God gave his church Saint Athanasius and god will never abandon his church, there will always be the signposts, given to Catholics who want to save their souls, how to do so. The Archbishop was clearly one of them and it’s clear now that the leadership of the society which he founded is going in a different direction. Many souls inside


     the society recognise that and they’re afraid of it and that’s how the so-called resistance movement has arisen and the uprising will continue all over the world until and unless the society leadership is to come back on track, which it doesn’t look like they will.
     Similarly the traditionalists in the year 2000, 6,000 of them flocked down to Rome during the Pilgrimage to Rome for the Jubilee year, and all that they asked was to be able to re-join Rome. They were not schismatic in mentality; they were not against the universal church; but they accompanied and followed the Society of St Piux X because this was the right way for the universal church to go and the universal church was going the wrong way. Same today, no animosity towards the Society or even towards its leaders but a great sorrow and resolution to not follow their direction for as long as one recognises that their direction is wrong, which it is. The bad news is that father pieuvre’s book has been banned, the good news is that Father pieuvre is himself thinking of buying a house because he recognises that he is danger of being thrown out of the property that he is in now. He is also going to write a book; he is something of a jurist; he knows the law; I think his father was a lawyer. He is going to write a book about the two ‘trials’ or ‘the Kangaroo trials’ through which Father Salinao and Father Pinaud were submitted by the authorities of the Society. Simply because these two good priests, (whom I have met - I know them) were subjected because they resisted this new false direction of the society, which became clear only last year. Souls with x-ray eyes recognised the problem before last year but it only came out into the open clearly last year 2012 and then we began reading backwards and we could see how actually these leaders of the society  had been going wrong. This group which has control of the society, liberals, have been going wrong over many years. At least since the 1990s and even before that.
     Some good news, Father Pieuvre is stirring and Father Pinaud has had enough and that’s good news, he is a very good man. He was imprisoned, there is no other word,  because of his resistance, his taking part in the resistance to an absolutely minor part but it’s clear that he was standing up to Menzing to remind everyone of the soviet methods that they are using.  
     One recalls the Archbishop saying back in 1975 when he was put in front of a ‘Kangaroo Court’ of three cardinals down in Rome. He said afterwards, “…the

     soviets would have treated me better”. A terrible thing to say but it’s true. The latin proverb is, “the corruption of the best is the worst”. When Catholic churchmen go corrupt it’s terrible…terrible…worse than the Jєωs. The Jєωs are classic enemies of the church, not all of them individually of course and not all of them to the same degree but they are instinctive liberals as a general rule and instinctively they want to replace Catholic civilisation with Jєωιѕн civilisation which is what is happening all around us. They are the ring leaders of the Anti-Christian movement but they’re not the worst. The worst are those churchmen inside the Catholics, especially the Catholic churchmen, who have been given great grace by God in order to be Catholics and in order to be in addition churchmen. When they go wrong it’s much worse.  
     One thinks of the Passion of Our Lord, the high priests Annas and Caiaphas certainly wanted to do away with Our Lord, they were his bitter and horrible enemies, but they couldn’t have done anything unless Judas Iscariot had told them how and where they could catch Our Lord free of the crowds. If the high priests had tried to lay hands on Our Lord, say on Holy Thursday or Holy Wednesday or any day of Holy week, they could never have done it because the crowds were around Our Lord and many in the crowds were in favour of Our Lord. They had to catch Our Lord when he was unguarded and that was in the Garden of Gethsemane and then hold him in prison overnight and then ‘work’ the crowd the following day. Like the media ‘work’ the crowd today they had to ‘work’ the crowd to turn against Our Lord and all cry out “Crucify him Crucify him!”. It was Judas Iscariot therefore who was worse than Annas and Caiaphas, without him they might not have been able to get hold of Our Lord.
     Therefore the Catholic churchmen, we Catholics that are unfaithful or luke warm or tepid, we should consider ourselves worse enemies of Our Lord than the Jєωs. On the other hand it is very necessary to do not delude ourselves that the Jєωs are our friends. Or that the Jєωs love Our Lord, or that the Jєωs are friends of humanity or friends of God. They are not. They are poor things under a curse. “His blood be upon us, and upon our children”.  They are under a curse and they almost can’t help themselves in their opposition to Christ, Catholicism the Catholic church and Christian civilisation. They are now doing their best to take Christ out of Christmas. They will be the ring leaders of that movement, but if the Catholics had any guts and had any faith, there would be no question of the Jєωs succeeding in taking Christ out

     of Christmas. If the Catholics were what they should be the protestants would be better because the Catholics would lift the protestants. For the protestants to, so to speak, it’s a crude expression, but for them to ‘stay in business’ they would have to improve their act. When the Catholic church collapses the protestant church also collapses. If therefore the Catholics were what they should be, the Jєωs would be powerless to take Christ out of Christmas. The Catholics would be reacting to insults to Our Lord like the Mohammedans react to insults to Mohammed. The Mohammedans set us an example of taking their religion seriously. But the Catholics are just water… dishwater… that’s how it is and that’s where the real blame lies.
     My dear friends I am not accusing you of being dishwater, you wouldn’t be here if you were dishwater, you certainly wouldn’t be here. I’m not saying you’re Saints, you’re not that either, nor am I saying I’m a Saint. We are all of us poor sinners, but the difference between Catholic poor sinners and non-Catholic poor sinners is that Catholics usually try not to sin so much, try not to be sinners. Whereas the others…. Those who have no motivation; those who don’t have the faith; those who don’t believe in heaven and hell and don’t take them seriously. They have no motivation to try to control themselves and to exercise and practice virtue. It’s not unfitting to recall at this time of year the malice of the curse of the poor Jєωs because you may remember that John the Baptist when out in the desert preached about the generation of vipers, he said “What are you coming out here to see me for? Generation of Vipers!”. John the Baptist was under no illusions and nor should we be. Our Lord has bitter enemies bitter bitter enemies. The world is not like The Sound of Music, not everybody’s nice and sweet and wonderful and well intentioned and handsome and good looking and generous and all the rest of it…accept the nαzιs of course. I mean, even Hollywood has to have some enemy and the enemies are the nαzιs and Hitler is the devil incarnate. That is the Jєωιѕн Hollywood vision, but it is false, it’s a false vision. Our Lord has bitter enemies and not only Hitler nor even the nαzιs. The nαzιs and Hitler may well have been enemies of Our Lord, they certainly weren’t Catholic, but Stalling was the cause of many many millions more deaths than Hitler. Our media don’t tell us that because the media is in the hands of the same people who are behind communism – the Jєωs - by the font of the Catholics. Therefore the media cover over the sins of communism and blast all over the walls paint and splatter everywhere, the sins of the nαzιs because the nαzιs


     were standing up to communism. The nαzιs may have been criminals in various ways but I don’t know if you know….again I’m getting into what looks like politics but behind all politics is religion and the malice of communism created by the Jєωs as a false religion. Pope Pious XI said, “…communism is the Messianism of materialism”, which is brilliantly said. It’s Messianic materialism. The Messiah was Jєωιѕн. The Jєωs were prepared for the Messiah. They were trained for the Messiah. They have so to speak the Messiah in their bloodstream but they reject Him. Therefore they create, they have the inside knowledge of God to create false Messianisms one after another. Brutal communism was won but basically communism was atheistic materialism.  What we now have all around us is globalism which is atheistic materialism. It’s the same thing only the soft version. The brutal version ran up against a brick wall, it raised too much of a reaction. So a certain Italian Jєω Antonio Gramsci invented or conceived soft communism which would get around the resistance that there was to hard communism, and soft communism under the name of globalism is now taking over the world because the Catholics are not Catholic. That’s basically why. Catholics are losing the faith. Both from the mainstream church and now one may fear to some extent inside the society of St Pious X.  
     The leadership has lost it’s grip on…both Bishop Fellay and Father Pfluger talk of our ‘New friends in Rome’. Meaning that the churchmen controlling the universal church, and setting this false direction of the universal church are now friends of the leaders of the society. That tells you that the leaders of the society have changed. To consider today’s Roman churchmen as friends? They are not friends of Our Lord – judged by the fruits. Of course the words are all friendly to Our Lord but the actions? No. Therefore as John the Baptist, the precursor of Our Lord stopped the Jєωs in their tracks and the Pharisees and those who came… in order to remind them to watch out…Christmas is a question of sin and virtue and the saving of souls. Watch out, you are completely on the wrong track if you think that you’re religious. You Pharisees think that you’re religious; you think that you’re the chosen ones; you think you are the leaders of the people of God and here you are a bunch of Vipers. John the Baptist said so. John the Baptist was well aware that not everything is sweet and nice and sure enough Our Lord is born and what happens? Herod sends soldiers down to murder every child in Bethlehem in the hopes of also murdering Our Lord.


     Our Lord has bitter enemies, don’t be deluded. Don’t think like Hollywood. Don’t follow Hollywood. The Bells of Saint Marys…what’s it? The Sound of Music, Going my Way and all of these silly silly films which are very false.  
     I mentioned some good news, Father Pinaud is a good man and he was imprisoned in Austria for eight months and at the end of those eight months he was promised a trial. The trial was set up by two district superiors and a Professor of Econe and at the end he was condemned to not say Mass. He was condemned heavily for slight participation in the resistance of the best briefs of the society to the false correction being taken by Menzingen. Menzingen is a little Swiss village near which is the headquarters of the Society. Menzingen reacted violently. He couldn’t even say Mass, he couldn’t hear confessions he was absolutely crippled and paralyzed as a priest. Unbelievable! Absolutely unbelievable!  After the condemnation he was nobly offered the opportunity to appeal and at first he accepted the opportunity to appeal but finally he said, “That’s it, that’s it”, and he’s walking out. He’s quite right, he’s quite bright. He will be able to do much more. What he purchased with his eight or so months in Austria was a demonstration of the absolute injustice, the worse than communist injustice. They made things up as they went along. Unbelievable! The leadership is locked into a dream and it’s a dream of reconciling irreconcilableness.  
     It’s a dream like Paul VI dreamt of reconciling church and world and the result was Vatican II. So Menzingen now dreams of reconciling tradition and the conciliar church. It can’t be done. The conciliar church is intrinsically against Our Lord and against God, against man. Catholic tradition, the true tradition is obviously from God, for God, for man but in this dream they lock out, they just shut out anything that contradicts this false vision. This false reconciling irreconcilableness, it’s as though you should try to reconcile Christ and Satan, it’s ridiculous! Satan is locked into his hatred of God, his absolute profound hatred and defiance of God. Our Lord Jesus Christ is God and in God says St James, there is no shadow or trace of change. God cannot change. Satan can’t change. Christ can’t change. To reconcile the two is ridiculous. The idea of reconciling is ridiculous but that’s the idea that now governs the universal church or actually Satan’s taken over the leadership of the universal church. He is now taking over if he has not already taken over the leadership of the Society and that’s why we’re here today.


     Please pray for Father Pinaud and for Father Pieuvre, they’re good men and when France stirs it’s going to make a lot of difference. Up till now France has generally not been stirring and a lot of French priests are good but they’ve not seen strongly or clearly enough yet, many of them, to take much action. It’s now stirring – let’s hope. France of course is a great home of Catholicism and also a great home of liberalism. France is usually out in front for good or for ill. It hasn’t yet been out in front for the resistance but if it gets moving… I think Bishop Fellay realises already that he has a problem in France because there is a lot of silent resistance to what’s going on inside the society and all that’s needed is for that resistance to come into the open and then Bishop Fellay has a serious problem on his hands. So that is also good news.  
     Therefore, take courage dear friends. What I can say in another piece of good news. Nothing I can say from travels, I was just recently in the Philippines and immediately after December I shall be in India. I was due to be in Philippines, Australia and India but I couldn’t get a visa for Australia…I wonder why? I don’t wonder too much but we’ll see. Maybe Australia, I’ve applied and maybe Australia will give me a visa after all but in any case in Australia there’s quite a strong movement in Resistance. Father Chazal is doing trojan work. He has a bulletin written in his own hand with a page of minute telephone numbers and names of contacts all over Asia. Pray for him also as he is much on his own and the devil must be after him. The devil is after all of us so pray for your priests that’s very important, that God give them protection and if you deserve good priests you will have them. Unless of course we all get taken off to Siberia or Alaska which is another possibility…. It’s certainly not happened yet, still there is freedom to assemble, to attend the true mass.  
     The good news I was saying from travels is that there is this good reaction. It’s a minority of a minority, and in England the resistance is now the minority of the traditional minority of the Catholic minority of the population of England. You are my dear friends the minority of a minority of a minority…Take pride in that situation. It’s sad but what can you do? People have free will.  
     Don’t forget in the Old testament if Abraham had of been able to find ten just men. He made an agreement with God to spare just fifty. God agreed that if he could find fifty just men that he would save Sodom and Gomorrah. He had to come down to


     forty then down to thirty then down to twenty down to ten. It’s all in scripture. If he’d found ten just men God would have spared the evil city. If there are thirty of you here today, I’m not saying you are all just men, I’m not saying I’m a just man but we try. Don’t underestimate the importance of the minority of a minority of a minority. That mini minority must exist and it registers with almighty God. God looks much more on quality than he looks on quantity and everything hangs on the quality of your faith and your practice of the faith and on the quality of my faith and the practice of my faith. Everything hangs on that. This reaction is all over the world and the truth is slowly but surely making its way, that’s what I observe and it will go on making its way.  
     The Latin says, “Magnus veritas” the truth is great and it will prevail and that also is the truth. At the same time, never forget this terrible quotation of Our Lord in the Gospel which is there in scripture, “When I come back shall I find the faith upon the earth?” Meaning that at the very end of the world, the church will have almost disappeared or the faith will almost have disappeared. It’s a terrible quotation because it says how the faith is almost going to be lost at the end of the world, it says that God is going to allow a tremendous diminution of the faith; a tremendous falling away from the truth; a tremendous loss of truth. God has told us that that’s going to happen.
     We are now in the dress rehearsal I think for that, the end of the world. Something very similar is happening today, the truth is being lost. Very few people still have an idea of a truth which is one; which is non-contradictory; which is coherent and exclusive of error. People don’t want to exclude, we include everybody; we include all evidence; we include all sinners. There’s to be no more exclusion there’s to be no more inequality. There’s no more distinguishing between the faithful and the unfaithful….Infidels…Pagans…Apostates…Which they used to be…  
    In fact the most important thing that distinguishes human beings is not the colour of their skin, it’s not the grave of their intelligence, it’s not their age, it’s not their sex… The greatest difference between human beings is those who have the faith and those who don’t….Fidels and Infidels… the faithful and the unfaithful. That’s the most important thing but of course the mass of people of today have completely lost sight of that. The mass of people have no idea…they don’t want proof, they don’t want the


     exclusive truth, a truth that excludes error. They don’t want to think. They don’t want to be imprisoned by two and two are four, they want to be free…two and two are four or five or six… it’s a lovely new world in which we are no longer tied up in two and two are four which is miserable and constricted and old fashioned and retarded and backwards…  
    Our computers are opening up a new world and sure enough, on the computers there’s a massive fantasy and of course a massive sin as well as I’m sure you all know. Who still has an idea that there is a truth? People don’t want to because the truth is of God. “I am the way, the truth and the life”. People don’t want God, they definitely don’t want the truth. It is because they don’t want God that they don’t want the truth; they want to live their lives free of the ten commandments; they want to be free to do what they like; they don’t want to have a conscience; they don’t want to listen to their conscience. This is the mass of people today. More and more all the time and Christian civilisation is breaking down as a consequence.
     We saw here in London, what was it two years ago now? These riots all around this part of the world or including this part of the world, somebody told me that they were up on a tower, maybe in the east end or something, with a view over London and they could see the fires here there and everywhere. Civilisation is breaking down. They’re increasing massively the police force and the police are being trained to think of themselves as something different so that that they won’t be afraid of ‘bashing’ their fellow citizens on the head. The governments are afraid of losing control…of law and order just vanishing. In the Unites States they’re certainly planning for marshal law. They’ve already built huge internment camps (they call them instead of cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs although they’re the same thing) to shut away all of the rebels against the system. The people are stirring in the United States and it’s because God is not there.
     As the Popes in the nineteenth century said one after another, “If you don’t like this revolutionary world, if you don’t want revolutions…bring back God because God, Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Catholic Church, will remind those who govern that they have got very severe duties, very severe responsibilities for which they will answer for when they die, when they appear in front of their maker. The same religion and faith will tell those who are governed that it is not their business to rise up in


     revolution against the government. If the government see themselves that the government is under God then it would be much easier for the governed to put themselves under the government. If the government are out from and away from God why should the governed then still be under the governors?  
     Therefore, the solution to a revolutionary world is the Catholic faith and the Catholic church. It’s common sense from two, three, four, five, six hundred years ago. It’s the absolute opposite of what people commonly think today. All they want to do is to get rid of the church; get rid of the ten commandments; get rid of God; and we’re going to build a brave new world of man….Heaven help us… This brave new world is going to be an inferno. It’s going to be a tyranny an absolute tyranny and that’s exactly what the Jєωs envisaged creating and do you know that as men who should lead women have betrayed women by refusing to lead…By behaving unfit to lead…as some races have betrayed other races, I won’t specify which, it sounds too shocking…But there is a difference between the races and those races to whom God gives the privileges too and the gifts to lead have betrayed the other races when they don’t fulfill their obligations. ‘Noblesse oblige’, as the French say, which means - Nobility obliges, and if you have got a certain nobility, by gifts from God then it’s an obligation. It’s not just that some gifts are to be used for your enjoyment, to spend more months of the year on golden beaches on the other side of the world. That’s not what God gives us our gifts for. Gifts mean responsibility and duties before God. You lose sight of God…and then gifts simply mean… if you can make yourself a tyrant and crush the whole people, that’s what you will do. That of course is how gifted people of today are reacting, the ‘banksters’…That’s how they’re reacting. There’s nothing to stop us, we’re in control, we handle people’s money, we know how to do it for our own enrichment and for the impoverishing now, the people and that’s what’s happening. Certainly in the United States but most likely here also.
     Christian civilisation is breaking down hence the importance of Christmas, the Saviour is being born. The Saviour is coming. The Saviour, Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Saviour. He alone is the Saviour born and he was born as a little baby in order to be able to die on the cross. If he hadn’t had his human nature, he couldn’t have paid for human sins. He could not, as being only God, pay. He could not pay if was not both man and God. If he was not God he could not pay enough with his sufferings. If he was not man he could not have paid enough for all of our sins. By suffering he

     had to be both God and man which of course he was. God of God, Light of Light, True God of True God and true man born of the Blessed virgin Mary. One person - two natures.
     Oh my dear friends, next time the riots break out in London…which…I’m sure that the police are running scared. They’ve now got drones, they’ve now got electronics, they’ve now got the ability to spy as they have never been able to spy before. But all of this machinery is useless without God. They build the city in vain if they build it without God says the psalm and this attempt to build a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr without God is absolutely doomed…doomed in advance. It’s going to seem to succeed under the Anti-Christ…it seems to be succeeding now but it’s doomed. God is God. Punish us he’s allowed with this quasi collapse of everything around our ears but he is still in control and he is not gonna allow any soul to be damned that does not want to be damned…or that does not want the cause of being damned. No soul damned wants the effects of being damned, the terrible sufferings for eternity in hell. But while they live they do want the causes of that damnation and they’ll get what they wanted. Every soul in hell has got what it wanted…a kind of independence…at least a refusal of God. In hell they are submitted to God because they are submitted to these terrible punishments but they’ve never admitted…they’ve never submitted of themselves and in hell they are still screaming blasphemies and hatred and they will do that for eternity…Unimaginable…Unimaginable…Unimaginable horror…But that is how serious God is and how serious sin is.
     Courage my dear friends, if you have the truth and you have the true faith, hold onto it as the most precious possession you have. Don’t let the world around you get to you or get to your faith. Faith is not kidology. It’s not self-delusion. It’s a submission…an obedience says St Paul…It’s my submitting my mind to supernatural truths which are much greater than my mind…beyond my little mind to see beyond it’s own powers but I submit my mind to these great truths. But it is to truth that one is submitting, not to illusion, nor to self-delusion, not to lies. What the Catholic Church teaches is truth and it will always be true it cannot change, therefore, plenty courage.
     God bless you all for keeping the faith and sticking with Our Lord. It’s a noble thing to do in our Godless times and if you and I persevere, the reward for perseverance

     amidst such difficult circuмstances will correspond to the difficulty of those circuмstances. The more difficult the faith today, the greater the reward when we  stay with Our Lord and the reward will surpass infinitely anything you and I can imagine. Just like hell is much more terrible than either you or I can imagine, heaven is much more wonderful. Only I’ll bet you…so to speak…that heaven more exceeds what we can imagine than hell exceeds what we can imagine because God is good. God is infinitely good and heaven is just unimaginably beautiful and worth every suffering and every difficulty and every penance in this little life in order to achieve…In the Name of The father, The Son and The Holy Ghost.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14757
    • Reputation: +9763/-3139
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #96 on: January 31, 2014, 03:12:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Reflections on a Roman Proposal
    Bishop de Galarreta
    Full Text
    Albano, Italy
    October, 2011

    (Courtesy of

    Reflections about the Roman Proposal from Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta  
    NB:  The following reflections by His Excellency Bishop de Galarreta were made available at the October, 2011 meeting of SSPX Superiors in Albano, Italy.  During the last week of June, 2012, this docuмent became publicly available.  Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, was the Society’s chairman for the Rome-SSPX commission in charge of the theological discussions, and although his remarks were based on a proposal which has undergone some revisions, these reflections remain most current.  

    To limit myself to the "Preliminary Note" and "doctrinal Preamble", I must immediately state that they  are confusing, misleading, false and essentially bad. Even the apparent openness to criticism of the Council is enigmatic and cunning, a well-trained trap ("... legitimate (?) discussion . . . expressions or formulations . . . as "interpretive criteria of necessary Catholic doctrine...", that is to say, according to  the "Preamble" II and III, 2, especially the end). This docuмent is substantially unacceptable.  It is  worse than the 1988 Protocol, in particular in relation to the Council and the post-conciliar magisterium.  

    Archbishop Lefebvre: Our true believers, those who understand the problem and we have just helped to continue the straight and firm and the Tradition of faith, feared the steps I made in Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute in Rome has to testify a little bit of loyalty. You can not blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have stayed.  (Fideliter no. 79, p. 11).
    Fideliter: What do you think of the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger establishing an oath of fidelity and that includes  a profession of faith?  
    Archbishop Lefebvre: Firstly, there is the Creed which poses no problems. The Creed has remained intact. And,  so the first and second sections raise no difficulties either. They are well-known things from a theological point of view. It is the third section which is very bad. What it means in practice is lining up on what the bishops of the world today think. In the preamble, besides, it is clearly indicated that this third section has been added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-called Magisterium of today, which, of course, is the Magisterium of the followers of the Council.  To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."  

    As it stands this formula is dangerous. It demonstrates clearly the spirit of these people with whom it is impossible  to come to an agreement. It is absolutely ridiculous and false, as certain people have done, to present this Oath of Fidelity as a renewal of the Anti-Modernist Oath suppressed in the wake of the Council.  All the poison in this third section which seems to have been made expressly in order to oblige those who have rallied to Rome to sign this profession of Faith and to state their full agreement with the bishops.  It is as if in the times of Arianism one had  said, "Now you are in agreement with everything that all the Arian bishops think."  

    No, I am not exaggerating. It is clearly expressed in the introduction. It is sheer trickery. One may ask oneself if in Rome they didn't mean in this way to correct the text of the protocol. Although that protocol  is not satisfactory to us, it still seems too much in our favor in Article III of the Doctrinal Declaration  because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit to the Council.  

    And so, I think now they are regaining lost ground. They are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then  find themselves in the obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.  

    Differently from in the Protocol, in these new texts there is a submission to the Council and all the Conciliar bishops. That is their spirit and no one will change them. (Fideliter, no. 70, p. 16).  

    Fideliter:  Do you think the situation has deteriorated further since you had the conversations that led to the drafting of the Protocol of 5 May 1988?  
    Archbishop Lefebvre:  Oh yes! For example the fact of the profession of faith which is now claimed by Cardinal Ratzinger since the beginning of 1989. This is a very serious matter. Because it asks all those who joined or could do to make a profession of faith in the docuмents of the Council and the post-conciliar reforms. For us it is impossible. (Fideliter No. 79, p. 4).
    PRINCIPLE OF JUDGMENT In fact it fits perfectly with the thought and the Roman position that the Commission has expressed all  along in the doctrinal discussions. It is essential to the current issue to bear in mind the unmistakable conclusion that we just made on this occasion: they are not ready to give up the Vatican II Council,  nor the liberal doctrines of it, and their intention, their obvious desire, is to bring us back to it.  At most, Rome would accept a rebalancing and a better wording (formulation), again as part of the "hermeneutic of renewal in continuity". And then we can discuss and we are very useful . . . to endorse the revival of the  reform with continuity.
    AGREEMENT IMPOSSIBLE  The proposed docuмent does confirm that it is illusory and unrealistic to believe that we could reach a pragmatic agreement, appropriate and warranted, and even just acceptable to both parties. Given the circuмstances, it is certain that at the end, after long discussions, we arrive at absolutely nothing. So, why would we get involved?
    REASONS FOR REFUSAL  Following the Roman proposal, the real question, crucial, is: should we, can we, we take the path of a "possible" practical agreement first? Is it prudent and appropriate to maintain contacts with Rome leading to such an agreement?  

    As far as I am concerned, the answer is clear: we must refuse this path because we cannot do something evil so that a good (a good which is, moreover, uncertain) can come from it, and also because this would necessarily bring about evils (very certain) for the common good that we possess, namely that of the Society and of the family of Tradition.  

    The following summarizes some of the reasons for my point of view:
    I.  OBEY WHOM, WHAT?  How to submit and obey authorities who continue to think, to preach, and to govern by modernists?  We have goals and purposes contrary, even different ways, how to work under them?  The problem is not the subjective intentions, but objective, clear, the observation that we have just made their desire: Vatican II, acceptance of the Council and its liberal principles. Essentially nothing has changed, there is no "return". Archbishop Lefebvre:  Such things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the  Church - what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then  we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have  to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.  (Fideliter No. 70, p. 6) I don't think it is a true return to Tradition. Just as in a fight when the troops are going a little too far ahead one  holds them back, so they are slightly putting the brakes on the impulse of Vatican II because the supporters of  the Council are going too far. Besides, these theologians are wrong to get upset. The bishops concerned - the supposedly conservative bishops - are wholly supportive of the Council and of the post-Conciliar reforms,  of ecuмenism and of the charismatic movement.  Apparently, they are being a little more moderate and showing slightly more traditional religious sentiment, but it does not go deep. The great fundamental principles of the Council, the errors of the Council, they accept them and put them into practice. That is no problem for them. On the contrary,  I would go so far as to say that it is these conservative bishops who treat us the worst. It is they who would the most insistently demand that we submit to the principles of the Council.  (Fideliter No. 70, p.12) That was perfectly clear and it clearly shows their state of mind. For them there is no question of abandoning the New Mass. On the contrary. That is obvious. That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome.   It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors,  it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors. (Fideliter No. 70, p. 13-14)  
    II.  INTERFERENCE WITH THE CONFESSION OF FAITH  How then does this not go against the defense and public confession of faith, against the public need to protect the faithful and the Church?  In this regard, if we make a purely practical agreement we are, in the present circuмstances, already engaging in duplicity and ambiguity. The very fact is a public testimony and a message: we cannot be in "full communion" with the authorities who remain modernists.  

    We cannot ignore the context either, that is to say, events and constant teachings in the life of the Church today: repeated visits to Protestant churches and ѕуηαgσgυєs, beatification (soon to be canonized) of John Paul II, Assisi III, preaching religious liberty time and time again, and a long etcetera.  Moreover, if we make an agreement we will lose freedom of speech, we must mute our public criticism of the facts, the authorities and  even some texts of the Council and the post-conciliar magisterium.  To understand and illustrate the points  I and II, just look what happened with all the ralliers (those who were won over or those who rejoined )  from The Fraternity of  St. Peter to the Institute of Good Shepherd: They are inevitably confronted with the choice to surrender or betray their commitments ... and this is the first thing that happens.
    Fideliter: When we see that Dom Gerard and the Fraternity of St. Peter got to keep the liturgy and catechism, no - they say - they have conceded nothing, some who are troubled to find themselves in difficult situations with Rome, may be tempted to join the long turn by lassitude. "They come well, they say, to agree with Rome without having abandoned anything."  

    Archbishop Lefebvre:  When they say they did not give up, it's wrong. They abandoned the ability to counter Rome. They can not say anything. They must remain silent given the favors granted to them. They are now unable to denounce the errors of the conciliar Church. Slowly they join, if only by the profession of faith that is requested by Cardinal Ratzinger. I think Dom Gerard is about to publish a little book written by one of his monks, on religious freedom and that will try to justify it. (Fideliter No. 79, p. 4-5)  
    Fideliter:  Since the consecrations there is more contact with Rome, however, as you told, Cardinal Oddi called you saying: "We need things work out. Just a little gesture on your part, a little request for forgive-ness and everything will be settled." So why not try this last approach and why you think it impossible?  

    Archbishop Lefebvre:  It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome which is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. The principles that guide the conciliar Church are now more and more openly contrary to Catholic doctrine. Before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Cardinal Casaroli said recently: "I wish to dwell a little on a specific aspect of the fundamental freedom of thought and act according to conscience, therefore freedom of religion... The Catholic Church and her Supreme Pastor, who has made human rights one of the major themes of his preaching, did not fail to recall that in a world made by man and for man, the whole organization of society has meaning insofar as it makes the human dimension of central concern." Hear it in the mouth of a cardinal! It is not what God says!  For his part Cardinal Ratzinger, by presenting a docuмent on the relationship between the Magisterium and theologians, affirms, he says "for the first time with clarity" that "decisions of the Magisterium cannot be the last word on the matter as such" but "a kind of interim arrangement... The core remains stable but the particular aspects which have an influence on the circuмstances of time may need further corrections. In this regard it may be noted the declarations of the popes of the last century. Anti-modernist decisions have done a great service... but they are now outdated." And now, the page of modernism is turned! These reflections are absolutely insane.  Finally the Pope is more than ever ecuмenist. All the false ideas of the Council continue to flourish, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They hide less. It is therefore absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with a hierarchy like this.  (Fideliter No. 79, p. 3-4)  

    Fideliter:  You said, pointing to Dom Gerard and others: "They betrayed us. Now they give up to those who demolish the church, the Liberals, the modernists. " Is not that a bit harsh?  

    Archbishop Lefebvre:  But no. They appealed to me for fifteen years. It's not me who went to pick them. It is they themselves who came to me and ask for support, for ordinations, the friendship of our priests along with the opening of our priories to help financially. They all used us as they could. We did it with a good heart and even generously. I was pleased to make these ordinations, to open our homes so they can benefit from the generosity of our benefactors... And then, suddenly, I phone: we no longer need you, it's over. We will go to the Archbishop of Avignon. We are now in agreement with Rome. We signed a protocol.
    It is not from gaiety from heart that we had difficulties with Rome. It is not for pleasure that we had to fight.  We did  it for principles, to keep the Catholic faith. And they agreed with us. They collaborated with us.  And then suddenly  they abandon the real fight to ally with wreckers under the pretext that they are given a few privileges. This is unacceptable.  They have virtually abandoned the fight of faith. They cannot attack Rome.  

    This was true also of Fr. de Blignières. He changed completely. He who had written a whole volume to condemn religious freedom, he now writes in favor of religious freedom. This laugh is not serious. We can no longer count on men like these, who did not understand the doctrinal question. I think in any case they commit a grave error. They have gravely sinned by acting as they did, knowingly and with an implausible casualness.  (Fideliter No. 79, p. 6)  
    III.  THE DOCTRINAL QUESTION, THE ESSENTIAL  We must look at the context in which they intend to incorporate us. An agreement is, like it or not, we integrate into their system in a thinking and reality data that do not depend on us but who depend on their thinking, their theology and their action. And this is how they will be presented (see Campos, text signed by Mgr. Licinio).
    But we have just seen in doctrinal discussions what is their design: pure modernism revised and corrected.   In particular there will be implied that we would accept three principles implicitly:  

    1.  Relativism of truth, even dogmatic, need for pluralism in the Church. For them we have the experience  and charisma of Tradition, good and useful to the Church, but only partial truth.  Their system and modernist dialectic (claiming the contrary) allows them to integrate us in the name of "unity in diversity", as a positive  and necessary element, provided we are in full communion (obedience to authority and respect for others  and ecclesial realities) and that we remain open to dialogue, always looking for the truth.  Proof of this is that they are ready to accept after the statement, both sides, a doctrinal opposition to faith - real and essential. How implicitly accept this principle, by explicit integration in their system and the official interpretation they give, then it is the foundation of modernism and is destructive of all natural and supernatural truth? It is accepting the relativism of Tradition, the only true faith.
    2. Can be interpreted in accordance with any Vatican II Tradition. We can help find, if necessary, the "right"      interpretation. This is the "hermeneutic of continuity". "The hermeneutic of rupture" (while it is true) must      be rejected, because neither teaching nor the major post-conciliar Vatican II have been mistaken. After the      discussions and the proposed docuмent, it is only too clear, they would accept us as part of the first and      reject the second.  This is Vatican II endorsement.  

    Archbishop Lefebvre: Then Rome's replies to our objections which we sent to Rome through intermediaries all tended to demonstrate that there was no change, but just continuity of Tradition. These statements are worse than those of the Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty. It is truly officialdom telling lies. So long as in Rome they stay attached to the ideas of the Council: religious liberty, ecuмenism, collegiality . . . they are going the wrong way. It is serious because it results in practical consequences. That is what justifies the Pope's visiting Cuba. The Pope visits or receives in audience Communist leaders who are torturers or assassins, or who have Christians' blood on their hands, just as if they were as honest as normal men.  (Fideliter No. 70, p.10)  

    3. The truth of faith is changing, as dogmas, formulas and dogmatic definitions of faith are only significant     approaches to the mysteries of faith. The core remains, everything else evolves with time, culture, historical      circuмstances, experience and the experience of God's people.  Therefore Tradition is alive, Tradition is      Vatican II, and condemnations of liberalism and modernism are exceeded.  Archbishop Lefebvre:  That is why they wanted Vatican II to be a pastoral council and not a dogmatic council, because they do not believe in infallibility. They do not want a definitive Truth. The Truth must live and must evolve.  It may eventually change with time, with history, with knowledge, etc., ...whereas infallibility fixes a formula once and for all, it makes - stamps - a Truth as unchangeable. That is something they can't believe in, and that is why we are the supporters of infallibility and the Conciliar Church is not. The Conciliar Church is against infallibility - that's for sure and certain. Cardinal Ratzinger is against infallibility. The pope is against infallibility by his philosophical formation. Understand me rightly! - We are not against the pope insofar as he represents all the values of the Apostolic See which are unchanging, of the See of Peter, but we are against the pope insofar as he is a modernist who does not believe in  
    his own infallibility, who practices ecuмenism. Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church. We are the ones that are excommunicated while and because we wish to remain Catholic, we wish to stay with the Catholic Pope and with the Catholic Church - that is the difference. (Fideliter No. 70, p. 8). But specifically, we are not in the same truth. For them the truth is progressive, the truth changes with time, and Tradition: Vatican II is today. Tradition for us is what the Church has taught since the apostles to the present. For them, no, it's tradition Vatican II resumes itself all that was said earlier. Historical circuмstances are such that now we must believe that Vatican II did. This has happened before, here no longer exists. It belongs to the time spent. That is why the Cardinal did not hesitate to say "The council is an anti-Vatican II Syllabus." One wonders how a Cardinal of the Holy Church can say that the Council of Vatican II is an anti-Syllabus, very official act of Pope Pius IX encyclical Quanta Cura in. It is unimaginable.  I said one day to Cardinal Ratzinger: "Eminence, it is necessary that we choose: either religious freedom as in the Council, or the Syllabus of Pius IX. They are contradictory and should be chosen. Then he told me: "But my Lord we are not at the time of the Syllabus." - Ah! I said, then truth changes with time. So what you say Today?, Tomorrow it will no longer true. There is no way to agree, it is in continual evolution. It becomes impossible to speak." They have that in mind.  He repeated: "There is more than a church is the Church of Vatican II. Represents Vatican II-Tradition." Unfortunately, the Church opposes Vatican II Tradition. This is not the same.  (Fideliter No. Occasional - 29 to 30 June, p. 15) Certainly the question of the liturgy and the sacraments is important, but it is not the most important. The most important question is the question of the Faith. This question is unresolved in Rome. For us it is resolved. We have the Faith of all time, the Faith of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, of the Catechism of St. Pius X, hence the Faith of the Church, of all the Church Councils, of all the Popes prior to Vatican II. For years they tried to Rome to show that everything in the Council was fully compliant with Tradition. Now they are discovered. Cardinal Ratzinger had never spoken with such clarity. There is no tradition. There is more deposition to be transmitted. Tradition in the Church, that is what the Pope said today. You must submit to what the Pope and the bishops said today. For them this is the tradition, the famous living tradition, the only ground of our condemnation. Now they no longer seek to prove that what they say is consistent with what was written by Pius IX, what was promulgated by the Council of Trent. Now all this is over, it is passed, says Cardinal Ratzinger. It is clear and they could have said so sooner. It was not worth us speaking about, discussing. Now is the tyranny of authority, because there is no longer any rule. We can no longer refer to the past. In a sense the thing is now becoming clearer. They always give us more reason. We deal with people who have  a different philosophy than ours, another way of seeing, which are influenced by all philosophers and modern subjectivists. For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is changing. This is an absolutely Masonic design. This is really the destruction of faith. Fortunately, we, we continue to build on Tradition!   (Fideliter, no. 79, p. 9) The Pope desires unity outside the faith. It is a communion. Communion to whom? What? What? It is no longer  a unity. This can be done only in the unity of the faith. This is what the Church has always taught. Why there were  the missionaries, to convert to the Catholic faith. Now you must not convert. The Church is no longer a hierarchical society, it is a communion. Everything is distorted. It is the destruction of one notion of the Church, Catholicism.  This is very serious and this explains why many are Catholics who abandon the faith. (Fideliter, no. 79, p. 8)  

    THE REAL BATTLE IS DOCTRINAL  In all revolutions, after "the fury" and "the terror" there is a time of consolidation in the new situation, a period of institutionalization. On the other hand it is foreseeable that, if returned there, it is gradual. So we know in advance that there will be phases - more confusing: next to a best in practice and perhaps the intention, a little more order (all relative to the worst) there will necessarily worsen over the clarity of things, the error will be misleading, and seductive, less obvious and more subtle, in short, much more dangerous . . . able to deceive even the elect.   The error is more ambiguous and dangerous when it collects more to the truth, such as counterfeit currency.  

    So we know in advance that our struggle and our position will be less and less understood, more difficult to explain, justify and maintain. Things will necessarily evolve like that: it is necessary to a proper response from  us, so to speak, inversely proportional to the confusion.  

    The three reasons cited above show that we are in this phase of a false restoration, of a false return. The attitude of the Pope and the Roman Curia, much more confused, contradictory, seductive and has the appearance of Tradition.  One must distinguish the good aspects of the current pontificate, incidental or occasional, education
    and leadership doctrine.  But our fight is doctrinal. This is the field of doctrine that is played in victory or defeat of faith and therefore of all church property. Cardinal Pie:  One would think that some men do not want some order in the facts as to revive the disorder with impunity in their minds, and they require some physical security in the sky that to have the right to again, without too much danger, the old fabric of their lies for a moment interrupted by fear? Fools, for not yet understood that it is ultimately the field of doctrine that is won or lost the battles that decide the future! No, a whole portion of society can not keep it longer this attitude in which we are still condemned to painting: the pen still in hand to teach the same principles, under arms for exterminate the consequences down the happy evening in the street to shoot the acts caused by the doctrines and by the examples in the morning. Contradiction constantly renewed, and that will continue only so long as men who have some authority and some influence over their fellows, sincerely embrace  the Christian truth and practice.  (Works, Vol. II, p. 170-171)  
    Fideliter:  Cardinal Oddi recently declared, “I’m convinced that the division shall not last long, and that Archbishop Lefebvre shall soon be back in the Church of Rome.” Others say that the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger feel that  the “Lefebvre affair” is not closed. In your last letter to the Holy Father, you declared that you were waiting for  a more propitious time for the return of Rome to Tradition. What do you think of  a possible re-opening of the dialogue with Rome?  

    Archbishop Lefebvre:  We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as  reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II.  We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition.  We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death.  I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that  Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions.  I shall not accept being in the position where I was  put during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” Thus, the positions will be clear.  The stakes are not small. We are not content when they say to us, “You may say the traditional Mass, but you must accept the Council.” What opposes us is doctrine; it is clear. (Fideliter, No. 66, p. 12-14)  

    IV.  ENTRY INTO CONTRADICTION To move towards a practical agreement would be to deny our word and our commitments to our priests, our faithful, and Rome in front of everyone. This would have hugely negative consequences ad intra and ad extra. There is no change in the doctrinal point of view from Rome that would justify ours. On the contrary, the discussions have shown they will not accept anything in our criticisms.  It would be absurd for us to go in the direction of a practical agreement after the result of discussions and findings. Otherwise, one would think that Msgr. Rifan and Father Aulagnier were right.  Such an approach would show a serious diplomatic weakness on the part of the Fraternity, and indeed, more than diplomatic. It would be a lack of consistency, honesty and firmness, which would have effects like loss of credibility and moral authority we enjoy.  
    V.  IMPLOSION OF THE FRATERNITY  The mere fact of going down this path will lead us to doubt, dispute, distrust, parties, and especially division. Many superiors and priests have a legitimate problem of conscience and will oppose it.  Authority and the very principle of authority will be questioned, undermined.  We cannot join the caravan [**aller a la remorque] in our contacts with Rome, we must keep the commands, mark the time and conditions. So we need a line defined in advance, clear and firm, independent of stress and possible Roman maneuvers.  Accordingly, it is not the moment to change the decision of the Chapter of 2006 (no practical agreement without resolving the doctrinal issue) and it is not right or prudent to embark on preparing minds otherwise, before there is in us the conviction, consensus and the decision to change, otherwise it will only cause division and, by reaction, squabbling, anarchy.  

    ** Note on Translation:  “Aller à la remorque"  means to passively follow somebody.   In this context :   “We cannot be passive in our contacts with Rome.”  
    VI. CAUTION ALLOWED The warning of RP Ferrer, secretary of the Cardinal Cadizares: "Do not agree with Rome, she cannot keep her promises to you."  We received other warnings similar to Rome.  KEEP THE LINE.   So what to do, what to say?  What we have better to do this is to keep the line that has ensured the cohesion and survival of the Fraternity and gave lots of fruits vis-à-vis Rome to the Church. They hesitate, they begin to cede that their building is collapsing, they can not live without us... Remain steadfast in our policy and expect that there are clear conditions secure and guaranteed. As reported Archishop Lefebvre after the consecrations, it will be, unfortunately, the situation worsens at home ... until they are ready to abandon Vatican II.  We could answer that views the outcome of the discussions, for faithfulness and loyalty to God, to our consciousness, even to the Church and to the Holy See, we can not engage in a practical way first, but as we have already said, we remain open to cooperate or participate in a study and doctrinal criticism of the Council.
    If, then, they cut off contact with us, the consequent break in the constant tension that these contacts mean for the Society would be welcome, and in my view also providential. In any case, knowing them, they will not wait long before talking with us again.
    In conclusion, we must not get ahead of Providence; it is she who will solve the crisis. We must be very careful about the temptation sub specie boni (under the appearance of good) , avoid the rush, wait, and only go down that path when there will be no one doubts that Rome (the Pope) wants the Tradition, they have a fair idea of it, it is prudent and that it is the will of God. We need more reasons to change that line to stay in safe and proven that we have. However, the opposite happens.  

    Archbishop Lefebvre:  Without dwelling on the fact that many things were not, the focus was on the high expectations that give rise to the charismatic and Pentecostal. In Rome, they want to be convinced of that. They stubbornly closed their eyes to the catastrophe of the Council and they are trying to accomplish, on the ruin to which they are currently leading the Church. And they want us to enter into this current. If we take a step in that direction, if we submit to authority without warranty, more or less long term, two, three or five years, we will lose the tradition. But we do not want to lose it.  We therefore can not submit ourselves to authorities who want us to lose Tradition.  As I have already stated, if I went to Rome to discuss, it is because I wanted to try to see if we could reach agreement with the ecclesiastical authorities, while putting us away from their liberalism and safeguarding Tradition. Force me has been clear that no agreement could be reached that gives us both warranties and the belief that Rome wanted to sincerely contribute to the preservation of tradition.  I waited until June 5 to write to the Pope: "I'm sorry, but we can not hear us. You do not have the same goal as us. By this access, your goal is to bring us back to the Council. Mine is rather to be able to maintain outside the Council and its influences." (Fideliter no.68, p 15)  

    BEWARE OF DANGER! For the good of the Fraternity and Tradition, "Pandora's box" must be closed as quickly as possible, to avoid the stigma and the demolition of the authority, disputes, dissensions and divisions, perhaps with no return.  In this sense, the real question that needs answering is:  what are the other requirements, ad intra and ad extra, in the case of a hypothetical "good" proposal, completely acceptable in itself, for us to try to make an agreement? The authorities cited by Archbishop Lefebvre allow us to answer them with clarity and firmness.  

    +Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #97 on: March 08, 2014, 04:37:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .


    In this issue, The Recusant #10 (Sept.-Oct. 2013), on page 10, there is an excellent letter from Fr. Arnold Trauner, SSPX (Austria), where he explains his reasons for leaving the SSPX.  

    Page 10

    Letter of Fr. Arnold Trauner, SSPX (Austria)

    Reverend Fathers,
    Dear Sisters and Brothers in Religion,
    Dear Parents and Relatives,
    Beloved Faithful in Christ:

    Our Saviour invites us to leave all, to sever all ties, rather than to forsake his discipleship. He is our Redeemer, for He has mediated for us the Divine Grace and has revealed to us all Truth. Not of our own merit, but rather enlightened and strengthened by His Grace we have therefore counted the bonds of human respect as nothing, in order to remain true to the Church founded by Him, which alone has received the Divine promise of endurance to the end.

    Growing up under the watchful eyes and attentive care of one of the few priests in Austria who resisted the flood of modernism and postconciliar innovations, I was granted the opportunity of leaving my homeland in 1988, in order to enter Sacred Heart Seminary in Zaitzkofen, Germany, to persevere there and to be ordained to the priesthood of Jesus Christ as a member of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.

    Now, 19 years later, I am once more following the call, this time to forsake my spiritual homeland, to move away, to give it up. This is happening for the sole reason that I must remain faithful to recognized truth and preserve the grace of my priesthood.

    For that which used to be my spiritual homeland now lies in ruins. For a whole decade it has been busily destroying itself
    (1), in part openly, in part secretly. It has become ashamed of its origins (2), it has disowned its founder (3), it has betrayed its secret entrances to the enemy so that he can invade and occupy the fortress (4).

    To recognize facts for what they are is the duty of every sensible person. I cannot pass over in silence what is obvious to all and has not escaped the attention of many tried and true fellow priests. He who keeps silence appears to be in agreement. For the priest this is not allowed, since he was warned at his ordination that he must preach and govern for the good of the faithful (5). He who by virtue of his Divine calling and his ordination stands above the laity cannot wish to make himself small, to duck his head and wait out the storm while the blows of the enemy destroy the souls of the faithful. To wait any longer would be a sin.

    An improvement of the situation is not to be expected from the present leaders of the Society. Their most recent statements alone are all too numerous and clear (6). No one can tell me the Superior General has not signed anything, and therefore everything remains as it was: His proposal of a Doctrinal Declaration, dated April 15, 2012, is effectively the abandonment or at least the essential limitation of Archbishop Lefebvre’s reservations regarding the Second Vatican Council, the New Mass and Sacraments, and the New Code of Canon Law.

    Therefore it is also senseless to wait for further events or signs. It makes no difference whether or when modernist Rome takes a further initiative to bring the Society under its present leadership under its control, because the SSPX is already so weakened in its basic principles that complete conformity and assimilation are only a question of time and nuances. Metaphorically speaking: Whether the enemy, once the secret entrances lie open to him, tears down the fortress, burns it out or takes it for his own use, is all the same.  Alea iacta est. (The die is cast.)

    May the eternal and immortal God, the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, receive, bless and strengthen my decision, through the intercession of Her whom all generations shall call blessed because of her indomitable faith!

    Fr. Arnold Trauner, June 25, 2013, on the 19th anniversary of my ordination to the priesthood.

    1.  “During the past ten years a new situation has opened up.” (Fr. N. Pfluger, lecture of May 1, 2012, for Actio Spes Unica)

    2.  Symptomatic of this is the obstinate enforcement in Germany of the changing of the Society’s name in the public’s perception from “Priestly Society of St. Pius X” to “Pius-Brotherhood,” whereby the concepts:  “priestly,” “Saint” and the patronage of the great anti-modernist and tenth Pope with the name Pius have been suppressed.

    3.  In March of 2012, the modernistic postconciliar Rome baited the Society with a one-month ultimatum under threat of excommunication on grounds of schism. Instead of decisively rejecting Rome’s intention, the Superior General composed a compromise text, the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012, referring himself to a similar text of Msgr. Lefebvre from May, 1988. He neglected to mention, however, that Msgr. Lefebvre withdrew his own text and cancelled his signature under the “Protocol” of May 5, 1988.

    4.  GREC:  a Catholic discussion-group founded on initiative of the then Ambassador of France to Rome, Pérol, which since 1996/97 has been planning the march route of the “necessary reconciliation” of Catholic tradition with the postconciliar church, carrying it through with the agreement of the responsible superiors on both sides.  Cf. Fr. Michel Lelong’s book revealing this project which was kept secret until 2012; see also the utterly debilitated and ineffectual preconditions set by the General Chapter of the SSPX in 2012 for possible future contacts with Rome.

    5.  “oportet... praedicare, praeesse...” (Roman Pontifical)

    6.   E.g. in an interview regarding the 25th anniversary of his Episcopal consecration (published June 7, 2013, the Superior General claimed that he sees no connection between Archbishop Lefebvre’s vision of saving the priesthood and the consecrations of June 30, 1988. He also made the curious assertion that the Episcopal consecrations were “vitally necessary but not essential” for the Society.  The first Assistant to the Superior General said in a sermon delivered in Vienna on June 16, 2013, that nobody can say what Archbishop Lefebvre would do today. – He may well be speaking for himself; but if Catholic truth does not change, and if Archbishop Lefebvre was a determined defender of this truth, then it is absolutely certain that the Archbishop would also reject a bad compromise with Rome or an agreement to keep silence in 2012 or 2013. After his experiences of 1987/88 he would surely not even consider such a possibility.

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #98 on: March 26, 2014, 04:29:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .


    In this issue, The Recusant #14 (Feb. 2014), on pages 16-19, there is an excellent letter from the Colombian Faithful in support of Father Fernando Altamira, SSPX.

    Page 16

    Letter of the Colombian Faithful
    In Support of Fr. Altamira

    Santa Fe, Bogotá, 10th January, 2014

    To Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, SSPX District Superior of South America.


    As is public knowledge, our Prior, Fr. Fernando Altamira, has recently stated from the pulpit some criticism of doctrinal nature for certain current guidelines of the authorities of the SSPX. The reaction of the Society has been to dismiss him as prior and to order him to transfer to another country.

    Given this, the signatories, faithful of the SSPX in Colombia, respectfully express to Your Reverence the following:

    1. The Colombian faithful, thanks to the constant work of formation carried out by the SSPX in this country, is a Catholic group solid in the Faith and therefore is aware of the doctrinal deviation of the SSPX, particularly regarding the relations with Rome.

    2. Regarding the relations with Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX priests taught us this principle: The SSPX won’t be engaged in negotiations to achieve an agreement with apostate Rome, as long as it is not converted, as long as Rome doesn’t return to the Truth. (General Chapter 2006)

    3. In 2012, we were greatly surprised and perplexed to learn that the SSPX leaders were secretly involved in efforts place the work of Archbishop Lefebvre in submission to apostate, modernist, blind and erring Rome, thus sacrificing the very same Truth.

    4. Moreover, this intention of the SSPX authorities was not justified before the faithful in a frank and transparent way; on the contrary, in order to achieve an agreement or ‘regularization,’ the authorities have made use of a constant ambiguity of language, abuse of authority, excessive diplomacy, secrets, political calculations and strange tricks, like the launching of Rosary Crusades which manipulate the piety and good will of the faithful, etc.; all of which has sown doubt and confusion among the faithful. This unfortunate state of affairs has generated a total loss of confidence in the superiors. All of this constitutes a grave and unprecedented situation in the history of the Society.

    5. Furthermore, this tactic of ambiguity, along with other similar signs, lead us to believe that the same organization which the pre-conciliar Magisterium denounced and condemned, the well-known nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr that occupied Rome and introduced modernism (the synthesis of all heresies) into the Church, is influencing the decisions of the Society. It is working with the same cunning and brutality as it did when it occupied Rome: trying to destroy the Society by means of false obedience.

    6. We are painfully aware that the battle against the enemies of Truth, the battle in defence of the Faith, is no longer the combat of the leadership of the Society or its priority. The authorities do not speak or write with clarity as they did before, nor denounce the errors strongly as they did before, nor allow the publication of good docuмents relative to this glorious fight, which was the fight of Archbishop Lefebvre, and which led to his isolation, calumny and spiritual martyrdom.

    7. On the other hand, the priests who have had the courage to remain unshakable in the truth, have been expelled by means of illegal judgments and without being given sufficiently clear doctrinal answers, proving that in the leadership of the Society there is a liberal contamination, giving rise to interests other than the defence of Faith and the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.

    8. The SSPX taught us that Vatican II was the council which broke with Tradition and imposed a different religion on Catholics; however, with great alarm we have seen that the SSPX, and especially the Superior, has softened the previous position of categorical rejection of Vatican II.

    9. The authorities of the SSPX are not pointing out the real enemy to us. In the case of Fr. Altamira, he has demonstrated how to have the preparation and doctrinal formation to recognize the external and internal enemy and to defend our souls against the wolf, and so we trust him to be guided by him as pastor.

    10. We understand that obedience must be directed towards the Faith and Truth. Therefore, all obedience regarding the seeking of unity with apostate Rome, is false, illusory and involves a grave a betrayal of the Truth which is Christ Our Lord.

    11. Because of the deviation of the authorities of the Society, the battlefield seems today to be inside the Society and not outside where the real enemy is. One example is that Fr. Altamira is attacked while the powerful and ancestral enemies of the Church are feared and even praised and defended.

    12. In short, we realise with sadness and pain that our good father and pastor, Fr. Altamira, is persecuted for combating error, while the leadership of the SSPX have ceased denouncing and resolutely fighting the new heretical doctrines and the liberal and modernist hierarchy who spread them, but as St. Pius X said:  “To not combat error is to allow it.”

    In consideration of the above, we declare:

    1. That we reject, as gravely unjust and unfounded, the action taken against Fr. Altamira, his dismissal as Prior of Bogota and his transfer out of Colombia.

    2. That we will support Father so that he continues consolidating his holy apostolate, supporting us in the fight and working for the sanctification of our souls. Because Fr. Altamira resists any change in Catholic doctrine, we will follow him in that resistance.

    3. We judge as absolutely unacceptable and wholeheartedly reject the liberal drift of the SSPX, for which the authorities must answer before God. We are witnessing the self-destruction of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre. We pray to God that these authorities, for the sake of their own souls and the good of the Church, rectify their mistakes and take on with Christian heroism the challenge all Catholics must face in the worst crisis in the history of the Church. May they remember that the true Church has always been willing to go to martyrdom for the sake of Truth. Bear in mind these timeless words of Christ, our Lord: “Whosoever will come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and follow me.”

    God keep you, protect you and bless you.

    [signed, 259 signatories]
    Colombian Faithful


    The Church is still alive in Colombia!

    Viva Cristo Rey!  Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!

    (Many thanks to whoever rendered the excellent English translation, as it is not often that an entire docuмent can be posted wholesale like this;  and please forgive me if I should use a different name for Our Lady in Colombia)


    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14757
    • Reputation: +9763/-3139
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #99 on: April 06, 2014, 06:29:07 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • A Charitable Response to Fr. Simoulin

    Greetings Fr. Simoulin-

    I was distressed to have come across your article, “Avoiding a False Spirit of Resistance” recently posted on the website, insofar as it reads like a condemnation and indictment of the SSPX mission and apostolate for the last 25+ years.

    Several disturbing themes emerge in this reconciliationist apologetic, and I wanted to comment on some of them, in the hopes that perhaps I have misunderstood your arguments, and invite you to respond if such is the case.

    First is your suggestion that, if perhaps Rome is ultimately responsible for the wreckage in the Church today, nevertheless this damage is not intentional, and we should not therefore accuse Rome of wanting to destroy the Church. While you and I could cite many of the Fathers of Vatican II in their own words as intending to do precisely that (e.g., “we must raze the bastions;” etc), the issue is essentially moot, insofar as the intention of the Romans is irrelevant to the grave general/public spiritual necessity in which their teachings and acts are placing the faithful. What matters most is not what Rome intends. What matters is what the consequences of their acts are to the integrity of the Faith, and the souls of the faithful. Surely you would not dispute this?

    Second is your contention that it is not realistic to wait for Rome’s conversion, as this might not happen for many generations. Forgive me if I observe suggestions of despair, naturalist thinking, and scruples implicit in such a contrived concern. Despair, because to raise timeframes as an issue for regularization seems to imply that justified resistance to Roman (and worldwide) modernism is only legitimate for a certain and unspecified window of time, and you worry that such time is passing; the implicit thought being that a resolution to the “modernism versus Catholicism” conflict must for some unstated reasons transpire within our lifetimes. What is your source for this concern? Where do you find this idea in any of the manuals of moral theology and treatises on the doctrine of necessity? Resistance must persist so long as necessity remains! And from this despair of seeing the resolution to these problems in our lifetimes, you (along with the General Counsel in Menzingen) pass quickly to human prudence and solutions for a practical accord along naturalist lines; you push the pace ahead of providence, which only 2 years ago rebuked the last effort to submit to Rome.

    And I mention the issue of scruples, because you seem to fear the development of a schismatic and sedevacantist spirit, should our “recognize and resist” position continue much longer. In discussing this point, you write very much from the perspective of the Ecclesia Dei communities; you use the very arguments they for so many years used against us. But perhaps it is I who should become scrupulous, since if today you are implicitly admitting they were right (i.e., by using their arguments against the position advocated by the SSPX for the last 25 years), it means that yesterday the SSPX was wrong. The inevitable logic of your line of argumentation heavily implies that conclusion. And in that case, the SSPX would be guilty of a monstrous self-serving deception of the faithful. Is that really the argument you want to make?

    Thirdly, is the troubling equivocation so prevalent in this article: On the one hand, you assert we cannot go the way of the Ecclesia Dei communities, but on the other hand, you assert that “the only thing we can hope for is the freedom to discuss Vatican II” (i.e., the same deal given to the Institute of the Good Shepherd, which was later predictably revoked). You appear to have embraced the writing style of the modernists (which is not to accuse you of being a modernist), who love to include phrases which appear to hold the line, only to negate them in the next sentence with a contradictory proposition.

    How is it that you would go to Rome as a beggar, not a chooser? Surely, your duty to keep the faith (a theological virtue) trumps your duty to obedience (a merely moral virtue) when the two are in (apparent) conflict? What right do you have to beg and negotiate for your duty to remain Catholic? How can you accept to descend from your current freedom to be integrally Catholic, to a degraded position of permission to discuss it?

    And of course, from whence arises the bare assertion that a practical accord with anti-Catholic Rome will result in a “new youth for the Church?” What naivety! Do you yourself even believe this, or do you simply recognize in this empty slogan (once again, first tested on the faithful after Vatican II, with the chimerical “new springtime of the Church.”) the slick marketing value and impact you hope it to have on the smells-n-bells masses in the pews?

    You state that we must place “tradition back in the hands of the Pope as soon as possible.” That would be nice indeed, but what makes you think he is interested in receiving it? Do you think the man who places a beach ball on the altar (!) has any interest in rolling back the clock; that the man who mocks Rosaries offered for his intentions is anything but hostile to tradition?

    “O senseless Galations, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth?” (Gal 3:1).

    You say that for Rome to allow you to discuss Vatican II is already the conversion of Rome? Really? How does it come to pass then, that they allowed the Institute of the Good Shepherd to “constructively criticize” Vatican II before reversing on them, and compelling them to accept it in totality? Which is the same thing as saying that a Rome converted back to tradition is still persecuting tradition, which is absurd! And while the destroyed and fragmented IBP is running from Rome and working to act independent of them once again (but not until having been depleted to 50% strength), you are passing them on the way back into the same trap?

    And please excuse a frank observation: If already the SSPX has muzzled itself with regard to Vatican II (via the branding campaign) in anticipation of an accord, how likely is it that you will increase and maintain your opposition to Vatican II post-accord? You appear to have forgotten the lesson of Campos, per the wise observation of Fr. (now Cardinal) Cottier after his conquest: “Reconciliation carries within itself its own internal dynamism (i.e., self-censorship).” And again referencing his trophy in Campos: “Eventually, we must expect other steps…like concelebration.”

    You make an attempt to harmonize the General Chapters of 2006 (which said no practical accord before the doctrinal issues are resolved), and 2012 (which lays out in 6 conditions the steps to a practical accord)! This evinces a mind becoming unhitched from reality in pursuit of a desperate goal. That is no ad hominem, Fr. Just an objective observation, which leads into my next observation.

    Earlier, I mentioned a hint of scruples implicit in your attempt to craft by human prudence, an accord with a Rome bent on destroying you. You lament an imagined fear that we will lose the desire to return to Rome, and in fact have already lost it. From this, you regret that we have become accustomed to living in an abnormal situation of separation from modernist Rome. And naturally, from this phantom, jump to the conclusion that we risk becoming practical sedevacantists and schismatics if a deal is not struck soon.

    But what does not occur to you is that, like you we await the time to place ourselves back under truly Catholic authorities who will not endanger our faith. But unlike you, we recognize that now is not the time; that if the “recognize and resist” position was ever correct, it is correct today, under the worst Pope perhaps in the history of the Church.

    But what madness has you lamenting that the “Pope and bishops have no influence on concrete life?” If we have come to the SSPX all these years, it was PRECISELY to shelter ourselves from this damnable influence! And if we do not recognize, therefore, the voice of the Good Shepherd in your advice to follow the “wise and prudent direction of the leaders God has given us” (like Pope Francis or Cardinal Mahoney?) for desiring to bring us into Operation ѕυιcιdє, must we be blamed for desiring to survive with our faith intact?

    “Am I then become thine enemy, because I tell thee the truth?” (Gal. 4:16)

    In truth, I wish it not.

    But if forced to choose, “we must obey God rather than man.” (Acts. 5:29)

    With the danger to souls so palpably evident, we cannot follow you down this path you propose, without ourselves incurring culpability.

    Therefore, we choose to adhere to the prudential path bequeathed to us by Archbishop Lefebvre until such a time as Rome returns to tradition, when our obedience will be safeguarded by their faith.

    In Caritas,

    Sean Johnson
    St. Paul, MN
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #100 on: March 10, 2019, 11:50:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In 2007, French SSPX priest, Fr. Gregoire Celier, wrote a book called "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists."

    It was a hallucination which seems in many respects to have been adopted by Bishop Fellay as the blueprint for the ralliement.

    The book was subjected to a remarkable critique by a Frenchman named Paul Chaussee, who it seems to us has hit the nail on the head.

    Because of the length of the critique (42 pages/7 of endnotes), I am attaching the translation, rather than copy/pasting it.

    If you study any one single docuмent regarding the ralliement of the SSPX, and desire to know its causes and methods, YOU NEED TO STUDY THIS DOcuмENT.




    PS: You will need to log in to see/read/download the translation.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #101 on: April 05, 2019, 06:18:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • M
    4th April 2019

    Dear Parents,

    As promised to some of you, I would like to give you a summary of what has motivated my resigning
    from the Society of Saint Pius X twenty-five years after having received the habit of the Oblate sisters.

    Since the April 2017 acceptation by the Society of the “marriage deal” offered by Pope Francis, I have
    had the conviction that the Society was no longer protecting the faithful from the modernist Church.
    More and more we were told that the Catholic Church and the official Church are one and the same
    thing, both being visible, whereas the profession of the true Faith is the first criterion for being a
    member of the Catholic Church, a criterion that modernists bishops, for instance, do not match. I
    started to feel very uneasy with belonging to the Society, because it meant supporting these new ideas
    that Archbishop Lefebvre had clearly refuted and against which he had warned us many times in plain

    I was advised to wait until the next General Chapter of the Society, due to take place in July 2018,
    before making any life-changing decision. Which I did. There was an expectation that a new Superior
    General would reverse the doomed course of the Society.

    However, I was well aware that the Superior General’s mission is to implement the decisions of the
    Chapter. Therefore, I waited until the Acts of the Chapter were published to make up my mind. On
    September 18th we were sent extracts of the Acts of the Chapter. They concerned the marriages, the
    Society’s relations with Rome and the prelature. At the end of this reading, all my doubts were gone
    and I was sure that I had to leave the Society of Saint Pius X if I wanted to remain faithful to the
    teaching and recommendations of our Founder. The asking of the delegation of the modernist bishops
    for marriages was made mandatory for all priests of the Society; we were recommended to practice a
    “charitable attitude” towards any bishop, clergy or faithful without qualification, as long as they were
    “friendly towards tradition”. This opened the door to anything and everything in terms of
    collaboration with clergy and laity who were not fully committed to the defence of Catholic Tradition.
    You know which fruit these deliberately vague notions bore at Saint Michael’s School when the
    Headmaster invited the conciliar diocesan bishop to lead the children’s prayer in our chapel, after
    having collected for him a spiritual bouquet meant at expressing “our gratitude”. Gratitude for what?
    For having said at an interfaith forum that Catholic Christians do not deny the moral freedom to
    choose for or against the Truth of Christ1? 

    A statement which is religious liberty in a nutshell, in total
    contradiction with Our Lord’s words (Mark, 16-16). 
    Or gratitude for having asked Muslims to pray (to
    whom?) for us2?

    But to return to the chronology of the events, on that evening of 18th September I decided to leave
    the Society. This was however the end of the first week of the new academic year and it was obvious
    that leaving at that point was not an option. So, for the sake of the children and of you, dear Parents,
    I decided to stay until the end of the academic year.

    One day in February, the Headmaster told me that he had invited the modernist bishop of Portsmouth
    to come and visit the school. He asked me to organize a spiritual bouquet for him, which I accepted to
    do, having no notion that it was meant “in gratitude”. I decided nevertheless to prepare the children
    to be wary of the bishop by telling them that he did a few things that showed he needed prayers and
    sacrifices like saying the New Mass and distributing Holy Communion in the hand.

    At the next staff meeting, Father Brucciani told the staff that not only Bishop Egan was to visit the
    school, but that he would furthermore lead the children in the prayer of the Rosary in the chapel. I
    put my hand up and said that I would not go and pray with the diocesan bishop in our chapel. Although
    both the Headmaster and the Superior of District spent a lot of time and energy in trying to convince
    the Sisters that there was no problem with their plan, on 8th March none of the Sisters turned up in
    chapel for the bishop-led Rosary, as each of them, of her own accord, had decided that she could not
    in conscience attend that event. This abstention was to trigger more pressure being put on the Sisters.

    This would have been something to offer up and I would still be at the school if things had stayed at

    However, after Bishop Egan’s visit the Headmaster told the children in a sermon on Wednesday that
    the Bishop of Portsmouth was a man of good will, that he was not bad. Now if you say to a child that
    a berry is not bad, she will put it in her mouth, because it means it is good, or at least harmless. But a
    modernist bishop is not a harmless preacher (see above). He carries about him all of the harmful spirit
    of Vatican II, destructive of the Catholic Faith. At that juncture, it became clear to me that the
    children’s trust was captured for the benefit of a person unworthy of it, who had all the trimmings of
    a Catholic bishop, but not the Faith of a Catholic bishop. How can children discern the fraud? On the
    other hand, how could the children who knew about the problem of Vatican II understand that one of
    its faithful spokesmen had led their prayer in our Catholic chapel? As Father John Brucciani had
    ordered me a little before not to talk to the children about Bishop Egan, I realized that I would not be
    able to protect the children’s Faith any more from this subtle poisoning of their Faith and the slow
    subversion of their trust in either their parents, the Sisters or their priests, depending on whom their
    limited understanding would bring them to side with.

    In such circuмstances my presence at the school made no more sense, as I was not there to teach
    academics in the first place, but to teach the Catholic Faith and foster Catholic spiritual and moral life
    in my young charges.

    Additionally, every day of my presence on campus in the habit of the Oblates of the Society was a tacit
    approval of the school leadership, which had become at odds with my conscience.

    Consequently, I decided to leave the school during the Holy Week, so as to have time to prepare my
    very young pupils and the whole primary school to my departure. I told the Headmaster unofficially
    of my decision a little ahead of time of its realisation so that he, too, could have some time (five weeks)
    to get everything ready for the start of Trinity term.

    On 25th March I posted my resignation to the Superior General of the Society.

    On 27th March, the Second Assistant to the Superior General came to our school, listen to what I had
    to say about the situation in our school and parish in general and, more specifically, about the “Bishop
    Egan’s crisis”. He offered me to take back my resignation, which was out of question. His conclusion 
    was that I had to leave “as soon as possible”. The next morning, I was not allowed to go to school in
    order to avoid creating a stir.

    On 30th March I left the school and the New Society of Saint Pius X in order to be able to observe
    faithfully what I had promised to observe on the day of my engagement in that dearly beloved Society
    as founded by Archbishop Lefebvre.

    At the moment I am most charitably accommodated by faithful of Father King’s Saint Gregory’s
    Mission in Southport. I can attend Holy Mass daily and prepare my next step in the religious life.
    I would like to thank you all from the bottom of my heart for your truly wonderful support in the last
    days of my presence at Saint Michael’s School. It helped me go through those painful hours. I was
    struck by the grief that many of you expressed in one way or another. This made me more aware of
    the strong bond of charity that unites us in Our Lord Jesus Christ and that we have woven together
    over the last fifteen years. This bond remains untouched, it has perhaps even gained in strength while
    we were sharing in the pain of an abrupt separation. I keep you all in my prayers, especially during
    Holy Mass. Please, keep praying for me, too!

    May Our Blessed Lady keep you all in Her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart which will always be our
    meeting point.

    Yours most gratefully,
    Sister Mary-Elizabeth Note that Bishop Egan wrote “I joined them
    [the Muslims in the mosque] for Friday prayers”.