FATHER ALTAMIRA WILL BE EXPELLED: IT SEEMS THIS WILL BE THE FATE OF THE PRIOR OF BOGOTA.

Father Fernando Altamira, prior of Bogotá, has been saying several times in front of his Superior, Father Bouchacourt, and if front of some brothers, the incorrectness of the sayings and deeds of Bishop Fellay, in this internal crisis faced by the Society of St. Pius X. Father Bouchacourt told him, more than a year ago, that if he was so against of what Bishop Fellay was doing, he should leave the Society. Finally, this state of things had a final outcome, after Father Altamira preached on December 22 a sermon about the new "crusade" of Bishop Fellay (this sermon will be published soon). This sermon was sent by "someone" to Father Rubio (Fr. Bouchacourt assistant). Due to father Altamira’s sermon, Father Bouchacourt called him and said that to avoid “measures” against him; he should do two things publicly. Father Altamira said no to both things. The decision was to transfer him to Buenos Aires.

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).

SERMON OF FATHER ALTAMIRA DECEMBER 22 2013.
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.

IMAGES AND MORE:http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.mx/

.

It is most alarming to see that Bishop Fellay is using Our Lady's Rosary to further tear the Society to pieces.  

If he keeps this up, and if he dies without repenting of this most grievous sin against the Spouse of the Holy Ghost, he will certainly burn in hell for it................

But the Vatican II is just an invalid council, VATICAN II IS NOT THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, and as Father Calderón and [others teach], “it is necessary to declare solemnly (for us) its total nullity."

As Fr. Pfeiffer has explained, the errors of Vat.II permeate the whole thing, so it must all be expunged, but it cannot all be said to be erroneous because there is good and true mixed in with the evil and false.  We cannot say that the good and true is therefore evil and false.  But it would be dangerous and well-nigh impossible to separate the wheat from the cockle.  

It causes discomfort among the Faithful to hear a priest making reference to something 'good' in Vat.II.  Can you imagine a mother talking about the 'goodness' of one part of a cake that is not poisoned when some other part of the cake has poison in it?

We've had 50 years of people quoting how 'wonderful' Vat.II is.  

Like Fr. Altamira says, "ENOUGH!"

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?).

"We have to keep doing what we have always done" - is correct.

But where this has "This crisis in the Church, I believe, will be arranged by God alone,"  in English, it seems to me that should say, "This crisis in the Church, I believe, will be SETTLED by God alone."  Because to 'arrange' means to get it started, not to bring it to a conclusion.

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.

This is interesting to hear.  This new crusade has been the 'last straw' for Fr. Altamira.  (He says "the final drop.")  So I wonder what all his reasons are:  is it because he knows that +F is going to USE this crusade for his own political ends, and after it's done, claim that some new event (whatever it is) that happens is the effect of all our prayers, when (does he mean?) that new event is something that +F has presently in the works and only wants the Faithful to accept it, so he will use the crusade and our Rosaries as an excuse for making the new event seem acceptable?  When all the while, +F had this new event (whatever it is) planned in secret?

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).

In his sermon that follows, Fr. Altamira does not answer my questions, above:

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."

Fr. Altamira makes a very good point.  We cannot agree with the official French version of Intention #2.  I recall Matthew (of CI) saying that he has no problem with these intentions.  I hope he can read this thread.  

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 [she] 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.

ABL did call it that, but he was not the first.  Modernists themselves came up with the term and used it to describe themselves, and ABL agreed with them, appropriately.

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, [they fled away from Tradition] 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.

This is the message that +F wants MUZZLED.  It is antithetical to his agenda to say that Rome must return to Tradition.  And the Accordistas/Fellayites are lemmings right behind him, defending his lies as if they're worth fighting for.  

What a miserable state of affairs!

.... 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".  

[It would be nice to know which docuмent that was in, or what sermon of +TdM.]

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.  

[Tradition has never gone from the SSPX, he means to say.]

Who has to return?

This is exactly the correct question to ask.  When #2 would have us pray, "For the return to Tradition within the Church," it provides NO HINT for whom we would be praying for.  It makes NO MENTION of who would be doing the return to Tradition.


.

 :dancing-banana:
"And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed." St. Luke 2:35

 :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana:

So does this mean that while he is still with the SSPX Fr. Pfeiffer will not allow us to assist his Mass? Should I write Fr. Pfeiffer and ask for a special permission to be granted to be able to attend Mass with the SSPX or is it better to wait and see if this priest leaves the SSPX and joins the Fr. Pfeiffer resistance? I'm confused.  :stare:

:dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: