From   The Recusant


A Commentary on Bishop Fellay's proposed Preamble

By a priest of the SSPX

 I have been asked for my first impressions of the text published today on La Sapiniere and other good websites of resistance to the sell-out. I hope that someone better qualified than I will have time to study all the subtleties of this preamble, but certain problematic points are already easily identifiable. Here then, as asked for, are a few blunt remarks.

As Bp. Fellay himself said in May or June 2012, the reaction to this text will depend on the disposition of the mind of the person reading it. (“Rose-tinted or dark-tinted spectacles...”). In effect, after several paragraphs reaffirming attachment to the Pope and traditional doctrine, we come across some scandalous affirmations. This mixture of truth and falsehood reminds one of the methods of the Modernists as St. Pius X denounces them in Pascendi.  In other words what we have here is an ambiguous text, which in itself is a serious fault, since we can hardly hope to rebuild the Church if we have a misunderstanding as the foundation. It is not honest towards Rome nor is it honest towards Tradition. The General Council shows us, in effect, that it believes that the end justifies the means. They still do have a little bit of shame left however, it was left to the Resistance to publish this text.

So, here briefly are some points which cause problems, to say the least.

1.    We find in this text, not surprisingly, what we have known about for a while, since it was revealed by Fr. Pfluger on 5th June 2012, at Fanjeaux I think, and which is in itself an abomination [paragraph 3.4] Saying that Vatican II makes explicit “certain elements” contained implicitly in the entire Tradition of the Church means we have just put this pastoral Council (which was diverted and hijacked by the Freemasons and modernists) on the same level as all the other legitimate doctrinal Councils. When you think about it, Vatican II is more akin to a secret get-together of plotters and schemers than a true Council, even if it was presided over and approved by two Popes, because these two Popes made illegitimate use of it: they used it to make a revolution in the Church. That’s why I call it a plotters’ get-together. The first thing a Catholic Pope will to will be to declare the Council illegitimate and void, as was the case with several oriental councils at the start of the Church.

2.    The second serious fault of this part of the text is that it doesn’t say which elements of Tradition were supposedly made explicit by Vatican II. Is it talking about Religious Liberty? Does it mean Collegiality? Or the “subsistit in”? Or ecuмenism? Or permission to say Mass in the vernacular? Or permission to wear a clerical suit instead of a cassock?

3.    The third thing that occurs to me is that instead of saying that there are erroneous texts which simply cannot be interpreted the right way, it says that there is a way of discussing things in order to arrive at the correct interpretation. We are no longer saying that Vatican II teaches doctrines previously condemned by the traditional Popes.  But this goes against what was always our position, that there are three types of docuмent in Vatican II: the “good bits”, the bits which have to be read in the light of Tradition, and the docuмents which need to be totally corrected. (cf. Fr. Gaudron’s Catechism, No.29)

4.    So, overall this Preamble says that we’re going to stay faithful to Tradition but that we’re prepared to leave the doctrinal questions to one side. We’re ready to sign an agreement now and a commission will be assigned the task, in the future, of explaining the points of Vatican II which appear to contradict Tradition (cf. para III.6) What this amounts to, then, is the laying down of the principle that we are ready to sign a purely practical agreement without having first corrected the errors of Vatican II.

5.    Instead of a declaration against the New Mass, as being something which seriously undermines the majesty of Almighty God and thus in that way a serious sin against the First Commandment, we’re now content simply to recognise its validity under certain conditions (cf. para III.7) We hide under a bushel the fact that the Novus Ordo MIssae directly attacks the greatest treasure of the Church, the source of supernatural life which is the Sacrifice of the Head of the Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

6.    Then there is the recognition of the 1983 Canon Law, under which we’re happy to place ourselves. Abp. Lefebvre said that he detested this Code, a Code poisoned by the theories of Vatican II. Let us remind ourselves of Canon 844 which permits “communicatio in sacris” the sharing of sacraments between Catholics and non Catholics. (cf. para III.8)

In   conclusion, this doctrinal preamble shows us to just what depths the General Council has sunk into the abyss.  It confirms the warning of Fr. Gaudron’s Catechism which alerts us to the grave danger of contamination entailed by frequenting the Roman authorities. (See pp. 291-294 in the 2008 edition) Utinam! Would to heaven that the General Council had made Fr. Gaudron’s Catechism its bedtime reading! Then we wouldn’t be where we are now!

Will this priest remain anonymous?

He will if he doesn't want to be fired.

Some priests no longer part of the official SSPX still consider themselves to be part of the true SSPX.

For example, Bishop Williamson.

Just wasn't sure if this priest was part of the official, or resistance, SSPX.

These questions and answers seem to be a self-proclaiming proof
of the visibility and reputability of the Resistance, per se.

That is, it FLIES IN THE FACE of those who would demean and
besmirch any cleric who has been expelled by the Menzingen-denizens.

Quote from: Seraphim

Will this priest remain anonymous?

He will if he doesn't want to be fired.

Yes. He would be immediately expelled.

This should not be taken lightly.


Anyone who disputes the veracity of the answers, or worse, questions
the validity or basis of the very asking of the questions in the first
place (which is what the Menzingen-denizens have attempted to do BTW!)  
is MORALLY OBLIGED to take a look at the factual history of how and
why the various expulsions have taken place already.

It will do NO GOOD to provide such persons with the facts of the +W
debacle, because they are already too brainwashed on that issue.  Just
let it go.  Nor will it do any good to mention the names of Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr.
Chazal or perhaps even Fr. Hewko.

You should focus on the others, the ones that are not making the
headlines, the ones who the Menzingen-denizens hope nobody notices.  
And it is up to us to recall their names and post their stories here, where
they can be seen.  

Obviously, we can't post the name of the author of this OP letter.  

That's okay.  This letter serves its own purpose, not the least of which
is the importance of INTERNET ANONYMITY.  

Not that what Fr. Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson, et. al., have done is not
as "smart."  They have filled a vital need, by courageously stepping
forward, they have become ope TARGETS for the firey darts of the devil,
in the form of Menzingen-denizen calumny and derision, a.k.a. MOCKERY.

Fr. Pfeiffer has become an expert at being on the receiving end of
MOCKERY, and I must say, he has raised the ART to an all time high.  

Muito obrigado, Padre Pfeiffer, as venerable Sister Lucia would have said.