Hello everyone! Haven't seen this Conference of Fr. Rioult posted yet, and even though it is a Google translation, one can still get the essence of his meaning. Anyone out there willing and/or able to provide a better translation or know where one is available?  God bless and thanks!


Dear friends,



Today I would like to explain the suffering of the priests of the Brotherhood. I will explain you the painful facts, but grace that we do not accuse me of being violent are the things I will describe who are. This is the situation that we live in the Brotherhood is violent, I have nothing to do, I see them, I denounce them, I regret and pain.

Why revisit the painful events that are past and not let the wound close as Bishop Fellay did not sign anything? Because these past events are very serious and mostly because they persist even now. But before addressing the topic two valuable comments on the charity of the truth of Don Felix Sarda y Salvany in his book Liberalism is a sin [to read! if something is to be learned from this conference is this: read this book] [1]!.

1) "There is no sin against charity name" evil "evil," evil "perpetrators, instigators and followers of evil. The wolf has always been called everything short wolf, and never calling and was not believed to harm the herd and his master. "

2) "The ideas not supported in any way by themselves, they do not spread or spread their mere [...] The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers. Their weapons are the books, newspapers, public discourse, personal influence. [...] The first thing to do, the more effective is to remove the shooter. Thus it is necessary to remove all authority and credit to the book, the newspaper and the discourse of the enemy, but it is also, in some cases, to do the same for himself, yes, the person who is undoubtedly the main element of combat. It is therefore permissible under certain circuмstances to disclose to the public its infamy, ridiculing his habits, to drag his name through the mud. Yes, reader, this is allowed, permitted prose, verse, caricature, on a serious or playful tone, by all means and methods that will invent the future. It is important not only to lie in the service of justice. "

"But Bishop Fellay accordistes and your colleagues are not heretics! "Of course not, of course, but listen to these reflections of Pope Pius IX:

"In these times of confusion and disorder, it is not uncommon to see Christians, Catholics, there is even the secular clergy there in the cloisters, which always have the words on the lips of medium-term, conciliation, compromise. Well! I do not hesitate to say: these men are wrong, and I do not look like the least dangerous enemies of the Church. We live in a corrupt atmosphere, pestilential, let us save us, let us not poisoned by false doctrines which have lost everything in the name of saving it. "Pius IX

The Liberals, people conciliation are the enemies of the Church lose the pretext to save everything! Retain it!

To highlight the violence today in the Brotherhood is going to require analysis of text and some equipment is essential: the eyes to read and ears to hear, intelligence to understand the meaning of words and especially a pair of glasses pink, a pair of black bezel, and a pair of normal glasses ....

Begin:

"About the response I sent on April 17 in Rome (...) I feel that it should. For us, I think it will explain it right, because there are (in this docuмent) statements that are so much on the ridge if you're wrong or as you put dark glasses or roses, you see them as this or that. So we'll have you explained that this letter does not change anything in our position [to you faithful and Dominican teachers who could not read what you read does not mean what you read, but what I want you thought]. But if one wants to read through, you will come to understand wrong. [This is the confession of having an ambiguous paper!?? "(Bishop Fellay, Brignoles, May 4, 2012 - Christendom No. 135)

It's sad to say, but this extract from a speech by Bishop Fellay in Brignoles, May 4, 2012, illustrates the tragedy that we live Bishop Fellay two speeches! And if taken up, he is shocked and accuses you of being dark glasses, then it's pink it appropriate to wear.

Bishop Fellay two speeches!

To sort fact from fiction: the text and will give examples

Most recently, in the "Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 80" in March 2013:

Bishop Fellay wrote "In terms of doctrine, we are still at the starting point as it arose in the 70s. Unfortunately we can not recognize that the news of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who has not changed in the decades that followed the Council until his death analysis. [...] While recognizing that the crisis in the Church also has external causes, it is the Council itself which is the main agent's self-destruction. [...] So here we are at Easter 2013, the situation of the Church remains almost unchanged. "

It is not clear? More anxiety: Bishop Fellay think right! No! This beautiful proclamation comes a little late and not worth anything because

June 2012: KID-Lorans call to "Bishop Bernard Fellay Superior General to know himself, how he judges a canonical solution which intervene before [not without] a doctrinal solution ... His answers inspired by the supernatural prudence, provides an analysis of the situation rooted in reality "[2] (Alain Lorans: champion of journalistic style media manipulation of the worst kind but bigger is more it goes)..

Bishop Fellay: "What has changed is that Rome is no longer a total acceptance of Vatican II a condition for the canonical solution. In Rome, some believe that the church is more than the Council. This awareness can help us understand what is really happening: we are called to help bring to others the treasure of Tradition. So that is the attitude of the official Church has changed, it is not us. It begs the question of why this change. We still do not agree doctrinally, yet the pope wants to recognize us! Why? [Because Fellay sign an unacceptable statement where we not only accept the Council in the light of tradition, but also the tradition in the light of the Council] must put aside secondary issues and deal with major problems. One must read between the lines to understand [it gets complicated: pink, black, between the lines]. The official authorities fail to recognize the errors of the Council. They never say explicitly. However, if one reads between the lines, one can see that they want to address some of these errors. "

In 2011, about the beatification of John Paul II, Bishop Fellay said it posed "a serious problem". "That of a pontificate that did make leaps forward in the wrong direction, in the direction of liberalism and all that is called'' the spirit of Vatican II. This is a dedication not only to the person of John Paul II, but also the Council and all the spirit that accompanied. "

It is not clear? More anxiety: Bishop Fellay think right! No doubt it because it says that Benedict XVI will beatify Pope JP II is that "back to traditional ideas"!! It was in an interview with The New Caledonian means Bishop Fellay said:

"And the record [of Vatican II] is devastating. [... But] the Pope returned to traditional ideas. It is very clear that there is a deviation and must be corrected. It may be much closer to the Pope than it seems. [...] In fact [...] Just a note to say that Rome is over and we return to the Church. It will come. I am very optimistic. "(27 December 2010)

Also in 2010, in the Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 76, he thought:

"Since the accession to the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI" is "a new wave appeared." "Against all odds, it seems to go in the opposite direction of the first. The indices are sufficiently varied and numerous to say that this new reform movement or restoration is real. "(Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 76, May 7, 2010)

Here is the portrait of Benedict XVI Bishop Fellay erected in 2010 in Brazil.

"Benedict XVI, is a mixture of good and bad. What is wrong is the head office of modernism. For example, ecuмenism, relations with the Jєωs. He said some amazing things about hell. That side of Benedict XVI is very modern [not Catholic, heretic: the word is not said, thought, and the truth is diminished!]. But there is also the other side, which is conservative: his head is modern, his heart is conservative [liturgy??]. But I do not know how one another and work together. "[3]

To realize the absurdity of this statement, we must leave the speeches to the facts. The main actions of the Conservative heart between 2007 (when the Motu Proprio on the Mass) and 2011:

Interreligious meeting in Naples, visit the New York ѕуηαgσgυє; JMJ Sydney with its liturgy and inculturation pagan rituals, visit the Dome of Jerusalem, Jєωιѕн Ritual Wailing Wall, Visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Rome, active participation in the Lutheran church in Rome, Beatification of John Paul II; Reiteration the scandal of Assisi.

The thought is confused, the language is double and even opportunistic manipulator

The editor of the blog Osservatore Vaticano, Vini Ganimara, published an article entitled "Strengths and weaknesses of the diplomacy of Bishop Fellay." It reads:

"Bishop Fellay has gradually managed to adopt a measured language, that makes you forget his statements in every sense of the past as aggressive speech of the other bishops of the SSPX, [...] there is no negotiation without giving-giving - [ Bishop Fellay] shows his diplomatic skills, along with the weakness of its flexibility. I take an example: after the lifting of the excommunications, he faxed in all the priories of the world a "letter to the faithful" (24 January 2009), containing the quotation of his own letter to Cardinal Castrillón (15 December 2008) which had led to the lifting of censorship ['' We are ready to write the Creed with our blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of faith of Pius IV, we accept and make our own all the councils up to Vatican , about which we have reservations''] [...] This formulation caused such an outcry that a few days later, a new version of the letter of 24 January and cited the letter to cardinal. "We accept and make our own all the councils up to Vatican I. But we can not express reservations about the Second Vatican Council, which wanted a council 'different from others'. "[...] It is of course the first version received What Cardinal Castrillon. The second version is not strictly speaking a fake: it is a translation for the use of public opinion of the SSPX. "(Thursday, October 29, 2009)

At the time, Bishop Fellay told the worshipers that it was an error on the part of the Secretary-General, who, having worked all night, had erred. Texts on traffics, it adapts to the public: sometimes right, sometimes left, sometimes "yes", sometimes "no." A "pink" Suddenly, the other shot "black." This confusion is unbearable and unacceptable from a leader. This same pattern is repeated for many years and continues:

- Things have changed in Rome, but the situation remains almost unchanged.

- We have not sought a practical agreement but we did not a priori refused to consider the offer of the Pope.

- I intend to continue to do my best to continue on this path ... but it's out of the question to venture to a canonical normalization as the doctrinal part has not been resolved ...

- Rome agrees to make mistakes at an opinion, but Rome dedicating the person of John Paul II dedicated the Council.

- The principle of 2006 (no practical agreement until Rome convert) is clear, but it is not clear as what we mean by "conversion of Rome"?

- Pope writes through official channels but actually what he wants is what he did not write because he can not write ...

- In March 2013 the Society: "There is absolutely no question of an agreement with modernist Rome" but in October 2012, in Brussels, diocesan priests, when the agreement between Rome and the Society "it will happen soon."

About vague, ambiguous, contradictory view, so the wire peak that you lose your head.

Serious Fallacies

A fallacy is a fallacy that has some semblance of truth. Two are particularly serious. Bishop Fellay presented as victories of Tradition which basically were only modernist maneuvers. We must never forget that the revolution is ready to do a lot of apparent and superficial concessions to save the basics: keep the revolutionary principle of religious freedom rights: Masonic principle.

In 2007 we were told that the Tridentine Mass was "never abrogated" [as a special rite, equal sanctity with the bastard rite it is common]. In 2009 the "excommunications" were removed [lifting]. They lied by omission, we ignored the revolutionary strategy!

1) that can withstand the extraordinary mass as the mass bastard remains the ordinary and primary standard. (Negative influence of this motu proprio is felt among us: wedding invitations announcing the Mass in the extraordinary rite ...)

2) may attempt a gesture of mercy towards Lefebvrist if it can weaken and as Vatican II is the compass of the Church for the twenty-first century.

Benedict XVI himself has explained his strategy to modernist idiots:

"The fact commit to reduce hardening so make room for what is positive and retrievable for the whole, it may be totally wrong? I myself have seen, in the years that followed 1988, thanks to the return of previously separated from Rome, their interior communities has changed the return to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that could emerge for all positive forces. "[4]

Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 denounced the Vatican's strategy and its dangers:

"The atmosphere of these contacts and conferences clearly shows us that the desire of the Holy See is to get closer to the Council and its reforms, to give us also in the heart of the Conciliar Church [...] This seems to be reinstated a political asset, diplomatic, to balance the excesses of others. "[5]

Benedict XVI is a smart modernist did nothing for our beautiful eyes! He has not made his Motu Proprio us! But to save Vatican II warned in modernist, he realized he needed us in the "big church" to save Vatican II.La legitimately integrated Brotherhood could bring to his "charisma Tradition" modern Church because de facto, it would accept the pluralism of conciliar thought. It was to save his "hermeneutic of continuity" that Benedict XVI needs us who manifest the doctrine out of Vatican II. This simple "living together" manifest the continuity of the "living Tradition" in the "broad church". For the same reason, he had to accept the existence of the traditional Mass [but second zone] to save Mass Paul VI and his alleged liturgical continuity.

But the good of the Church requires the refusal of the Council and not only his critique. We can not be satisfied with the "let us do the experiment of Tradition, accept us as we are," as would be the game of the modernist logic and save the Second Vatican Council. Archbishop Lefebvre had understood:

"I accuse the'' Council'' I think the necessary response to the Council'' I apologize'' Cardinal Ratzinger. "[6]" It is to the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation of souls an immense service to publicly denounce the actions of the men of the Church who wanted to make this peace council Yalta Church with its worst enemies, either in reality a new betrayal of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Church. "

Whatever is said Bishop Fellay contradicts the fight of faith of Archbishop Lefebvre

"KID-Lorans: 2012 is not 1988 [1970?], The year of your episcopal consecration. The a priori refusal of a canonical recognition he had 40 years of an exceptional situation resulting in a certain lack of submission to authority?

Bishop Fellay: What happens these days clearly shows some of our weaknesses to the dangers that are created by the situation in which we are. [...] Some argue that Rome must be converted before any agreement or errors must first be removed so we can work. But this is not the reality. [...] Reformers saints have not left the Church to combat these errors [Bishop Fellay he realizes that this sentence condemns Archbishop Lefebvre and other Coache Calmel, Barbara, who Guillou ... not to leave the Catholic Church are separated from the conciliar Church]. "

Bishop Fellay has invented a new principle that will justify compromising arrangements: "We can not accept being wrongly accused of a break with Rome. "But Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976 and 1988, has twice agreed to be condemned to continue the fight of faith.

Bishop Fellay describes the Brotherhood as "missing" something fundamental in relation to the "visibility" of the Church. He often speaks of the Brotherhood as a "irregular," "abnormal," "illegal," while Archbishop Lefebvre said: "What interests us first, is to keep the Catholic faith. This is our fight. While public purely external canonical question, in the Church, is secondary. "And now we are talking about it.

But Bishop Fellay, wizards, and others it is not high! it's so important that they are allowed to work in a practical agreement without doctrinal agreement, thus violating that Archbishop Lefebvre had explicitly said, especially after 1988, and that the General Chapter (which has more authority the Superior) decided in 2006.

And these fallacies are said under the guise of a greater good [classic tactic to lose a real good]: "In the visible church" we could convert the conciliar church tradition ... Again, this is contradict Lefebvre:

"Getting inside the church, what does that mean? And First Church speaks of how do we? If this is the conciliar church, should we who have fought against it for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we returned to the Conciliar Church to supposedly make it Catholic? This is a total illusion! They are not changing the lower higher, but above that change less. "(Fideliter No. 70 July-August 1989)

All these serious errors and fallacies that have been maintained at the cost of a double standard and against all caution and are justified by new sophistry: it is the fault of the Roman authorities who deceived us!

"As you know, the Brotherhood found itself in an awkward position during much of 2012, following the latter approach of Benedict XVI to try to normalize our situation. The difficulties came [...] lack of clarity on the part of the Holy See not possible to know exactly the will of the Holy Father, and what he was willing to grant us. The disturbance caused by these uncertainties dissipated from June 13, 2012 ... "" Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 80 "in March 2013:

Again, Bishop Fellay mistaken his world.

Last Cor Unum ...

Bishop Fellay accused some priests, under the pretext of "preserving the Brotherhood a supposedly suicidal agreement with the conciliar Church" to be subversive and revolutionary

"Behind this wall of smoke, it is established that the goal is the resignation of the Superior [not the goal, but the result, he himself these contradictions reduced its authority to zero] and everything seems to allow them to achieve this goal [but Bishop Fellay to promote its agreement was ready to forge press, to disobey the decisions of Chapter 2006, to consider a split unscrupulous ...]. Regardless of the statements, sermons, and lectures say otherwise [yes as other statements, sermons, conferences ... say otherwise to the contrary], we will look under the microscope [another optical problem] all that one could misunderstand for in an incredible trial for [the words are the words that have meaning and expresses the intention!] discredit the authority [itself is discredited] and pass for lying or underhand. [Yet he lied well before the priors of France saying that on 13 June he was not going to sign ...] "

However, in the same Cor Unum, there is evidence of intent to Bishop Fellay: Bishop Fellay's letter to Benedict XVI. June 17, 2012. I read without a magnifying glass:

"Wednesday, June 13, Cardinal Levada gave me during a meeting was cordial, a doctrinal statement that I can not sign. Ignoring the plea not to touch the proposal I surrender, because of the consequences that would result, the new text includes almost all points of the Preamble to September 2011 that were difficult and I 'm had tried to remove [not correct!]. Unfortunately, in the current context of the Brotherhood, the new statement will not pass. [Reread in pink and black: same direction ... Who is sneaky? Is hidden and concealed?] I understand that you were willing to postpone the resolution of different [understatement] still ongoing in some areas of the Council and the liturgical reform [...] to get nevertheless to union and I am committed to this perspective [practical agreement without doctrinal agreement] despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Brotherhood and the price of major disorders. And I intend to continue to make every effort to continue on this path to reach the necessary clarifications. [Reread in pink and black: same direction! not under the microscope or an incredible trial of Intent The intent is there, written black on white! "

Other admission in this size Cor Unum: Bishop Fellay assumes its doctrinal statement [The Firs, with pristine, A bishop rose ...]. For him, it is very good and nothing scandalous, here's how it justifies:

1) it would be "like that of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988" [7] so well.

2) it was amended on June 13 by the Romans and became unacceptable

These two justifications are false and misleading: just read again.

1) it would be "like that of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988"

First, that of Archbishop Lefebvre is that of the ѕυιcιdє bomber. It is not worthwhile to have taken that Archbishop Lefebvre blamed. He told himself to have gone too far.

Bishop Fellay says that:

- It was not an exhaustive expression of his thoughts on the council ... [does not matter if things are unacceptable: it is bad but not exhaustive]

- It was clear but "prominent members of the Brotherhood have not understood" [Bishop Tissier de Cacqueray ... Worrying that Rome's understanding that the senior members of the fraternity! Even the abbot Laisney find this ambiguous statement]

- The Cor Unum present this statement as follows:

"This text is intended to mean the Roman authorities we recognize Catholics related to the magisterium of the Church principles, so that condemnation of schism would be unfair and ineffective. "

They laugh at us: "This text is intended to mean"! But it is not a matter of subjective intent but objective meaning: what does this text! What would a teacher to a student who is complaining to a zero in his writing by saying "I meant ...". "That may be what you meant, but that is not what I read! So zero for you sir. "

- Then this statement if it is "like that of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988," it is also seriously out of three points.

a) II unheard reference to the profession of faith of Ratzinger in 1989:

For Lefebvre: "This is a very serious matter. Because it requires 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, this is impossible. "(Interview loyalty of Jan. 1991, 79 p. 4)" As it is, this formula is dangerous. This shows the spirit of the people with whom it is impossible to hear "(Interview Fideliter No. 70 p 16 July 1989;... Fideliter see also No. 73 and No. 12 p 76 p 11)

b) III, 4 full acceptance, even in terms of the "hermeneutic of reform in continuity".

Remarkable: this Paragraph was not modified by the Romans.!

Bishop Fellay "The whole tradition of the Catholic faith should be the criterion and guide understanding of the teachings of Vatican II which in its turn lights - that is to say, deepens and explicit later - some aspects of life and the doctrine of the Church implicitly present in it not yet formulated conceptually "

It is the Council in the light of Tradition with Tradition in the light of the Council.

Archbishop Lefebvre "It is impossible for us to enter into this conspiracy, even though there is much satisfactory texts in this Council. For the good texts were used to accept the ambiguous texts mined trapped. We have only one solution: give up these dangerous witnesses to attach firmly to tradition, is the official teaching of the Church for twenty centuries. "[8]

c) III 7: Mass and sacrament "legitimately" promulgated by Paul VI, John Paul II ...

Term very serious!

2) it was amended on June 13 by the Romans and became unacceptable

In fact, the Roman additions do not change the statement to the point of making it substantially different because they simply made it clear that Bishop Fellay had implicitly conceded in the deadly paragraph III, 4: "Council in the light of Tradition with Tradition in the light of the Council "and the word" legitimate ". Bishop Fellay himself in his speeches downplayed the conciliar errors to prepare minds to the conciliar reconciliation. It is that Bishop Fellay has a Te Deum after the Motu Proprio establishing the ordinary and extraordinary rite. It must be logical with the meaning of words and actions, right?

Again the Cor Unum misrepresenting: as evidence that the statement was corrected by the Romans basically similar to Bishop Fellay, is that without internal opposition, he would have signed. Bishop Fellay is in itself an admission to Benedict XVI:

"Unfortunately, in the current context of the Brotherhood, the new statement will not pass. "[But members he said," we could only refuse a text promoting the hermeneutic of continuity "] despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Brotherhood [...] I intend to continue to do my best to continue on this path ... "[It is not an" incredible trial for "himself gives his thoughts. In military parlance this is called with the enemy, it is the High Treason!]

And three conditions of Chapter 2012? Wind!

Some will say: "Charles VI's crazy, but his entourage before." The conditions laid down by the General Chapter of July 2012 are insufficient. They do not protect us, nor prevent us not to fall as the community rallied.

The General Chapter omitted the two most important conditions clearly requested by Archbishop Lefebvre: the conversion of the official authorities which clearly manifested by the explicit condemnation of the conciliar errors, and be free of the new Code of Canon Law.

1) The first "sine qua non" The Brotherhood traitors asked permission to tell the truth! And criticize those responsible for errors of modernism, liberalism and Vatican II. When you see as the Brotherhood denounced the errors and scandals since 2000, it no longer engages in much. [IBP has had this freedom of constructive criticism and we saw the result]

2) The second condition requires the exclusive use of the liturgy of 1962. [Le Barroux had the exclusive use of the Abbey of Flavigny also: result, it sells statues of Blessed JP II! These congregations have fallen but we Brotherhood SPX we fear nothing?]

3) The third condition requires the guarantee of at least one bishop. Who chooses? In 1988 Rome rejected the three candidates proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre. [Campos had his bishop and since we have seen rent Vatican and concelebrate!]

What can we conclude?

If someone had predicted in 2008 that in 2012, Bishop Fellay would be willing to sacrifice "the common good of the Brotherhood" because "Rome tolerates more. "(14 April 2012) or in the case of an agreement with Rome, he did not rule out" that there is a split [the Brotherhood]. "(Catholic News Service May 11, 2012) he was treated crazy! But this was said. He dared to say and was ready to do so. He even dared worse than anything we could have imagined: with this statement corrected by the Romans.

While the position of Bishop Fellay is delicate and difficult. The geopolitical situation untenable and confusing religious crisis. But this can not justify the double standard. When a leader is willing to say anything and everything, can we not fear that he is ready to exercise its power against all odds? While we must respect his superior, but not enough to trample the truth. A colleague wrote to me last week:

"There is a gap that appears at times terrifying between his proclamation of innocence and the facts. One may wonder if it is pride, an inability to see and understand or blindness that God allows, as the pharaoh or the high priest, to better demonstrate its power and glory in a future that is desired to close. "

It is feared the worst when we see the past duplicity. Bishop Fellay is morally dead and himself destroyed his legitimacy. To paraphrase Jean Bastien-Thiry, we can say:

"It is not good, it is not moral, it is not lawful for a man is so long at the head of the Tradition. "

It is not good: As a colleague said to one of our three theologians who discussed with Rome, "the head of Bishop Fellay is rotten", his texts are indeed full of compromises.

It is not moral: the double common language, formal and solemn lies.

It is not legal: grave disobedience to the decisions of the Chapter of 2006 putting the trash in March 2012 principle: no purely practical agreement.

This idea of ​​the superior general's resignation does not come from us but Archbishop Lefebvre noticed about these monks and the nuns returned to Barroux to stay in Tradition and flee the conciliar Church, but the Abbot put under the authority of the conciliar Church:

"We put them under the authority of the conciliar Church. So we are really amazed to think that, despite the findings they should do, and they know it ... No ... They are. They do not take the party to go or start another monastery, or ask Dom Gerard to resign and be replaced ... No, nothing ... They obeyed. [...] It is sad to see how easily a monastery which is in the tradition passes under the Council's authority and modernist. And everyone else. It's a shame and really sad that ... [...] The transfer of authority, that is what is serious is that it is extremely serious. It is not enough to say we did not change anything in practice ... This transfer is very serious because the intention of the authorities is to destroy the tradition ". [9]

But he did not sign! Either! But what does sign and sign anything: a practical agreement is suicidal and deadly. Replace the word sign up killing. "He could not sign but he wanted to sign and he fully intends to sign" becomes "He could not kill him, but he wanted to kill him and he has the intent to kill. "

If the resignation is necessary, it will not be enough.

Because the problem is broader than that of Bishop Fellay: liberalism has undermined the Brotherhood. Although most of its members are still values ​​a process of decay by the head began.

A prior, during a session of Theology, noted that he could not say: "Benedict XVI is a modernist." This prior also told a colleague no longer able in good conscience to the faithful to pray for "the conversion of Rome and the bishops' intention is nevertheless a part of those of the Brotherhood (Cor Unum No. 35). In Chartres, a prior, to justify the policy of Bishop Fellay, sought to convince me that the beatification of John Paul II was not so bad because "it is the man who is exalted" and not his doctrine and that of Assisi III initiative was not so outrageous because "that Benedict XVI has invited atheists show that it is not a religious meeting. "

They are always priors, France and despite the excellence of the ab. of Cacquearay!

Why after 200 years of revolution, 100 modernism, our little heads and our wills would it not have been deformed and crippled by liberalism? The Tradis would they be immune from the consequences of original sin? Liberalism has destroyed the Christian civilization, but the Brotherhood is free from this modern sin. By what miracle? By what merit? The Church is in crisis: yes, but never the Brotherhood? Presumptuous stupidity unbearable!

"The Catholic liberalism, is fear itself, sometimes hidden under the cloak of charity, sometimes in one of caution. Catholic liberalism is the slave of a cruel tyranny, the tyranny of opinion "(Bishops of Ecuador)

This poison should not exist in the fraternity? Our ancestors had to suffer in their church and witness in a church undermined by modernism. It is easy to rent but now we must imitate. In our turn we suffer in our priories and testify in a church undermined by liberalism. Our best example will Lefebvre and Castro Mayer. In 4000 only 300 bishops have seen clear on the 300 sighted only two acted effectively. What loneliness!

To end on a note of hope

1) "Socialism made considerable progress, but with the power of the existing masonry is everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, in Rome, which is everywhere. Masonry is everywhere and directs everything. Soon we will be stuck with computers, we all have our number and we can not do anything without everything being said on the record that we have and all that computer. We will be in a worse position in a Soviet country. [...] This is terrible, we can not imagine to what is currently going towards socialization, which apparently does not seem as hard as that of communism and yet, ultimately, will simply be a picture of Communism, but by scientists means instead of being carried out by force, as did the Communists: it will be the same. Then remove from society those who do not want to submit to this order [...]. They eliminate. There will always be means to eliminate them. [...] We really are going to a terrible company, which calls itself free and will be no more, but no freedom. "(. Lefebvre, conf August 22, 1979, Priory of St. Pius X, Shawinigan, Quebec) Hervé Ryssen said about who governs the world: ask not that you do you have the right to criticize?

2) "In the mystical sense, the fig tree is the figure of the ѕуηαgσgυє. When he starts to turn green and cover herself with pride of his sins, like green leaves, while summer is near [the heat of persecution is close]. The time of the Antichrist is called abomination, because it is against God, to usurp the honor that is due to God. The Jєωs will for it to sit in the holiest place of the temple, and the infidels make him divine honors. And as the particular nature of the error after the Jєωs rejected the truth will embrace the lie, the Savior commands his disciples to abandon Judea and flee to the mountains, fleeing a people who must believe in the Antichrist. "(St. Hilaire 380 about the Gospel of late tempscité by St. Thomas)

3) "As the world nears its end, the bad and the deceivers have more advantage. It is found almost more faith on the earth, that is to say, it will have almost completely disappeared from all earthly institutions. The believers themselves hardly dare make a public profession and social beliefs. The Church, society probably still visible, will be increasingly reduced to merely individual and household proportions. There will for the Church on earth as a real defeat: "it shall be given unto the beast to make war with the saints and to overcome them" (Rev. XIII-7) "(Address of Archbishop Pius in Nantes November 8, 1859)

4) "Someone accuses me of being rigid and troubled minds. In the revolutionary process that disarms the charge is normal [...] We oppose a temporary and misleading absolute: the tranquility of the people. Disturbing warning of mortal danger, trouble saying'' the flow will blow you away,'' or,'' Fire'' here is rigid. It is inflexible. As if the shock, alarm, surprise, emotion is not the natural alarms. That we must jump, swim, stand, that evil? And not sinking and drowning? This deceptive peace that is in sleep disorder, Our Lord has cursed when he said: "I came not to send peace, but a sword. - My peace is not the world. " But'' rigid'' disarm. We do not dare answer:'' In revolution, only farms souls are preserved, it is hooked to the Absolute as the revolutionary wind does not prevail'' [...] Some readers complain that heresy is. unclear in 1970 as the sixteenth century. There, at least, they say, you know what to expect. View naive - the heresy appeared immediately as well ... at first insightful eyes, there was not "believers" and "unbelievers", but close and wide [pink] . "(Miss Luce Quenette, May 1970 Route No. 143)

I much prefer my place of persecution, but in peace, than those troubled and disfigured our Fraternity. My goal is to spread peace in defending the truth violated. And this is the peace of Christ and not the world.

The Society is changing by the fault of his bad leaders. Their deceptions and forfeitures were pretty proven. There is no time to write but to act. Menzingen policy is dishonest and liberal. This is long term, it needs to stop and it will stop.

Whatever the priest of the Society, its right to exercise the ministry of the faithful is: it is a right of substitution. I am a priest to spread Christ and defeat enemies. My priory is France. You can count on my availability. Wherever you are in France, use our services and we will visit. We will help you to protect liberalism that undermines us. Contact the friendly sites: The Firs, with pristine, A bishop rose ... and you my contact information.



Pray for me and God bless you.

Father Olivier Rioult