Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: padrepio on March 23, 2013, 08:33:50 AM
-
The following is a google translation from Non Possumus, Declaration from Father Ruiz. If someone can offer a better translation it would be greatly appreciated. (It seems this link works, but my computer is set to google translate auto.)
http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.mx/vcr.blogspot.mx/]
THE HORRIBLE FAILURE. - FATHER'S OPEN LETTER VALLEJO RUIZ HUGO THE FAITHFUL OF TRADITION OF MEXICO CITY.
J + M
THE HORRIBLE FAILURE
"When the salt loses its flavor ..."
C arta Father Hugo Ruiz open the faithful Vallejo
the tradition of Mexico City
Dear Friends in Christ,
Some of you will already be aware of my departure from my usual residence Casa San Jose, here in Mexico City. To avoid misunderstandings and perplexity among you is not only important but also necessary for me to give an explanation of the reasons which have created serious this need in me.
None of us should ignore the motivations that led to what today is called the traditional movement, to start this in various parts of the world but now mainly in the Society of Saint Pius X, the work of an exemplary bishop Marcel Lefebvre called the has tried to save the values ​​of the Catholic Church against the invasion of modernism that hit the Church of Christ above all by the Second Vatican Council called for all the reforms of the Church of which this council has been the efficient cause. This attack provoked a very legitimate defense motion made by genuine Catholics, which itself should be very natural and necessary. The struggle and the fight against the doctrinal errors of the modern world that was made by the popes of the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and particularly by Pope St. Pius X, was also the one we wanted to take and try to bring to an end .
However, we find, especially traditionalists who have known the beginning of this fight, which very gradually our superiors have gone down the tone of our demands and our struggle for the defense of the Faith has argued that first as a means to convert to Rome not only the fact and not as strongly denounce the deviations of churchmen, but also to approach ever closer with the official Church. The question is: this is a proportionate means to convert to Rome? Or just an illusion? Can someone convert disimulándole truth this truth? Can you make someone along the slope from their mistakes and their dialectic?
Many priests and faithful of the SSPX and friends see congregations increasingly omission concerns taking larger dimensions and misleading. An increasingly noticeable silence.
The fact is that the Romans have not given anything like the serious errors of Vatican II, nor the inhabitants of the New Mass (Novus Ordo Missae), or the result of that council reforms that affect the life of the whole Church; Rome but only made ​​some concessions of a political nature to bring the fraternity small concessions are not enough to be probantes regarding the fact that there is a real change of course in Rome, ie in the sense of tradition. On the contrary, it is found in all these negotiations and dialogues are filled diplomacy fold. We can not base our decisions solely on hearsay large or facts that are not in any way a test of the conversion of the churchmen.
The fact is that despite the failure of the famous doctrinal discussions, supposedly made ​​to convert to Rome, (and unpublished permenecen) any price you want to go ahead with this approach to Rome, amply dangerous conditions. And to top it off, as some people today only think that the fraternity made ​​an agreement to submit to Rome, importing little if Rome has become or not ...! ("I would say that before this sublime reality, talk about having agreements Rome or not, is a trifle. defend the faith, keep the faith, died in faith, that is the essential " Sermon of Bishop Fellay in Paris on January 30, 2013). But is that perhaps we rely on those who do not have the same principles that we Catholics? Is it possible to make a good pastoral without good doctrine? Perhaps those who do not have good pastoral doctrine could lead the traditionalists? How can we understand about the practice of faith, if we have the same principles as to the faith and morals? Perhaps? Francisco the new Pope has not started his pontificate recommending a heretical book at the very plaza Kasper San Pedro, Urbi et orbi ?! And do not be a pious idea of wanting to live in the cave of Alibaba and 40 thieves turn to Alibaba and the 40 thieves ... ? a very pious and full of realism ...
The conclusions of the last General Chapter of the Society have also been dramatically confirmed our fears, because in the official conclusion of this Fraternity leaders said what would be the six conditions that we were to accept an agreement with Rome or an adjustment in the system Roman. Of these three would be needed, and the other 3 "desirable" meaning that even if the Pope did not award them anyway we accept the saying "agreement". I note that a condition "desirable" is not a real condition. Much could be said of all these conditions, but the worst thing is that the first condition of the three "desirable": the decisions of our ecclesiastical courts could be dissolved by the courts of the Conciliar Church, and that our agreement! Ie they decide with their modernist principles in the pastoral care of priests of Tradition! Also, in the second condition of the "desirable", it is accepted in the possibility of relying on the local bishops, knowing full well how they want the opportunity to submit ideas and pastoral Vatican II! A true Tradition programmed ѕυιcιdє! Furthermore, in the third of these conditions, also accepted the possibility that directs the commission who represent us before the Pope, not a member of the Tradition! But how we could represent someone who does not think like us, and that is one of us ...! Father Maro Trejo, District Superior of Mexico, said recently in the journal of the District "Love Never Dies" (No. 41, p.7), that the declaration of the final chapter of the fraternity "every sentence, every word has been heavy and weighed to give a testimony of the faith of all times "... So, in these conditions, as may be always defended the faith by people who profess no more?
In any case, it has now become evident a new attitude towards Rome and its errors of those who run today SSPX, a new position full of omissions and willing to very serious commitments, that even if it were carried out, bring to mood light more than disturbing. There is a gradual failure of all that relates to our struggle, the objectives that Archbishop Lefebvre gave the fraternity who are both the reason for our existence and to justify the "necessity" for us to exercise our priestly ministry. If there is no "necessity", not theologically justify our not obedience to Rome, nor be justified obedience to authority higher than our present both invoke the Fraternity.
A foreign policy is a "policy" internal: ie in the same fraternity, and an increasingly more evident, is confirming the existence of a policy of repression against those who disagree with the new orientation of the fraternity. Pressing, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various ways to all those who express disagreement. This can add many gestures and increasingly disturbing statements. As he heard the Father Rafael Arízaga OSB Bishop Fellay's mouth in a spiritual conference at Winona seminarians of the last December 21 : "By reason of preserving the inner join, remove the paper that said 'no rejection entire Vatican II 'which really said. "
Monsignor Lefebvre advised against going to pardon Masses and Masses for groups and environments such as the Fraternity of St. Peter, because these environments are vitiated root in the sense that what was being taught and promoted, leading to short or long term to assimilation with the Conciliar Church. But if the SSPX changes its spirit and aims, could not get to have a state like this, the same or worse, even if it is at the moment concretizaran some agreements with Rome?
I myself have seen how many priests have changed their attitudes and ideas about this battle of tradition against their enemies, and this unfortunately more often in the new priests. I myself am a victim of this new line to our superiors, full of omissions regarding our struggle and our fight. Once in Rome are not many enemies, optimism gradually replaced natural distrust should have towards the wreckers of the Church. My District Superior Father Mario Trejo has forbidden me to talk about these issues not only in preaching but also in private! either the faithful or priests, and this under threat of severe punishment and mutation. And since I can not play more my mission as a priest in the Society, which is to teach the whole truth and denounce all the danger that could threaten the good of souls, I decided to continue my ministry outside the structure of the Fraternity, even if I still belong to it, and this for the good of the faithful in this Mexico City want to resort to my ministry. I hope you and my fellow priests, understand the reasons for this serious decision.
May God bless our Mother Guadalupe and light,
Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo, SSPX
The March 22, 2013
In Commemoration of the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin
-
It is great to read these letters, and I am thankful for the people posting them.
At the same time, there have been in the last week 4-5 great letters which could not be added to the "Collection of Resistance Writings" because they were left to disappear down the memory hole for lack of translation, or, were left as Google babble (like this one), and therefore unfit for dissemination, as they will leave the reader in doubt as to exact meaning when reality demands precision in such matters.
Don't get me wrong: I cant do any better, but it would be much appreciated if our multi-lingual readers could step up and do a little translating.
2 Letters from La Sapiniere have gone untranslated; this letter; a couple more in the last few days as well.
Sigh....
What I wouldn't give to be able to read Spanish and French!!!
-
Yes, members who are unable to help the Resistance by other means could contribute greatly by giving us accurate translations!
-
There seems to be a lack of unity and co-ordination within the 'resistance' which I would put down to:
1) Differences of opinion between those who still frequent SSPX centres and those who do not
2) Priests who are doing their own thing
3) Disagreement over the value of SSPX Masses
4) A desire to protect internal SSPX priests and thus water down resistance
5) The politics of each district and each parish
7) Linguistic and national barriers
8) Diffused leadership
Quite probably, Bp. W anticipated all this when formulating the 'loose association'. Even in his case he was going to treat the resistance differently in each country. Thus, he is soft towards the UK priests, yet declares Post Falls SSPX Masses to be questionable. Overall, I consider it to be a half-hearted approach and one that Menzingen can out-manoeuvre. The best that can come out of it is the establishment of more independent chapels serving displaced priests and laity. In spite of all this Recusant talk in London, I await to see at least one independent chapel there. Rebel conferences are not Mass centres!
-
There seems to be a lack of unity and co-ordination within the 'resistance' which I would put down to:
1) Differences of opinion between those who still frequent SSPX centres and those who do not
2) Priests who are doing their own thing
3) Disagreement over the value of SSPX Masses
4) A desire to protect internal SSPX priests and thus water down resistance
5) The politics of each district and each parish
7) Linguistic and national barriers
8) Diffused leadership
Quite probably, Bp. W anticipated all this when formulating the 'loose association'. Even in his case he was going to treat the resistance differently in each country. Thus, he is soft towards the UK priests, yet declares Post Falls SSPX Masses to be questionable. Overall, I consider it to be a half-hearted approach and one that Menzingen can out-manoeuvre. The best that can come out of it is the establishment of more independent chapels serving displaced priests and laity. In spite of all this Recusant talk in London, I await to see at least one independent chapel there. Rebel conferences are not Mass centres!
Regarding #4:
A) Abandoning the SSPX is not resistance.
B) It is the opposite: Surrendering the castle.
C) I am sure the 37 French District priests would not consider their actions "watering down the resistance" because they choose to remain anonymous in order to live to continue fighting within, until such time as a deal makes this approach impossible.
D) Some people choose to protect the good SSPX priests as a method of strengthening the resistance, not watering it down.
E) Implicit in your comment is the idea that a priest fighting the liberalism from within is not part of the resistance?
F) I will be seeing Bishop Williamson soon, and will be raising all these issues (and many more) with him.
Pax
-
There seems to be a lack of unity and co-ordination within the 'resistance' which I would put down to:
1) Differences of opinion between those who still frequent SSPX centres and those who do not
2) Priests who are doing their own thing
3) Disagreement over the value of SSPX Masses
4) A desire to protect internal SSPX priests and thus water down resistance
5) The politics of each district and each parish
7) Linguistic and national barriers
8) Diffused leadership
Quite probably, Bp. W anticipated all this when formulating the 'loose association'. Even in his case he was going to treat the resistance differently in each country. Thus, he is soft towards the UK priests, yet declares Post Falls SSPX Masses to be questionable. Overall, I consider it to be a half-hearted approach and one that Menzingen can out-manoeuvre. The best that can come out of it is the establishment of more independent chapels serving displaced priests and laity. In spite of all this Recusant talk in London, I await to see at least one independent chapel there. Rebel conferences are not Mass centres!
Regarding #4:
A) Abandoning the SSPX is not resistance.
Would you say the Fraternity of Archbishop Lefebvre had abandoned the Church???
I "supposedly" your answer is no. Therefore you should not say those who can not COMPROMISE with NEO-SSPX is not PART of the resistance.
I see you still didn't get over your "yellow light" (but never red) syndrome.
Pitiful !!!
-
When you sober up, read it again.
-
That is no need to sober up, your problem is worse than that Im afraid.
All you can claim on your part is some typos/autocorrection (I'm on my cell), but the message is just as clear as your statement of "abandoning the SSPX" equals not being part of the resistence.
Again, pitiful !!
Read the last paragraph of the last Eleison Comments!
Well, for who has openly and unjustly criticized Fr. Pfeiffer and even the Carmelites in Germany, I won't be surprised if +W will be the next victim of your whining and attacks...
-
That is no need to sober up, your problem is worse than that Im afraid.
All you can claim on your part is some typos/autocorrection (I'm on my cell), but the message is just as clear as your statement of "abandoning the SSPX" equals not being part of the resistence.
Again, pitiful !!
Read the last paragraph of the last Eleison Comments!
Well, for who has openly and unjustly criticized Fr. Pfeiffer and even the Carmelites in Germany, I won't be surprised if +W will be the next victim of your whining and attacks...
Incoherent babbling.
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
-
We are faced with the familiar argument: Do we stay and see how things develop or do we leave knowing that the Society has changed for good? This is an easier question for laymen than for priests whose careers have been wrapped up with the Society. But we do have experience of how traditionalists handled the conciliar changes and more recently how indult people fared inside the conciliar church. The record is not good for trads who think they can change things by remaining. Time erodes this initial determination.
At the end of the day though trads are resisting the conciliar church and cannot risk putting all their capital in the survival of just one expression of the movement. Afterall, Bp. W once said the aim of the SSPX is not to exist; he can quite easily transfer this sentiment to another apostolate and still feel he is doing the work of ABL.
-
We are faced with the familiar argument: Do we stay and see how things develop or do we leave knowing that the Society has changed for good? This is an easier question for laymen than for priests whose careers have been wrapped up with the Society. But we do have experience of how traditionalists handled the conciliar changes and more recently how indult people fared inside the conciliar church. The record is not good for trads who think they can change things by remaining. Time erodes this initial determination.
At the end of the day though trads are resisting the conciliar church and cannot risk putting all their capital in the survival of just one expression of the movement. Afterall, Bp. W once said the aim of the SSPX is not to exist; he can quite easily transfer this sentiment to another apostolate and still feel he is doing the work of ABL.
Implicit in your first sentence is the idea that the only two options are passive spectatorship and desertion.
I would point to the French 37, et al, to testify to the effectiveness of active internal resistance.
This 3rd option has effectively check-mated the sellout for the time being, while passive spectatorship or desertion both facilitate it.
When internal resistance is snuffed, the sellout will come to fruition.
-
This 3rd option has effectively check-mated the sellout for the time being, while passive spectatorship or desertion both facilitate it.
When internal resistance is snuffed, the sellout will come to fruition.
I agree.When they have culled all of those who resist, how much easier to present the whole package, albeit somewhat smaller, nicely wrapped with a bow, to Rome. It is much nicer when the gift package doesn't growl at the recipient.
-
So, to sum up this thread: am I right in thinking that still no English translation has yet been made of Fr. Ruiz Vallejo's words?
Forgive me for sounding a little frustrated, but I do think that all of the effort expended in this thread so far might have been more usefully spent in finding us a Spanish-English translator. There must be one person out there whose Spanish is good enough?
-
So, to sum up this thread: am I right in thinking that still no English translation has yet been made of Fr. Ruiz Vallejo's words?
Forgive me for sounding a little frustrated, but I do think that all of the effort expended in this thread so far might have been more usefully spent in finding us a Spanish-English translator. There must be one person out there whose Spanish is good enough?
As well as a French-English one (i.e., We never got to read the last 2 La Sapiniere letters of the "French 37").
-
http://www.therecusant.com/fr-hugoruizvallejo
-
The pertinent part being:
I myself have commented on how many priests have changed their attitude towards the combat of Tradition against the enemy, and unfortunately this has been more frequently the case with new priests. I am myself a victim of this new line from our superiors, a line full of omissions about struggle and our combat. Already, they're not seeing many enemies in Rome; optimism has little by little replaced the distrust which one ought naturally to feel towards the destroyers of the Church. My District Superior, Fr. Mario Trejo has forbidden me to speak about these subjects: not just in sermons, but also in private! Whether it be with the faithful or with other priests, and that with the threat of transfer and severe punishments.
And since I cannot accomplish my mission as a priest from within the Society, a mission which conists of showing forth the truth and denouncing danger which threatens souls, I have decided to continue my ministry outside the structure of the Society, although I continue to be a member of it, and this is for the good of the faithful who are in Mexico City and who wissh to have recourse to my priestly ministry. I hope that you, as well as my fellow priests, will understand the reasons for this serious decision.
May God, through Our Lady of Guadalupe, bless and enlighten you,
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo, SSPX
22nd March, 2013
In memory of the Seven Dolours of Our Lady.
-
I wonder if the actions of Pope Francis will cause the optimism to be replaced with mistrust. I hope so anyway, unless of course there are miraculous conversions.
-
The pertinent part being:
I myself have commented on how many priests have changed their attitude towards the combat of Tradition against the enemy, and unfortunately this has been more frequently the case with new priests. I am myself a victim of this new line from our superiors, a line full of omissions about struggle and our combat. Already, they're not seeing many enemies in Rome; optimism has little by little replaced the distrust which one ought naturally to feel towards the destroyers of the Church. My District Superior, Fr. Mario Trejo has forbidden me to speak about these subjects: not just in sermons, but also in private! Whether it be with the faithful or with other priests, and that with the threat of transfer and severe punishments.
And since I cannot accomplish my mission as a priest from within the Society, a mission which consists of showing forth the truth and denouncing danger which threatens souls, I have decided to continue my ministry outside the structure of the Society, although I continue to be a member of it, and this is for the good of the faithful who are in Mexico City and who wish to have recourse to my priestly ministry. I hope that you, as well as my fellow priests, will understand the reasons for this serious decision.
May God, through Our Lady of Guadalupe, bless and enlighten you,
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo, SSPX
22nd March, 2013
In memory of the Seven Dolours of Our Lady.
Imagine it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume most District Superiors currently run their territories with the same policy.
Yes-men, purposely hand picked to implement this cowardly campaign of silence as ordered from Menzingen.
We earnestly pray that many more good priests will find the courage & grace to follow the heroic example of Fr. Vallejo.
Priests who refuse to trade the convenience of compromise for their vocation to preach the TRUTH in and out of season.
"In this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will fall silent.” - Our Lady of Good Success; Jan. 20th, 1610
-
A German translation can be found here:
Der offene Brief von P. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo an die Gläubigen (http://poschenker.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/fsspx-der-offene-brief-von-p-hugo-ruiz-vallejo-an-die-glaubigen/)
(24. März 2013 von P.O.Schenker)
-
If young priests are more accepting of the world and the conciliar church, what hope is there inside the SSPX? ABL's mission to continue what was handed to him by the old church is coming to a halt there. And if trads cannot move in step with this new generation of priests, their only recourse is to leave as my parents did from the mainstream in the 1970s.
-
If young priests are more accepting of the world and the conciliar church, what hope is there inside the SSPX? ABL's mission to continue what was handed to him by the old church is coming to a halt there. And if trads cannot move in step with this new generation of priests, their only recourse is to leave as my parents did from the mainstream in the 1970s.
So leave.
Just don't tell me i have to give up on the sspx because you are.
-
So, to sum up this thread: am I right in thinking that still no English translation has yet been made of Fr. Ruiz Vallejo's words?
Forgive me for sounding a little frustrated, but I do think that all of the effort expended in this thread so far might have been more usefully spent in finding us a Spanish-English translator. There must be one person out there whose Spanish is good enough?
As well as a French-English one (i.e., We never got to read the last 2 La Sapiniere letters of the "French 37").
I would normally have translate Fr Ruiz letter, but am in bed with flu without a proper keyboard. Hopefully my situation will improve in the next week. Most frustrating meanwhile with just a smart phone.
These things are sent to try us. We must keep strong and determined.
God bless all those in this 'Cristero' battle.
Viva Cristo Rey!
-
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=23729&min=0#p4)
There seems to be a lack of unity and co-ordination within the 'resistance' which I would put down to:
1) Differences of opinion between those who still frequent SSPX centres and those who do not
2) Priests who are doing their own thing
3) Disagreement over the value of SSPX Masses
4) A desire to protect internal SSPX priests and thus water down resistance
5) The politics of each district and each parish
7) Linguistic and national barriers
8) Diffused leadership
Quite probably, Bp. W anticipated all this when formulating the 'loose association'. Even in his case he was going to treat the resistance differently in each country. Thus, he is soft towards the UK priests, yet declares Post Falls SSPX Masses to be questionable. Overall, I consider it to be a half-hearted approach and one that Menzingen can out-manoeuvre. The best that can come out of it is the establishment of more independent chapels serving displaced priests and laity. In spite of all this Recusant talk in London, I await to see at least one independent chapel there. Rebel conferences are not Mass centres!
Regarding #4:
A) Abandoning the SSPX is not resistance.
B) It is the opposite: Surrendering the castle.
C) I am sure the 37 French District priests would not consider their actions "watering down the resistance" because they choose to remain anonymous in order to live to continue fighting within, until such time as a deal makes this approach impossible.
D) Some people choose to protect the good SSPX priests as a method of strengthening the resistance, not watering it down.
E) Implicit in your comment is the idea that a priest fighting the liberalism from within is not part of the resistance?
F) I will be seeing Bishop Williamson soon, and will be raising all these issues (and many more) with him.
Pax
So, how did your meeting go? Were you able to speak to +W about all these
things? Can you let us know what he had to say?
So, to sum up this thread: am I right in thinking that still no English translation has yet been made of Fr. Ruiz Vallejo's words?
Forgive me for sounding a little frustrated, but I do think that all of the effort expended in this thread so far might have been more usefully spent in finding us a Spanish-English translator. There must be one person out there whose Spanish is good enough?
As well as a French-English one (i.e., We never got to read the last 2 La Sapiniere letters of the "French 37").
I would normally have translate[d?] Fr Ruiz letter, but am in bed with flu without a proper keyboard. Hopefully my situation will improve in the next week. Most frustrating meanwhile with just a smart phone.
These things are sent to try us. We must keep strong and determined.
God bless all those in this 'Cristero' battle.
Viva Cristo Rey!
Sorry to hear of your illness, 1531.
I hope you have recovered well. I haven't had a cold or the 'flu' for about
2 years now. I've almost forgotten what it's like!
I don't read Spanish very well, so this letter has me stumped, too. Have you
had a chance to give it a once-over into English yet?
It's easy to forget these things. But there is still a need for this letter's
circulation. I know several people who would like to see a copy.
-
I won't totally give up on the SSPX but I also won't go there as often bc I just don't feel at home there any longer with the Fellay-Pflueger-Krah regime in control...I would really like to buy that chapel for sale in SC I saw and give it to the SSPXMC....then they would come here every wkend.