http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/declaration-on-the-occasion-of-the-25th-anniversary-of-the-episcopal-consecrations-30th-june-1988-27th-june-2013/

For the record: Declaration of bishops of Society of St.Pius X on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecrations

1- On the occasion of the 25th [anniversary of the consecrations of 30] June 1988. Most especially they would like to express their filial gratitude towards their venerable founder who, after so many years spent serving the Church and the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to safeguard the Faith and the Catholic priesthood, did not hesitate to suffer the unjust accusation of disobedience.

2- In his letter addressed to us before the consecrations, he wrote, “I beseech you to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all churches, in the integral Catholic Faith, as expressed in the Professions of Faith, in the catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with that which you have been taught in the seminary. Remain faithful to the transmission of this Faith so that the reign of Our Lord may come.” It is indeed this phrase which expresses the profound reason for the act which he was going to undertake “so that the reign of Our Lord might come,” adveniat regnum tuum!

3- Following Archbishop Lefebvre, we affirm that the cause of the grave errors which are in the process of demolishing the Church does not reside in a bad interpretation of the conciliar texts – a “hermeneutic of rupture” which would be opposed to a “hermeneutic of reform in continuity” – but truly in the texts themselves, by virtue of the unheard of choice made by Vatican II. This choice is manifest in its docuмents and in its spirit; faced with “secular and profane humanism,” faced with the “religion (as indeed it is) of man who makes himself God,” the Church as unique custodian of Revelation “of God who became man” has wanted to make known its “new humanism” by saying to the modern world, “we too, we more than any other, have the cult of man.” (Paul VI, closing speech, 7th December 1965). But this coexistence of the cult of God and the cult of man is radically opposed to the Catholic Faith which teaches us to render the supreme cult and to give the primacy exclusively to the one true God and to only His Son, Jesus Christ, in whom “dwelleth all the fullness of the Divinity corporeally” (Col. 2:9).

4- We are truly obliged to observe that this Council without comparison, which wanted to be merely pastoral and not dogmatic, inaugurated a new type of magisterium, hitherto unheard of in the Church, without roots in Tradition; a magisterium resolved to reconcile Catholic doctrine with liberal ideas; a magisterium imbued with the modernist ideas of subjectivism, of immanentism and of perpetual evolution according to the false concept of a living tradition, vitiating the nature, the content, the role and the exercise of ecclesiastical magisterium.

5- Henceforth the reign of Christ is no longer the preoccupation of the ecclesiastical authorities, despite the fact that Christ’s words, “all power is given to me on earth and in heaven,” (Mt 28:18) remain an absolute truth and an absolute reality. To deny them in action is tantamount to no longer recognising in practice the divinity of Our Lord. Hence because of the Council, the sovereignty of Christ over human societies is simply ignored, and even combatted, and the Church is imbued with this liberal spirit which manifests itself especially in religious liberty, ecuмenism, collegiality and the New Mass.

6- Religious Liberty, as exposed by Dignitatis humanae and its practical application these last fifty years, logically leads to demanding God-made-Man to renounce His reign over man-who-makes-himself-God, which is equivalent to dissolving Christ. In the place of a conduct which is inspired by a solid faith in the real power of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we see the Church being shamefully guided by human prudence and with such self-doubt that she asks nothing other from the State than that which the Masonic Lodges wish to concede to her: the common law in the midst of, and on the same level as, other religions which she no longer dares call false.

7- In the name of a ubiquitous ecuмenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and of a vain inter-religious dialogue (Nostra Aetate), the truth about the one true Church is silenced; also, as a large part of the clergy and the faithful no longer see in Our Lord and the Catholic Church the unique way of salvation, they have renounced to convert the adepts of false religions, leaving them rather in ignorance of the unique Truth. This ecuмenism has thus literally killed the missionary spirit through seeking a false unity, too often reducing the mission of the Church to that of delivering a message of a purely terrestrial peace and of a humanitarian role of lessening want in the world, placing it thereby in the wake of international organisations.

8- The weakening of faith in Our Lord’s divinity favours a dissolution of the unity of authority in the Church, by introducing a collegial, egalitarian and democratic spirit, (see Lumen Gentium). Christ is no longer the head from which everything flows, in particular the exercise of authority. The Sovereign Pontiff who no longer exercises effectively the fullness of his authority, and the bishops who – contrary to the teaching of Vatican I – esteem that they can collegially and habitually share the fullness of the supreme power, commit themselves thereby, with the priests, to listen to and to follow ‘the people of God,’ the new sovereign. This represents the destruction of authority and in consequence the ruin of Christian institutions: families, seminaries, religious institutes.

9- The New Mass, promulgated in 1969, diminishes the affirmation of the reign of Christ by the Cross (“regnavit a ligno Deus”). Indeed, the rite itself curtails and obscures the sacrificial and propitiatory nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Underpinning this new rite is the new and false theology of the paschal mystery. Both one and the other destroy Catholic spirituality as founded upon the sacrifice of Our Lord on Calvary. This Mass is penetrated with an ecuмenical and Protestant spirit, democratic and humanist, which empties out the sacrifice of the Cross. It illustrates the new concept of ‘the common priesthood of the baptised’ which undermines the sacramental priesthood of the priest.

10- Fifty years on, the causes persist and still engender the same effects. Hence today the consecrations retain their full justification. It was love of the Church which guided Archbishop Lefebvre and which guides his sons. It is the same desire to “pass on the Catholic priesthood in all its doctrinal purity and its missionary charity” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey) which animates the Society of Saint Pius X at the service of the Church, when it asks with insistence for the Roman authorities to regain the treasure of doctrinal, moral and liturgical Tradition.

11- This love of the Church explains the rule that Archbishop Lefebvre always observed: to follow Providence in all circuмstances, without ever allowing oneself to anticipate it. We mean to do the same: either when Rome returns to Tradition and to the Faith of all time – which would re-establish order in the Church; or when she explicitly acknowledges our right to profess integrally the Faith and to reject the errors which oppose it, with the right and the duty for us to oppose publicly the errors and the proponents of these errors, whoever they may be – which would allow the beginning of a re-establishing of order. Meanwhile, faced with this crisis which continues its ravages in the Church, we persevere in the defence of Catholic Tradition and our hope remains entire, as we know by the certitude of Faith that “the gates of hell will not prevail against her.” (Mt 16:18)

12- We mean to follow well the injunction of our dear and venerable Father in the episcopacy: “Dear friends, be my consolation in Christ, remain strong in the Faith, faithful to the true sacrifice of the Mass, to the true and holy Priesthood of Our Lord, for the triumph and the glory of Jesus in heaven and on earth” (Letter to the bishops). May the Holy Trinity, by the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, grant us the grace of fidelity to the episcopacy which we have received and which we want to exercise for the honour of God, the triumph of the Church and the salvation of souls.


Ecône, 27th June 2013, on the feast of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour

Bishop Bernard Fellay
Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
Bishop Alfonso de Galaretta

Call me a killjoy, but the first thing I notice is the absence of one of the 4 bishops Abp. Lefebvre consecrated.

As a matter of fact, it's +Williamson that's missing -- the priest +Lefebvre chose when he was only picking ONE candidate for consecration.

+Williamson isn't deceased, nor did he do anything scandalous. Therefore there's a big problem in the SSPX.

Ok, I admit that this declaration sounds better than what we've been hearing from the Society since 2012. However, I'm going to ask the same question I asked after reading Bishop Fellay's latest "letter to friends and benefactors" that was critical of Vatican II: where has THIS been the last few years? It seems that he's just resorting to damage control.

Look at #4:

We are truly obliged to observe that this Council without comparison, which wanted to be merely pastoral and not dogmatic, inaugurated a new type of magisterium, hitherto unheard of in the Church, without roots in Tradition; a magisterium resolved to reconcile Catholic doctrine with liberal ideas; a magisterium imbued with the modernist ideas of subjectivism, of immanentism and of perpetual evolution according to the false concept of a living tradition, vitiating the nature, the content, the role and the exercise of ecclesiastical magisterium.

Huh, that's not what Bishop Fellay said in his doctrinal preamble:

“The entire Tradition of the Catholic faith must be the criterion and the guide for understanding the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which in turn illuminates – i.e. deepens and further makes explicit– some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church, implicitly present in her midst or not yet conceptually formulated.” (Bishop Fellay, 2012 Doctrinal Preamble)

So which is it, Bishop Fellay?

If Bishop Fellay is truly sorry for what he's done, where is his apology to the faithful? Where is his apology to Bishop Williamson and the other priests he expelled? Where is his offer to let them back in? And as Matthew noted, +Williamson isn't mentioned in the letter, and he likely won't be mentioned by the Society at all during the 25th anniversary of the Consecrations. He was +ABL's FIRST (and originally only) choice for the Consecrations, and he's being deliberately ignored. It's sick.

Sorry, but while this declaration seems decent, it's doesn't do much to repair the damage. It may be a first step, but there's still a long way to go. People who want to ooh and ahh over this are welcome to, but the declaration doesn't change the fact that the Neo-SSPX is still a liberal cult headed by a Bishop who was prepared to sell out his flock to the modernist wolves in Rome (he's already succuмbed to the modern world, i.e. his hiring of the secular PR firm and his relations with the pro-Israel Maximilian Krah).

When Bishop Fellay issues a public apology for his actions and a public retraction of his liberal remarks last year, apologizes to the priests he expelled and offers to let them back in (including +Williamson), and promises to remain faithful to the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre and never attempt to "reconcile" with modernist Rome again until they convert, then I will support him. Until then, I'm not impressed by whatever sugar-coated slop Menzingen puts out.

If Bishop Fellay is turning back to the Truth and wants to make amends it would have to start with ACTION not words.  "Words, words, words, all I hear is words..."  Words are always backed up with action or they are meaningless.  Let's see some decisions to free the priests that are being disciplined so they can be effective in declaring the Faith again like the 3 of the 37 French priests, and the ones sent to Africa to shut them up, not to mention bringing back into the fold Father's Hewko, Pfeiffer, Chazal, and His Excellency Bishop Williamson.  All this is is WORDS to deceive the faithful, like the Harry's out there.  Lets see some action.

Incidentally, re the three Bishops' ignoring Bishop Williamson's existence, we can imagine that Archbishop Lefebvre must be turning in his grave.  He was such a forgiving person and so charitable ... this has obviously not rubbed off on these 3 Bishops!

He was not so forgiving to the Nine....just saying.

It's  worth noting again this from Bishop Williamson. An extract from

Bishop Williamson's Open Letter to Bishop Fellay on the Expulsion:



OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP FELLAY
ON AN “EXCLUSION”

London, 19 October, 2012

Your Excellency,

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22261&min=5&num=5

In brief, your Excellency, you may now go ahead and exclude me, because the arguments above are not likely to persuade you, but the exclusion will be more apparent than real. I have been a member of the Archbishop’s Society ever since my perpetual engagement. I have been one of its priests for 36 years. I have been one of its bishops, like yourself, for nearly a quarter of a century. That is not all to be wiped out with one stroke of a pen. Member of the Archbishop’s Society I therefore remain, and I wait.

Had you remained faithful to the Archbishop’s heritage, and had I myself been notably unfaithful, gladly I would recognize your right to exclude me. But things being as they are, I hope I shall not be lacking in the respect due to your office if I suggest that for the glory of God, for the salvation of souls, for the internal peace of the Society and for your own eternal salvation, you would do better yourself to resign as Superior General than to exclude myself. May the good Lord give you the grace, the light and the strength to perform such an outstanding act of humility and of devotion to the common good of everybody.

And so, as I have so often finished the letters I have written to you over the years,

Dominus tecuм, may the Lord be with you.

+Richard Williamson.

Just in case, here is the post I mentioned:

"Très belle profession s'il n'y avait pas l'article N° 11:

 
Quote:
11- Cet amour de l’Eglise explique la règle que Mgr Lefebvre a toujours observée : suivre la Providence en toutes circonstances, sans jamais se permettre de la devancer. Nous entendons faire de même, soit que Rome revienne bientôt à la Tradition et à la foi de toujours – ce qui rétablira l’ordre dans l’Eglise –, soit qu’elle nous reconnaisse explicitement le droit de professer intégralement la foi et de rejeter les erreurs qui lui sont contraires, avec le droit et le devoir de nous opposer publiquement aux erreurs et aux fauteurs de ces erreurs, quels qu’ils soient – ce qui permettra un début de rétablissement de l’ordre. En attendant, face à cette crise qui continue ses ravages dans l’Église, nous persévérons dans la défense de la Tradition catholique et notre espérance demeure entière, car nous savons de foi certaine que « les portes de l’enfer ne prévaudront point contre elle » (Mt 16, 18).  

   
Il y a très peu de chance que Rome reconnaisse sincèrement à la Fraternité "explicitement le droit de professer intégralement la foi et de rejeter les erreurs qui lui sont contraires, avec le droit et le devoir de nous opposer publiquement aux erreurs et aux fauteurs de ces erreurs, quels qu’ils soient", mais ces phrases, malheureusement, laissent la porte ouverte à un ralliement sans accord préalable sur la foi.

Que Mgr Tissier de Mallerais ait approuvé ce texte est très décevant.

J'apprends également qu'il n'y avait que fort peu de fidèles à cette cérémonie, 200 tout au plus me dit-on. Il y avait par contre une soixantaine de prêtres, religieux et religieuses... Parmi les prêtres et religieux éminents, certains faisaient très triste mine, me dit-on encore.

Nous ne sommes pas au bout de nos peines."

I wonder if many SSPX attendees canceled their subscriptions to Eleison Comments when Bishop Williamson was expelled.