In 2007, French SSPX priest, Fr. Gregoire Celier, wrote a book called "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists."

It was a hallucination which seems in many respects to have been adopted by Bishop Fellay as the blueprint for the ralliement.

The book was subjected to a remarkable critique by a Frenchman named Paul Chaussee, who it seems to us has hit the nail on the head.

Because of the length of the critique (42 pages/7 of endnotes), I am attaching the translation, rather than copy/pasting it.

If you study any one single docuмent regarding the ralliement of the SSPX, and desire to know its causes and methods, YOU NEED TO STUDY THIS DOcuмENT.

THIS

IS

IT!

PS: You will need to log in to see/read/download the translation.

As time permits, I will translate and upload Mr. Chaussee's three appendices, which help to further pull back the mask.

Modernists think long-term; the new-sspx and most of their laity is thinking short-term.

Modernists think "If I can get the sspx to accept most of V2, to accept a new-rite bishop, to accept new-rite sacraments, then in 30 years, once all their current bishops are dead, I can replace the "conservative" new-rite bishops with whomever I choose."  The new-sspx/laity thinks "If we can be accepted by new-rome, then they'll change (somehow) for the good."

Modernists think "If I can gain control of the new-sspx's property and get them to pledge obedience to new-rome, then if we start pressuring them to be more liberal, they'll have no choice but to slowly liberalize because they can't say no, since they have no chapels or nowhere else to go."  The new-sspx/laity thinks "If new-rome gives us a personal prelature, then we'll be able to continue doing what we're doing and nothing will change for the worse."

The fact of the matter is, new-rome has all the authority, control and negotiating power once the new-sspx signs a deal.  New-rome knows this, which is why they are perfectly content to give a prelature, to "legalize" the old mass, to "give jurisdiction for confessions" because all these things can be changed in the future.  What the new-sspx can NEVER get back after a deal is their property, their autonomy and their control over their future.

 
In his autobiographical book My Life - Memories, Cardinal Ratzinger tells us a few facts about his formation that shed light on his current behavior. Because of the 1939-1945 war, the young Joseph Ratzinger (born on April 16, 1927) could only do disturbed and incomplete studies where many subjects were left to his personal taste 87. Thus, he acknowledges that at the seminary, "we did not want to be content with theology in the narrow sense of the term, but to listen to the man of today". His choices were oriented in a rather profane sense ("we devoured the novels that everyone read"), or modern in the philosophical field. "On the other hand, I had difficulty understanding Saint Thomas Aquinas, whose crystalline logic seemed to me to be far too closed in on itself, too impersonal and too stereotypical. "After only two years in the diocesan seminary, Ratzinger asked and obtained from his bishop to be able to enroll in the Faculty of Theology at the University of Munich where the teaching staff was more liberal and modern in spirit. Thus one of his masters led him to read Father de Lubac, a theologian already condemned by Rome, but who exerted a certain influence on him. Another professor of exegesis showed him the "specific fertility of the balance between dogma and liberalism" (as if it was not the dogma that had to be defended against liberalism!).

Finally, in these Memories we find the genesis, in 1957, of this famous living Tradition in a very personal if not erroneous conception of Revelation. Indeed, to obtain the aggregation, Father Ratzinger had to present a thesis that he devoted to the concept of Revelation in St. Bonaventure. However, the "critical" part of this work was rejected because it professed "a dangerous modernism, on the way to making the concept of Revelation a subjective notion". In his Memoirs, Cardinal Ratzinger denies any validity to the criticisms of his teacher and censor of 1957. On the contrary, he defends his personal ideas on Revelation and "establishes a relationship between Revelation and Tradition, but always in the light of the subjective concept of revelation that he professes."88 

In summary, here are the three main points of the Cardinal's thought on this subject:

-In Revelation, there is always an action, the act by which God reveals Himself. This concept of "revelation" always involves the subject who receives; where no one receives "revelation," there is no revelation because nothing has been revealed.

-The idea of Revelation implies that someone must be aware of it.  Revelation becomes a fact of the consciousness of the subject who receives it, it is precisely subjectivized and, without the participation of the subject, it is not what it is, it is not revelation.

-According to modern and secular [and subjective] philosophy, there is no truth independent of the thought of the subject who thinks it; our thought does not recognize the truth that is already in the thing, but it creates it as from nothing. In the same way, the "perceiving subject" must consider himself as a constituent element of the concept of Revelation.

-Thus, the revealed truth is still susceptible to further "possession" and therefore to further and new developments on the part of the "perceiving subject" who is the Church. To the supposed developments of this subject must in fact correspond developments in the revealed truth, since it is not so without the participation of this subject. 

-Truth, being constituted by the (changing) thought of the subject, is realized in degrees, in relation to the historical evolution or consciousness of the subject himself, and thus in an endless process, in a dimension always open to the new, that is, open to new determinations of what is considered true in the spirit of the time. 

-The principle that the Revelation ended with the last Apostle 89 is therefore no longer valid. 

-According to the point of view expressed by the Cardinal, the essential meaning of Tradition, to be grasped in the link between Scripture and Tradition, is therefore that Tradition does not result from the unchanging truth revealed by God, but from the truth that the "receiving subject" constitutes in Revelation in a historically gradual and progressive way, because gradual and progressive is the development of this "receiving subject" itself which acts under the sign of "self-consciousness".
 
 In other words, more simply, Tradition is gradual and progressive according to the development of the subject; it is therefore living and subjective.
 
Endnotes:
86 Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER, Ma vie - Souvenirs (1927-1997), Fayard 1998. In its n° 207, December 1998, under the title: "Memories of a "new theologian", the Courrier de Rome - Si si No no highlights "some useful points to understand the current crisis of the Church". This detailed and highly enlightening analysis occupies the eight pages of this issue.

87 It should be noted that the young Karol WOJTYLA, future Pope John Paul II, also suffered from the war because of a lack of training in theology and philosophy, but this did not prevent him from rapidly rising in the hierarchy. 

88 See Courrier de Rome (B.P. 156, 78001 Versailles Cedex) No. 207, December 1998, p. 5. This critical study is lengthy and we quote in Annex I the important passages allowing the reader to form an opinion on Benedict XVI's misconceptions of Revelation and Tradition. The author cites Cardinal Ratzinger's autobiography and recalls the refutations of these errors according to the traditional theology of the Church, refutations that we have not reproduced here because they are far from the subject of this study.
89 However, the Lamentabili Decree (Pius X, July 3, 1907) disapproves and outlaws the proposal: "The Revelation which constitutes the object of the Catholic faith was not complete with the Apostles. "(Proposal XXI).

An overview of his works reveals who Fr. Gregory Celier was who directed the media of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X for thirteen years; what spirit animates him? And what is probably his purpose in taking a leading role in the writing of the book Benedict XVI and the traditionalists?

Here are some books that are all signed "Grégoire Celier" or a pseudonym, as if the tactics of this priest-philosopher were always to "go forward hidden".

1987 - Grégoire Celier, The Ecuмenical Dimension of Liturgical Reform. Editions FIDELITER, Le Pointet, Escurolles. © G. CELIER.  

It is the work of a scholar who has accuмulated more than 300 quotations, most of which are contrary to traditional doctrine, but none of which are corrected by a reminder of the truth. Thus, in the foreground, a quotation from Archbishop Annibale Bugnini (but of course!):

"Liturgical reform is a great conquest of the Catholic Church, with important ecuмenical repercussions; not only has it aroused the admiration of other Churches and Christian communities, but it also represents a kind of model for them. » (1974).  

But Celier forgets to say that in 1975, we discovered with amazement that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason! In his Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 10, Bishop Lefebvre wrote: "When we learn in Rome that he who was the soul of the liturgical reform is a Freemason, we can think that he is not the only one. The veil that covers the greatest mystification of clerics and the faithful has probably begun to be torn. "A revealing omission, twenty years ago already.

This book could be signed by a progressive conciliarist or by a Protestant. The warning contains no criticisms of neo-Modernist ecuмenism and there is no reference to the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pius XI, (1928) condemning this modern ecuмenism. Obviously, the author has forgotten the Apostle's precept: "I implore you... insist in time and against time, correct, correct, threaten, exhort, always with patience and instruction. " (II Timothy 4:1-2).

So how could this pernicious book be allowed to be published when it was a lying by omission?  

1993 - Grégoire CELIER, The School of the Barruel Papers – The Future of an illusion.  GRICHA Publishing.

In this booklet 90, we recognize the main arguments that Paul Sernine [one of Fr. Celier’s pseudonyms] used in 2003 in The Straw and the Sycamore (see below). The texts are identical. Sernine has copied in full, word for word (except for rare minor editorial corrections), the three paragraphs "The silence of the Magisterium", "The intellectual impossibility" and "The argument of prescription" which, unique arguments of Celier's demonstration, become the three central chapters of Sernine's book.

Finally, it is important to note two things:

-On the 4th page of the cover, there is this warning: "This brochure is not distributed to the public and should be considered as a purely private study; please do not mention it or its author in a publication. Grégoire CELIER. Address: CFH, B.P. 337-16, 75767 Paris Cedex 16, France "
-The logo of Éditions GRICHA is a black cat with a bristly coat and all claws outside; it is surrounded by the phrase "At night all cats are grey." [Strange, isn't it?]

1994 - Gregoire CELIER, The Torn Church - A Call to "Catholics Ecclesia Dei". Editions FIDELITER, Eguelshardt, (April) 1994. Éditions Gricha, 1994. Address given for sending "criticisms, remarks and additional information": CFH, B.P. 337-16, 75767 PARIS.

This work is more a polite polemic with the "Ralliés" than a defense of Tradition in liturgy. Many of the texts cited in defense of traditional liturgy would have been better used in the book The Ecuмenical Dimension of Liturgical Reform. It should also be noted that in this book - disappointing as a whole - G. Celier shows that Rome had no intention of granting the "Ralliés" the freedom to practice and teach Tradition, but that the freedom granted was strictly limited. He seems to have forgotten this lesson by talking to Mr. Pichon.  

Finally, it should be noted that even if published by Fideliter, Grégoire Celier wishes to keep the copyright © to Éditions Gricha. [Strange, isn't it?]

1994 - Grégoire CELIER, The Mortal God: An Invitation to Philosophy, Éditions Fideliter, Eguelshardt 1994 (October). On the front page: © Gricha and his kittens, 1994 [the grey cat and his kittens] and the invitation: "Thank you for sending your criticisms, remarks and additional information to Grégoire CELIER, address; CFH, B.P. 337-16, 75767 Paris Cedex 16."

On the same page, the author would like to thank his "fellow philosophy teachers Alain-Marc, Daniel, etc., twelve people designated by their sole first name. No patronymic; it is assumed that it is the "kittens" that Mr. Celier does not want to compromise by revealing their identity. [Strange precaution, isn't it, for a 36-year-old teacher?]
This book, which presents itself as a dialogue between the master and his disciple, is a kind of invitation to philosophy and opens with this mysterious (if not esoteric) exercise:

I used to have a little game, I liked to turn around and crawl into my brain. I think you know the game I'm talking about? I'm talking about this game called "going crazy".  
This little game is fun.  Just close your eyes, it's impossible to lose.  I'm here, I'm coming too.  Let yourself go, we'll go to the other side.        
J. M. [Jim Morrison]
[Strange, isn't it?]

To avoid being questioned by the uninitiated, Celier warns them: "We must be careful not to identify the author with one of the protagonists in the dialogue, or even with their meeting. If he had spoken for himself, the editor would probably have said something else. But he preferred to give his characters a certain freedom of tone and thought, so that he did not necessarily take responsibility for all the statements made in their conversations."

The free Journal of Serge de Beketch (n° 55 of 30.12.1994) confirms that Gregoire Celier is a priest, a professor of philosophy, and that the title The Mortal God refers to man.  

But the worst is revealed by the careful reading of the book: when it is closed, one wonders what is Catholic about the philosophy to which Celier wants to introduce his young readers. When, after many detours, he finally addresses the question of God, "To be supreme", it is to make an agnostic response (p. 275) and leave everyone to their own research (p. 290). As a Catholic priest, he should have at least referred to the Revelation by indicating the beginning of the paths that would allow us to approach it without getting lost in the maze of secondary questions and false philosophies, but he does not do so. As a Catholic professor, he could have referred to works of good popularization by the Thomists, but he only quotes practically pagan, or naturalistic, or skeptical authors, in short, bad authors whose reading only leads to dead ends where some saints are lost: Augustine, Thomas, Gregory the Great... In this respect, the appendix speaks for itself.  

The two reviews in Le Sel de la terre (No. 12, Spring 1995, pp. 170-182) reveal many other points of criticism, but I limit myself here to what made me classify this book as useless and even bad.

And let us note again on the cover page:" © Gricha and his kittens, 1994" [the grey cat and his kittens] and the invitation:" Please send your criticisms, remarks and additional information to Grégoire CELIER, address; CFH, B.P. 337-16, 75767 Paris Cedex 16."

2003 - Paul Sernine [Fr. Celier’s alias], The Straw and the Sycamore -About Gnosis, Éditions Servir. In his Warning, the Publisher (by Nouvelle revue Certitude n° 13, we know that it is Fr. William Tanoüarn, but why, in this book, does he also hide his identity?) announces the thesis p. 7 : By "the love of truth" (sic!), Paul Sernine will refute with competence and method the characteristic statement of the Barruel Papers  and in particular of Mr Etienne Couvert: "In any error, "there is a key..., and it is "gnosis" (Gnosis against the faith, p. 161) "Now if we open Etienne Couvert's book to check the quotation and its context, we find neither before nor after the three words "in error" and the following "there is a key... and it is the "gnosis" on p. 161. "This is what we read on page 161, in the chapter Gnosis and Romanticism, (this is the case of Victor Hugo):

"From that moment on [after receiving Lamennais' teaching], Victor Hugo is completely Gnostic and worshipper of Satan. He says he is initiated by revelations from below: the mouth of shade in Contemplations, the spectrum or sea kiss, the nocturnal Archangel from which he draws surprising, obscure, black, absurd things... For those who do not possess the Key. But there is a Key... and it is the "Gnosis"".

Let us understand that, from "revelations from below, Hugo draws surprising things..., obscure, for the one who does not possess the key, that is to say who has not been initiated into Gnosis". To this unmistakable sentence, Sernine adds the words "In all error" and makes it the only revealing thesis, the only statement he repeats tirelessly. However, the meaning of Mr. Couvert's complete sentence is very different; it is therefore a falsification of a quotation by adding these three words; they have been regularly added each time this quotation was repeated - about ten times - and it is therefore not an error but a process. This is what the Fr. Tanoüarn, Publisher of this book, calls (p. 15) a "model methodology in Catholic science.”

"Whether one criticizes Etienne Couvert for judgments that are too categorical or unfair, for a certain systematization, for a certain error on specific points, the thing is legitimate provided that one provides proof. But is it acceptable to try to disqualify him by giving him, on ten occasions, a quote that is not his own? "(Arnaud de Lassus in Action familiale et scolaire n° 171, p. 64).

This repeated falsification is enough to disqualify its author and even the publisher who makes it his own in his Warning (p. 7). We think that this is such a serious and gross fault that it was only allowed by Providence to show us the great danger threatening priests and faithful of the Fraternity, a danger which is not the one denounced by Sernine91 but which would rather be Sernine himself.  

2005 - Father Michel BEAUMONT (alias Grégoire Celier) in Fideliter n° 163, January 2005, (p. 20-25), article "Reflecting as a Christian on current politics" in which Abbé Beaumont questions himself on the adaptation of principles to the "new political realities" in a dechristianized society:

"If, under the current globalization, any country that has become a mere territory of the "global village" is inserted into a political entity where Catholics are very clearly in the minority, how would the classical doctrine of the Popes asking that a predominantly Catholic country recognize the kingdom of Christ in its political institutions still be possible? » (p. 23).  

Father Celier thus notes that "undeniably new political and social realities have appeared" (p. 22) and he suggests, through a very skillful questioning, that the doctrine valid until Pius XII, would no longer be possible today, and that it is therefore "necessary that Catholics involved in politics (...) do themselves the work of reflection that the popes once proposed to them. » (p. 20).

In short, following the evolution of the world, the traditional doctrine of the Church would be outdated today and to be reviewed by the laity!

However, the encyclical Quas Primas (1925) states unambiguously that "the empire of Christ Jesus is, in strict truth, the universality of the human race. There is no need to make any distinction between individuals, families and States. (...) Governors and magistrates have an obligation, as well as individuals, to worship Christ publicly and obey his laws." This is the universal principle arising from the hypostatic union.  

Celier's question, which strongly suggests his answer, corresponds to the 58th condemned proposal (the truth is not immutable) of the anti-modernist decree Lamentabili (approved by Saint Pius X). And to say that we must formulate a new doctrine adapted to our time is the 59th proposal condemned by the same decree. Father Beaumont-Celier thus illustrates a typical case of modernism as described by Saint Pius X in Pascendi: "Everything is wanted by them... Such a page of their work could be signed by a Catholic; turn the page, you think you are reading a rationalist. » (§ 20).  

Alas! What has become of the rigorous censors of the past, whose Nihil obstat and Imprimatur inspired confidence?

The ANTICONSPIRACY of CELIER-SERNINE [Fr. Celier] seems to have been inspired by its publisher, the Fr. Tanoüarn, himself a disciple in the matter of his friend Alain de Benoist, author of the study Psychology of Conspiracy (see supra p. 8 and note 19).

Seen from above, anti-conspiracy is a consequence of naturalism that results in contradicting the "struggle of the two cities" (Saint Augustine, The City of God, Book XIV, chapter XXVIII) and thus denying the duty to choose the standard of Christ under which to place and fight (Saint Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, § 136 et seq.). The reality of the struggle of the TWO STANDARDS or TWO CITES is recalled by Pope Leo XIII in the introduction to his encyclical Humanum Genus. He taught that the highly organized International Society of Freemasons aims to ruin the Holy Catholic Church, to "destroy from top to bottom all the religious and social discipline that has arisen from Christian institutions and to substitute a new one for their ideas, and whose fundamental principles and laws are borrowed from naturalism".92 To protect peoples from this poison that infects society, the Pope first enjoined the bishops to "Tear off the mask she wears and show her as she is. " Then, "Teach your peoples, make them aware of the tricks used by these sects to seduce men..." Finally, "Make the masses acquire the knowledge of religion, expose the elements of the sacred principles that constitute Christian philosophy (...) in order to heal the intellectual diseases of men... "93.

Unfortunately, since the works of Crétineau-Joly published by Pope Pius IX, we know that the strategy of the Masonic sect is to ruin the Church from within, infiltration and internal recruitment have not ceased. In 1929, it was known that Cardinal Rampolla was a Freemason, fortunately excluded from the 1903 conclave by the Austrian veto. In 1938, the French episcopate had seventeen "Brothers" but in 1987, the former Grand Master Michel Baroin, declared that there were 64 French bishops in the Grand Orient of France. Finally, in 1981 a search of a Roman lodge uncovered a list of personalities affiliated with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, including a significant number of cardinals and bishops, including Cardinal Baggio, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops94.  

The current crisis of the Church has its root causes, not only in the Council, but in liberalism and neo-Modernism of the mid-20th century. And these errors were rooted and developed in the hierarchy by the infiltration of liberals, freemasons and modernists, infiltrations of which we were warned in the 19th century and which Saint Pius X observed and fought. The last Council is only the manifestation of triumphant neo-Modernism in the Vatican with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

Since we know this strategy and its disastrous effects, why are we not more vigilant in choosing the leaders for this strategic position that is the Fraternity's media management in France?

In Gregoire Celier, we have several characters:

-The classical traditionalist priest, who restores and serves the Saint-Nicolas chapel in Compiègne, and who makes a good impression on his faithful;
-The Fr. Celier director of Fideliter and Clovis where we find books of all qualities, good, mediocre, and even bad by naturalism, but where there are no books dealing with the fight against the enemies of the Church.  
-The professor of modern philosophy of the mortal god, who hides his priestly state and professes a pernicious philosophy;
-The polemicist Paul Sernine who, anti-antignostic of bad faith and "anti-conspiracy", is the objective ally of the enemies of the Church;
-Father Beaumont, modernist collaborator of Fideliter.

In short, this man is sometimes an irreproachable traditionalist priest, sometimes an unreliable modernist, which, according to Saint Pius X, characterizes the modernist:

"Such a page of their work could be signed by a Catholic; turn the page, you think you are reading a rationalist" (Pascendi, § 20). We have just seen that the writings of Father Gregoire Celier should only be read with great caution. Was he sincere in his choices, or was he rather skillful subversive? We will not judge that. We only noticed that, in the struggle to defend the faith and the Kingdom of Christ, this priest was not our ally but our adversary, and we then (in 2000) informed his superiors, without effect, alas!

Nevertheless, in imitation of Saint Paul, we had to "support the false brothers" (II Cor 11:26 and Gal 2:4). In this case, this "false brother" was the priest of the Brotherhood who pretended to inform but skillfully practiced misinformation, a weapon of war very well described by Vladimir Volkoff. "False brother" is obviously not an insult, but the biblical term used by the Apostle to designate those who, although authentic brothers, are "sons according to the flesh", slaves of form and letter, and who make the "sons of the promise" who live according to the spirit suffer. Thus Abel was persecuted by Cain, Isaac by Ishmael, Jacob by Esau, Joseph by his brothers, etc.95. The false brothers, very zealous, "filter the midge and swallow the camel". And if we cannot avoid their "persecution", if it is not in our power to prevent them from harming them, we must suffer them well because God allows them. But those who have this power, please remember that preventing evil is also their duty.


Endnotes:
90 It was reproduced in Nouvelle revue Certaintitudes (Abbé G. de Tanoüarn) n° 4, 2000, pp. 69-76.
91 We published an exhaustive review of this book in Cahiers de Chiré n° 19, DPF 2004, p.129-153.
92 "Our final goal is that of Voltaire and the French Revolution, the annihilation forever of Catholicism and even of the Christian idea...". Permanent instruction of the High Sale in 1819 quoted by Crétineau-Joly
93 Leo XIII, Encyclical Humanum Genus (1884), § 47-49.
94 See Introïbo No. 13 (1976) p. 2 (A.N.P. rue Delaâge, Angers). - Under Banner No. 19 (1988) p. 20-21. A Freemason in charge of choosing bishops obviously explains the orientation of episcopates in general and the mediocrity of the bishops of France, manifested particularly by their hatred of the traditional mass.
95 "Supporting false brothers" is, with patience, classified by Saint Benedict as the fourth degree of humility in his rule (chapter 7). Cf. comment by Dom Jean de Monléon, O.S.B., in The 12 Degrees of Humility

I just learned that Mr. Chaussee died two days ago on Monday, March 18.

https://cristiadatradicinalista.blogspot.com/2019/03/deces-de-m-paul-chaussee.html?m=1

A couple months ago, I asked Bishop Williamson how it was possible that such a man could be ordained to the priesthood in Archbishop Lefebvre’s SSPX.

Despite several hundred correspondences with His Excellency over the years, this was the only time I can recall ever having asked a question which did not receive an answer.

I sensed I should leave it alone.