Since some people have already heard about my departure from the Brotherhood, I would like to shed some light on the reasons that led me to make this decision .
I. What led me to leave the fraternity is that I perceive doctrinal errors in our current dealings with Rome.
II. I began by trying to justify the errors in question, but when I undertook to clarify them with Bishop Fellay, I received no satisfactory answer (on the contrary).
III. I was forced to see the seriousness of what the Fraternity officially does today, whose current dealings with Rome run counter to what we have always said. This is why I say that they constitute a betrayal of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.
As I did not agree with this, I decided to leave.
I - First and foremost, I want it to be clear that what led me to leave the Society is that in conscience I can not agree with the doctrinal errors grave that appear to me in his dealings with Rome.
Most of these errors have already been mentioned by other priests. I would like to make the following comments on them:
* Among other errors of the Motu Proprio of July 2007, note the subordination of the traditional Mass to the Novus Ordo Missae ; the text in question is already beginning to promote the future fusion of the two rites by evoking " the spiritual richness and theological depth of this Misssel " [that of the new Mass], etc. In spite of all that, we were delighted by this Motu Proprio , whose mistakes we minimized.
* In the name of the Fraternity, it has been declared: " By the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм , Pope Benedict XVI restored his rights to the Tridentine Mass ".
* Faced with the Decree of 21 January 2009, we welcomed a docuмent that recognizes the validity of excommunications.
* Similarly, in their letter of January 29 last year, the four bishops of the Society thanked the pope on the grounds that it " rendered ineffective the measure that struck us twenty years ago as a result of our episcopal coronation ". However, accepting the validity of this excommunication has serious doctrinal consequences, because it means that there was no justification for episcopal consecrations, so it was wrong to claim the existence of modernism, therefore that Archbishop Lefebvre was mistaken, so that the magisterium and the official liturgy are good, so that we must accept them, etc., etc.
* Monseigneur Fellay multiplies the contradictory declarations , sometimes denying, sometimes affirming that he solicited the lifting of the excommunications, with all that that implies.
* I observe that during the two events in question (the " liberation " of the Mass and the lifting of the excommunications), although the fraternity made reservations by pointing out the errors of the two corresponding docuмents, these reservations were stifled under the a multitude of praise, Te Deum , Magnificat , thanks and praise. Instead of a clear and firm defense of the truth, such reservations have appeared as a means to silence consciences and to conceal the errors of the corresponding "prerequisites".
* With regard to the Vatican II conversations, the famous phrase "95% good in the Council" means that what is wrong with the Council are some ambiguous passages, but most of the texts are in agreement with Tradition, or that " so far, we have had the program to clarify in the first place the doctrinal problems, including when it is not a question of settling everything, but of obtaining sufficient clarifications " . Where is it still a question of converting Rome? Since we do not intend to settle everything, are we going to let the doctrinal errors go?
* How can one present Benedict XVI as favorable to Tradition, while one knows it profoundly modernist? That's why I found the official statements of the Brotherhood incredible:
- " his arrival at the Pontificate opens hopes to Tradition ";
- " it is an honest person who seeks the good of the Church " (while it is a modernist, who tried in his time to deceive Monseigneur Lefebvre and who lied in the Decree of 21 January as in the letter accompanying the Motu Proprio );
- with Benedict XVI, " the Church has entered more tranquil waters ".
For infiltrator No. 2 of the SSPX, Father Schmidberger (of Kantian formation), the personal friend of the apostate abbot Ratzinger-Benoït XVI, " the Church has entered more tranquil waters ". This former superior of the FSSPX and true Mentor of Bishop Fellay, was accused of destroying the SSPX by Archbishop Lefebvre on his hospital bed in March 1991, a few days before dying unexpectedly, and while the isolation and the solitude was imposed on him abnormally, even perfectly scandalous.
On the doctrinal level, this amounts to trying to hide the modernism of Benedict XVI. This amounts to offering false hopes, putting the traditionalist movement at great risk (thus compromising the future of the entire Church) and deceiving the faithful.
* Etc.
* To all this is added the following facts:
- The negotiations continue despite the absence of any sign of conversion from Rome.
- It is wrongly claimed that Rome gave us what we asked.
- It is wrongly pretended that the prerequisites have demonstrated the good will of Benedict XVI.
- The statements of Bishop Fellay and the Fraternity are ambiguous.
- The doctrinal errors of the current negotiations are minimized and concealed.
- We put under the bushel the texts of Monseigneur Lefebvre; it is suggested that until the May 1988 protocol, Archbishop Lefebvre sought a practical agreement and that it was only after he demanded a doctrinal agreement, which - on the part of the Superior General and the other authorities of the Fraternity - is nothing but a quarrel.
- The intercession of the Virgin is attributed to the publication of docuмents that are only intended to save modernism and contain doctrinal errors or even lies.
When one sees, when one weighs such a quantity of errors, as well as their doctrinal consequences, one wonders how all this could be said officially by the Fraternité Saint-Pie X, by the continuators of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.
*****
II - However, although I have perceived the doctrinal errors of these dealings with Rome, I must admit that until the beginning of 2009, I tried to minimize its gravity, I tried to justify what we were doing within the fraternity and to defend Monseigneur Fellay, in the idea that:
- " all this can not be badly thought ";
- " There are contradictions: sometimes, one hides or denies the modernist errors of these docuмents, but other times one denounces them ";
- " perhaps Bishop Fellay was he deluded into thinking get something ";
- " perhaps the superiors have reasons that we do not know ";
- " it is certain that one sometimes says false things and that one lets pass errors (what dislikes me), but perhaps it is in order to reach the stage of the doctrinal discussions and, this position once acquired , to shoot the modernists with all our artillery .
That is why, encouraged in particular by the Abbe Bouchacourt, I decided to submit my doubts and objections in writing to Bishop Fellay. I did it in October and November 2009 .
I can say, in summary, that the answer received from Monseigneur Fellay was as follows:
1. He did not answer the following questions I asked him: How could it be that we continued while Rome did not convert? Did you request the lifting of the excommunications? Nor did he react to the other doctrinal objections mentioned above.
2. Or, he was apologizing to me: he blamed the journalists for the errors in his statements, saying that I interpreted in a bad way (when in fact I had textually quoted his statements, as the official publications of the Fraternity had reproduced), etc.
3. Or, he provided incredible answers and, as a result, of concern:
- " Although Rome did not give us exactly what we asked for, nevertheless, by analogy, we can take anything that goes in the right direction ."
- " There are people who want the good of the Church, in the Vatican too. If someone, like you or an abbot Ceriani, claims that they are all modernists, he is mistaken. You are no longer in reality and the truth . How can it be that the Superior General of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X has such a mistaken vision of things?
- " [With Benedict XVI] begins an authentic restoration in the Church " (same remark).
To this is added the following:
1. I am forbidden to write or preach about the errors of the Motu Proprio , to tell the faithful that Benedict XVI does not want to help us in these negotiations; and if I am not disposed to silence all that, I have only to leave the Society. I am forbidden to preach on the Pope, or even forbid to confess. Why all these forbidden? Because I dared to oppose doctrinal objections to the dealings with Rome and did not want me to tell the faithful.
2. I was excluded from the Bucaramanga priory because I said in a sermon: " The Pope is a modernist, and we pray for his conversion ". It was the prior of Bucaramanga who proceeded to my exclusion, with the support of Abbé Bouchacourt. When I protested to her with Monseigneur Fellay, it was in vain. The latter was even to approve the abbot Bouchacourt after the latter had hidden the fact that my exclusion was due to this reason.
3. During our exchange of letters on doctrinal topics, Abbe Bouchacourt first and then Bishop Fellay tried to "drown the fish" and to discredit my words: they wrote to me saying that the problem lay solely with my nervousness, which made me amenable to psychiatric treatment.
In this regard, I want to make this clear: I recognize that, especially when I lived in Buenos Aires (mid-1999 to early 2007), I slept very badly at night; it made me commit a lot of time and regulation and made me nervous. I apologize to my confreres and the faithful who suffered from this. I would like to thank them for the patience they showed me, especially Fr. Rubio, prior of Buenos Aires.
But to be nervous and to commit mistakes is one thing, to be taken for a schizophrenic is another. Similarly, I readily recognize all my mistakes, but something else would be to accept:
- to pretend to force me to follow a psychiatric treatment or that one wants me to take psychiatric drugs by presenting them like tablets to sleep.
- worse still, that one tries to "drown the fish" and to discredit the doctrinal objections that I presented, on the grounds that I should consult a psychiatrist. Because we came to this: to try to silence someone who had doubts about the discussions with Rome, we tried to make him undergo psychiatric treatment. The superiors of the fraternity became worse than the communists, who sent to a psychiatric clinic - in order to destroy them - those who opposed them.
In summary :
At first, while perceiving doctrinal errors in the discussions with Rome, I tried to justify them because I did not want to have a bad mind. But when I sought to clarify the matter with my superiors, and in particular with Bishop Fellay, I did not receive a satisfactory answer (on the contrary), and I noted the seriousness of the doubts I was experiencing. Added to this were the abuse of authority against me to silence me.
*****
III - I was thus obliged to confirm the seriousness of the doctrinal errors that I perceived in the negotiations in question:
We have been made to accept docuмents that contain or imply modernist errors, we are forced to shut up or make false statements; and I expect we are about to align ourselves with the " Ecclesia Dei " . For these various reasons, it is clear that the ongoing negotiations with Rome run counter to everything that has always been said and done by Archbishop Lefebvre and the Brotherhood he founded. That's why I say we're betraying the Brotherhood.
If Satan made a master stroke by imposing modernism on the Church through obedience, he makes it even greater by bringing the Brotherhood to let the modernist errors pass, this time also through the 'obedience.
That's why I can not agree in conscience with all this.
Therefore :
- having found confirmation of the seriousness of doctrinal errors that characterize these negotiations;
- seeing that, after consulting Bishop Fellay, he could find no valid answer to the objections I submitted to him, and that he added more errors;
- seeing that I was sent two pseudo-admonitions of canonical expulsion based on lies (namely that my problems were due to a psychiatric imbalance, whereas in fact they were due to the fact that I had issued doctrinal doubts about what we are doing now with Rome);
- Easter Monday (April 5 last), moved by doctrinal reasons, I decided freely and in all conscience to leave the Brotherhood .
I think all of this indicates very clearly what motivated me to leave the SSPX. I know that my personal mistakes have been numerous. But there came a time when I said to myself: " These are not personal problems; it is about doctrines, and I can not keep quiet . " That's how it all started. And it is not with gaiety of heart that I decided to leave.
I am aware of the risks of not belonging to a congregation. But we can be sure of acting if, in spite of all his faults, we only seek to remain faithful to Our Lord. That's why I think I can persevere with the help of God.
May what I write here help to open the eyes of the parishioners on what is happening in the Brotherhood.
And that within the SSPX, we stop being silent and deceive about these destructive deals, as well as collaborate with them.
The Brotherhood was the beacon and the main reduction of resistance of Tradition. But because of the errors that she accepted for the purposes of said negotiations, she cracked and her light became bland. God grant that Bishop Fellay and his collaborators put an end to these discussions with Rome, which are useless, destroy the Brotherhood and risk sinking all the Tradition at the same time. God grant that they go back and publicly deny all the mistakes that have been made. God grant that another priest, bishop, or traditional religious congregation has the courage to publicly respond to all these doctrinal errors.
Some say to me: " Father, do not divide the faithful or Tradition by encouraging them to react! "
To that I answer: " Excuse me! But who divides the faithful and the priests? Someone who reacts and opposes the incredible doctrinal errors committed within the fraternity? Or rather, Monseigneur Fellay and his collaborators, who even after having said that to treat with Rome would be to spread an acid having the effect of dividing us, even after several voices have risen to ward off this danger, persist in continuing in the same way? "
What I have to do is invite you to pray that God will help us all to continue what we have been doing from the beginning in the Brotherhood: to strive to maintain Tradition, to transmit the priesthood, to help sanctification of souls, but also to oppose with clarity and firmness the modernism of the Pope and the official Church.
Or, one would have to wonder why Archbishop Lefebvre did everything he did.
May God and the Blessed Virgin help you all.
God bless you.
Father Juan José Turco
Topic: Fr. Turco (Read 546 times)