Has this been posted before?

Letter of Fr. Roland de Merodeto Fr. de Caqueray
Source: La Sapiniere
Dear Father,

For what is now two and a half years, with a growing sense of unease, I have been putting up with the steady flow of texts, rivers of conferences, of studies and of declarations, all ambiguous or even contradictory and which are dumped on our poor heads in a continous stream by Menzingen and Suresnes.

Several times I have had the opportunity to let you know about my unease and my objections, but I have never once received a clear reply from you or from your assistants which could calm my fears.

There does exist one reply, however, one which is clear and which has never been quoted or highlighted anywhere since 2012 at least. It is to be found in the letter of our venerable founder to the four future bishops:

“I will confer this grace [the episcopacy] upon you confident that soon the See of Peter will be occupied by a perfectly Catholic successor of Peter into whose hands you will be able to place the grace of your episcopacy, for him to confirm.”

Why such a simple, clear, firm principle of action such as this? Because:

“The See of Peter and the positions of authority in Rome are occupied by antiChrists and the destruction of the reign of Our Lord is being rapidly pursued in the very interior of His mystical body here below...”

So, why are we still seeking an agreement or, as Bishop Fellay lets it be understood, a canonical recognition? So as to put ourselves under the authority of antichrists and put ourselves thus in danger of losing the Faith?

The Faith gives certitude, it does not lead minds astray into a maze of subtle ambiguities. Therefore, in order to break free of this atmosphere of blurred ambiguities which is not getting any better, I have decided to stand down as prior of Lourdes from tomorrow, 20th March 2014.

The second reason leading me to separate myself from the current course of the Society is the grave moral injustice that my current superiors inflicted on all those priests who have had the courage to denounce the danger of making a compromising agreement or of searching for canonical recognition without doctrinal agreement. They have been forced to leave, or worse, they have undergone an unfair pseudo trial followed by disproportionate punishments. I therefore desire to work to establish a structure which will permit those priests who have been thrown out into the street to regain a normal, communal priestly life and a ministry which meets their zeal for the salvation of souls.

The simple fact of my having invited Fr. Salenave, who is not under any sanction in France, to say Mass on Sudnay 8th March in Pau, as a help and so as to allow me to confess, led to you immediately suppressing my apostolate in Pau. I see in that the proof that my work of gathering together these isolated and disaffected priests will not be accepted by my superiors. I will therefore dedicate myself to this work, starting from tomorrow, and outside of the structures of the present-day SSPX.

Please, Father, I ask that you not try to contact me for the moment, but to leave that for the future, if there comes a time when it seems opportune.

Pray for me, as I pray for you,

Fr. R. de Merode.

I get these French names mixed up.  Wasn't Fr. de Caqueray the district superior of France?  Did he not leave for a monastery, more or less severing a formal relationship to the Society?  This letter addresses him as if he were still an official in the French sspx.  

Im surprised, that with the calibre of these priests who have spoken out against an agreement, the the resistance is not taken more seriously, still so many good priests silent, i find it bewildering.

I would not like to think that because of 'resistance personalties' sspx priests would be prepared to walk off the side of a cliff, into the arms of rome, would that they could remember the reasons they joined sspx in the first place, i personally have been very disappointed in the excuse's iv heard from priests who brought me to tradition, through their piety, and conviction, and yet, have abandonded me and my family to the modernist beguiler,

I get these French names mixed up.  Wasn't Fr. de Caqueray the district superior of France?  Did he not leave for a monastery, more or less severing a formal relationship to the Society?  This letter addresses him as if he were still an official in the French sspx.  

Fr. de Cacqueray is still the District Superior of France. All the changes, including his going into a Franciscan monastery, will happen in August. . . . also the month where we will bid adieu to Fr. Rostand--Deo gratias!

Thank you for this information.  I've heard good things about Fr. de Cacqueray in the past.  Fr. Rostand, IMO, is an absolute joke!  I have confronted him in public forums on two occasions.  Quite frankly, I don't think he would have a chance in debate against a reasonably intelligent layman or priest who opposed the neo sspx.  But Fr. R. always makes sure the deck is stacked in his favor.  He is always surrounded by plenty of yes men.  He is the perfect disciple of his mentor, Bp. Fellay.

Don't let Fr. de Cacqueray fool you. He is just as much a yes man as Fr. Rostand, just in a more subtle way. He has done his share of the dirty work while disguising himself as a reluctant participant. It's good he's going into a monastery. I pray that he will publicly apologize for the damage he has done before entering it.