Author Topic: Help create a FAQ - submit links, notes, arguments (Read 1960 times)

Matthew · « **on:** June 10, 2012, 02:33:32 PM »

It has come to my attention that we need a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) or summary of "Why the hard-liner position is the only true one."

We have had many intelligent posters write articles, etc. but so far I've not seen a FAQ, in question and answer format, demolishing all the frequently-used "attacks" on the hard-liner (or anti-Agreement with Rome) position.

I decided to kick off the project by starting a thread dedicated to gathering "notes" or material for the FAQ.

Here is how it works: Submit a compelling rebuttal or argument, or one or more links to official sermons, press releases, interviews, etc. that might be helpful for the FAQ-compiler(s).

Another useful idea: Submit a stub, or outline, of the main arguments we need to counter. That will help us focus our efforts.

Then, one or more of us can start writing a FAQ using all this useful material.
The FAQ can be turned into a PDF, translated into other languages, and sent to the 4 corners of the earth -- published in newspapers, magazines, blogs, sent via e-mail, posted to Facebook walls, you name it!

NOTE: This is NOT a typical discussion thread. Any posts with no substance -- posts with no usefulness as research notes -- will be summarily deleted with no apologies. That even goes for "pats on the back" and "atta-boys". Feel free to thumb up the posts if you wish to give moral support or thank the contributers. In fact, I encourage you to do so -- anyone contributing to this thread deserves a boost to their reputation!

If you wish to submit an "updated version" of any list or docuмent, please let me know so I can delete the "original". I want to keep this thread lean and mean.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** June 10, 2012, 03:02:21 PM »

Bad Arguments:

Authority/Personality/Emotion:
"Bishop Fellay is our Superior General; he has the graces of state to make the right decision." (Related: "Archbishop Lefebvre wanted the Superior General to be in charge of dealings with Rome.")
"I trust Bishop Fellay" (Well, I trust Bishop Williamson, Bishop de Mallerais, Bishop de Gallareta...)
"I support all 4 bishops" (So you support mutually-exclusive positions at the same time? Nice that your brain has turned to mush...")
"We have to trust in God" (And we must use our God-given faculty of reason to determine reality and conform to it; not make reality conform to what we want.)
"God will always provide a place for us to attend Mass." (But God helps those who help themselves; a fool and his Mass are soon parted.)
"Bishop Fellay is our superior; we owe him our obedience." (No, laymen cannot be members of the SSPX. And if the SSPX can "recognize and resist" the Pope, who has the charism of infallibility under certain conditions, how much more can traditional Catholics second-guess the Superior General, who is not infallible under any circuмstances? Laymen place themselves under SSPX priests by their own free will, so that they can receive the Catholic Faith -- as well as Mass and the Sacraments -- pure and uncompromised. But other than that, SSPX priests and bishops have no claim on a given layman.)
"Bishop Fellay said the Agreement was not a trap." (But prudence and all evidence suggest the contrary; if Bishop Fellay knows something we don't, he is obligated in justice to share it with us -- or we are justified in maintaining our current attitude of distrust. Blind obedience is not something Catholics -- especially traditional Catholics living in this apostate age -- should be encouraged to practice)

Schism/Sedevacantism boogey-man:
"The Pope has come to us, asking for our help."
"The Pope needs our help." (So he's a prisoner of the Vatican, eh? Why should the SSPX place itself in the power of all these "bad guys" -- since the Pope himself may go to his reward before long, and besides he doesn't wield tyrannical power over all corners of the Catholic Church. In fact, proponents of the "Prisoner of the Vatican" theory suggest the Pope has very little power, which is why he needs the help of the SSPX. So how can the SSPX be secure in its future -- bishops, ordaning priests in the Traditional Rite, seminaries, building new churches and schools without local Bishop interference, etc.?)
"If the Crisis continues much longer, we will certainly end up in formal Schism and/or Sedevacantism." (Why?)
False Dilemma: "We must either trust Modernism Rome, or become schismatic/embrace Sedevacantism."
In so many words, the position of the SSPX for the past few decades is no longer tenable (Was it tenable from 1988 - 2012? If so, why not now?)
"We're not Sedevacantists. We believe Christ can still speak through the Pope's mouth."
"We can't expect Rome to fully convert before jumping in and helping them. They're not going to take the last 50 years of Papal encyclicals, the Novus Ordo Mass, and all docuмents of Vatican II and throw them on a pyre. All the numerous Modernists in the Vatican are not going to be struck dead overnight, or simultaneously grovel on their knees for forgiveness." (This is a straw man argument. That is not what true SSPX supporters expect or require from Rome. How about SOME EVIDENCE that there is a solid move toward Tradition? Another re-mix of the 1984 Indult is not sufficent, sorry. Neither is the "lifting" of excommunications that never existed. And the SSPX used to say that doctrinal discussions must come before any agreement -- but that doesn't mean the SSPX signing a docuмent that Vatican II is OK in this and that respect. The SSPX needs to know that Rome knows what went wrong at least -- Modernism, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, etc. They have to at least admit where the problem is. The full reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Church can indeed come later. And yes, we can recognize when Rome is ready, the same way we can recognize pornography: "you know it when you see it".)

Wait and See:
"No agreement has been officially announced. Nothing to see here; move along."
(Main rebuttal: Even if the Rome-SSPX deal falls through for whatever reason, the division in the SSPX, particularly among the Bishops, has been made manifest. There is no going back; the genie can't be put back in the bottle.)

"We don't know what's in the Doctrinal Preamble. It is foolish or even sinful to even speak about it. We should wait and pray."
(Rebuttal: We have some idea what's in the docuмent. Aside from the fact that the docuмent may have been leaked, we can also tell what is in the Preamble by looking at Bishop Fellay's public words and behavior. He is scrambling to defend Vatican II, taking a hard stance against independent priests and Sedevacantism, etc.)

The Crisis is Over:
"The Pope is so traditional!" (What about Assisi III, the recent canonical visitation of the Institute of the Good Shepherd by Cardinal Pozzo, the farcical Summorum Pontificuм and "lifting" of the Excommunications, etc.)
"2012 is *so* different from 1988, as far as the Crisis in the Church is concerned." (Oh yeah, how so?)

The Archbishop Would Approve:
"The Archbishop himself negotiated with Rome, and he said that eventually we must re-enter regular communion with Rome." (BUT he also concluded in 1988 that Rome was too far gone for an agreement -- he explicitly stated, "now is not the time for an agreement". He also stated that there would be a grave temptation to "re-enter Rome" and "convert them from the inside" as if that were somehow necessary.)

Good Arguments:

Bishop Fellay has changed his public stance on Vatican II, etc. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors #63 vs. recent CNS interview)

3 Bishops have publicly warned Bishop Fellay; Bishop Fellay offered no meaningful rebuttals to their sober warnings.

Main arguments from the Accordistas have been authority-based, with hints of Quietism.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was involved in the doctrinal discussions; there must be a good reason he is against it.

Bishop Fellay has moved most English-speaking, Williamson-influenced priests to the far-flung reaches of the SSPX empire, where they will have minimal reach or influence. All positions of power have been filled by friends of +Fellay. This certainly lends credence to the idea of a coup d'etat.

Pope Benedict XVI is no friend of tradition. He has a long history, from his days as a priest onward, of doing all sorts of things calculated to destroy or water-down Tradition. Msgr. Wach wanted to start the Institute of Christ the King. Cardinal Ratzinger's answer? "Sure; just concelebrate the Novus Ordo Mass with me." Look at how Rome has treated *every last one* of the traditional groups that has "joined" Rome. The pattern is clear.

Who replaced Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith? Cardinal Levada. Not exactly a paragon of Tradition!

Argument of Common Sense: Has the average Catholic parish around the world changed in the past 20 years, except perhaps for the worse? Are Catholics becoming more knowledgable about their Faith, is Mass attendance improving, is Christ being enthroned as King over society by Novus Ordo Catholics? Is Tradition really taking root in the Conciliar Church?

The "lifting" of the excommunications was a farce because A) The excommunications were null and void to begin with; the declaration should have noted as much. B) it only mentioned the 4 bishops, not Archbishop Lefebvre or Bishop de Castro Mayer. This political maneuver was NOT a gift from On High.

The "freeing of the Latin Mass" was a farce because the docuмent was full of contradictions ("The [TLM] has never been abrogated.", "To get permission to say [the TLM] you must...") and requires that one accept the "bastard rite" Novus Ordo Missae as the Ordinary Form. So this is not a gift from On High either.

Archbishop Lefebvre, when he was negotiating with Rome, kept even the SSPX seminarians in the loop. Bishop Fellay is working out the current SSPX-Rome deal behind closed doors, under cover of darkness.

The scandalous influence of one lawyer, Maximillian Krah, in the highest echelons of the SSPX and its finances. It is a fact that Krah is pro-Israel and has many Jєωιѕн friends (show me a man's friends and I'll tell you what he's like)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #2 on:** June 10, 2012, 03:17:34 PM »

I'll help get us started (typical questions from "accordistas" will be in bold, answers will be in normal font):

Isn't it sedevacantist to oppose a reconciliation with the Pope?

No, it is not. The other three Bishops oppose a deal because, like Archbishop LeFebvre, they wish to wait until Rome returns to Tradition before any deal occurs. That time has clearly not come yet.

The crisis in the Church has certainly improved since Benedict XVI was elected in 2005. The Society's excommunications were lifted, the Motu Proprio was released, and even Assisi III was less scandalous than the first two Assisi meetings. Surely this means Rome is on the right track, aren't they?

No, Rome is not on the right track. First of all, the "excommunications" of Archbishop LeFebvre and the Society of St. Pius X were bogus. Father Pheiffer very wisely states regarding the "excommunications" the following:

Quote

Now, if you go back and see the pictures of the event back in 1988, you will discover that there were six bishops involved. There was Bishop de Castro Mayer, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the four bishops; and all six of them were declared excommunicated. And the excommunication is lifted only for four of them, which means that according to Rome -- neo modernist Rome -- Bishop de Castro Mayer and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre remain excommunicated.

They are right now in heaven; but according to the Pope, they remain excommunicated. And for what? For celebrating the Latin Tridentine Mass, which was never abrogated. If he really meant it was never abrogated back in 2007, then that would mean all those that received punishment because it was believed to be abrogated, their punishments were null and void; and four bishops or, rather, six bishops were punished because they celebrated the Latin Tridentine Mass and because they consecrated bishops so that priests could be ordained to continue to celebrate that Mass and to preserve the Catholic Faith and the Church. It is another abomination. Six bishops are excommunicated, so called, and they lift four of them, proclaiming the other two -- their excommunication remains.

And furthermore, we have another problem. You cannot have your excommunication lifted unless you are excommunicated. As we mentioned a few weeks ago in Bohol, in the Cebu sermon, you cannot have resurrection, you cannot rise from the dead unless you are dead. If you are not dead, you cannot rise. So likewise, if you are not excommunicated, you cannot have the excommunication lifted.

Bishop de Castro Mayer, Archbishop Lefebvre and the other four bishops were never excommunicated. Therefore, their communication cannot be lifted. And it was not a miracle. It was a confusion. It was a deception to soften the hearts and to weaken the will of the Catholics defending the Faith.

Then there is Summorum Pontificuм. Father Pheiffer also makes a wise statement on this matter:

Quote

What does Summorum Pontificuм say? Summorum Pontificuм says the Latin Mass was never abrogated and, therefore, I, Pope Benedict XVI, give a general permission to celebrate the Latin Mass, which permission I expect to be implemented by September 14, 2007. In other words, the Mass was never abrogated, which means you do not need permission; but I am giving you permission, the permission you don't need, and the permission is being given because of my gracious charity as Pope. And I expect this permission to be put into practice by September the 14.

In other words, when I said it was never abrogated, that was a lie.

And then he adds conditions. This general permission to celebrate the Latin Tridentine Mass is under conditions.

And the first condition is, you must accept the New Mass as the Ordinary Rite of the Church, and the Old Mass, the True Mass, is Extraordinary, which means only tolerated in special circuмstances. And this is an abomination.

The Blessed Virgin Mary does not approve of the New Mass. The Blessed Virgin Mary does not accept the New Mass as ordinary, and She does not accept the true sacrifice of the Mass of Her Son as something only extraordinary. And She doesn't accept that the Mass is only by the gracious permission of Pope Benedict XVI.

The Mass is the center of our worship as Catholics, and it has been around for 2,000 years -- and it doesn't depend on Benedict XVI. It was not a miracle. But it was hailed as such. Mary has heard your prayers.

As for Benedict XVI, John Vennari stated recently that if Benedict XVI really wishes to resolve the crisis in the Church, why did he appoint someone like Cardinal Levada - a modernist who covered up numerous sɛҳuąƖ abuse cases- as the Vatican's head of "defending the Faith"? If Benedict XVI wishes to resolve the crisis, why did he even allow Assisi III in the first place? It really does not matter if it was "less scandalous". It was still scandalous, blasphemous, and a mockery to Our Lord Jesus Christ. He also made it very clear what his TRUE intentions were when he gave this sermon in 2009:

Quote

The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.

Therefore, we must conclude that Benedict XVI is an incorrigible modernist who cannot be trusted.

We cannot make Rome's conversion a prerequisite for a deal. If Rome makes us a good offer, how can we in good conscience decline?

Similar to what has been stated above, the SSPX never left Tradition. It was Rome that left Tradition, and they have yet to return to Tradition. We must indeed make their conversion a must if we are to reconcile with them, otherwise the original mission of the SSPX will be destroyed.

Rome also has not made the Society a "good offer". They are demanding that the Society accept Vatican II and its teachings on Jєωs. If we compromise our position on Vatican II, we ultimately compromise our Faith.

Archbishop LeFebvre signed a deal with Rome in 1988. That being the case, why would he oppose a deal today?

It is true that Archbishop LeFebvre signed an agreement with Rome in 1988, but he quickly withdrew his signature because he did not trust Rome.

Furthermore, the following quotes from him make it clear that he would not, in fact, accept any deal unless Rome were to convert first:

Quote

If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

Quote

Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, 1988:

"Eminence, even if you give us everything – a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries –we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.

"For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything. He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society."

Quote

And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor's field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says" —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.

Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible. Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that's the right kind of ecuмenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like Traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?

What proof is there that Bishop Fellay has changed?

Compare his letter in 2003 to what he says today:

Quote from: Bishop Fellay in 2003

However, it is clear that the principle governing today's Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years. Neither official docuмents nor general policy show any fundamental re-thinking of this principle, on the contrary, we are always being told that what the Council set in motion is irreversible, which leads us to ask why there has been a change of attitude with regard to ourselves. Various explanations are possible, but it is primarily because of the pluralist and ecuмenical vision of things now prevailing in the Catholic world. According to this vision, everybody is to mix together without anybody needing any longer to convert, as Cardinal Kasper said in connection with the Orthodox and even the Jєωs. From such a standpoint there will even be a little room for Catholic Tradition, but for our part we cannot accept this vision of variable truth any more than a mathematics teacher can accept a variable multiplication table.

The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome's own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos.

Compare that to today:

Quote

It must be acknowledged that these discussions have allowed us to present clearly the various problems that we experience with regard to Vatican II. What has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution. Today, in Rome, some people regard a different understanding of the Council as something that is not decisive for the future of the Church, since the Church is more than the Council. Indeed, the Church cannot be reduced to the Council; she is much larger. Therefore we must strive to resolve more far-reaching problems. This new awareness can help us to understanding what is really happening: we are called to help bring to others the treasure of Tradition that we have been able to preserve.

So the attitude of the official Church is what changed; we did not. We were not the ones who asked for an agreement; the pope is the one who wants to recognize us. You may ask: why this change? We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us! Why? The answer is right in front of us: there are terribly important problems in the Church today. These problems must be addressed. We must set aside the secondary problems and deal with the major problems. This is the answer of one or another Roman prelate, although they will never say so openly; you have to read between the lines to understand.

The official authorities do not want to acknowledge the errors of the Council. They will never say so explicitly. Nevertheless, if you read between the lines, you can see that they hope to remedy some of these errors. Here is an interesting example on the subject of the priesthood. You know that starting with the Council there was a new concept of the priesthood and that it demolished the role of the priest. Today we see very clearly that the Roman authorities are trying to rehabilitate the true concept of the priest. We observed this already during the Year of the Priest that took place in 2010-2011. Now, the Feast of the Sacred Heart is becoming the day consecrated to the sanctification of priests. For this occasion, a letter was published and an examination of conscience for priests was composed. One might think that they went to Ecône to find this examination of conscience, it is so much along the lines of pre-conciliar spirituality. This examination presents the traditional image of the priest, and also of his role in the Church. This role is what Archbishop Lefebvre affirms when he describes the Society’s mission: to restore the Church by restoring the priest.

The letter says: “The Church and the world can be sanctified only through the sanctification of the priest.” It really places the priest at the center. The examination of conscience begins with this question: “Is the first concern of the priest his own sanctification?” The second question: “Is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”—and that is the expression that they use, not the Eucharist, the Synaxis, or I don’t know what else—“the center of the life of the priest?” Then it recalls the ends of the Mass: the praise of God, prayer, reparation for sins…. It says it all. The priest must immolate himself—the word “immolate” is not used, but rather “give himself”, sacrifice himself to save souls. It does say that. Then comes a reminder about the last things: “Does the priest think often about the last things? Does he think to ask for the grace of final perseverance? Does he remind his faithful to do so? Does he visit the dying so as to give them the last rites?” You see how, in a clever way, this Roman docuмent clearly recalls the traditional idea of the priest.

Of course, that does not do away with all the problems, and there are still serious difficulties in the Church: ecuмenism, Assisi, religious liberty…, but the context is changing, and not just the context, but the situation itself…. I would distinguish between the external relations and the internal situation. The relations with the outside have not have changed, but as for what goes on within the Church, the Roman authorities are trying to change it little by little. Obviously, a major disaster still remains today, one must be aware of that, and we do not deny it, but one must also look at what is starting to happen. This examination of conscience for priests is a significant example.

What should be our attitude toward the doctrinal problems?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #3 on:** June 10, 2012, 03:25:16 PM »

Bishop Fellay Refutes Bishop Fellay:

http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/supgen_63.htm

Superior General's
Letter to Friends & Benefactors
#63
January 6, 2003
Feast of the Epiphany

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

OUR RELATIONS WITH ROME

Once again our Letter to Friends and Benefactors is reaching you a little late. Once again we hesitated to write to you sooner for fear of leaving out an important development in our relations with Rome, especially after the Campos-Rome agreement. In the eyes of Rome, obviously, what happened in Campos was merely meant to be the prelude to our own "regularization" in the Society of St. Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us.

Generally speaking, Rome means, all things being equal, to come to an agreement with the SSPX. On all sides we hear that the pope would like to settle this matter before he dies. Alas, our fears roused by the Campos agreement have proved to be well-founded, and the evolution we observe of the Campos Apostolic Administration, contrary to Roman expectations, leaves us distrustful.

Of course we are dealing with a volatile situation capable of sudden and surprising changes, like in times of political instability. And in such a situation, nobody can be certain of what turn it will take. Also we do behold in the Vatican offices a certain questioning of the way things have gone for the last few decades, and a desire on the part of some officials to put an end to the downhill slide.

However, it is clear that the principle governing today's Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years. Neither official docuмents nor general policy show any fundamental re-thinking of this principle, on the contrary, we are always being told that what the Council set in motion is irreversible, which leads us to ask why there has been a change of attitude with regard to ourselves. Various explanations are possible, but it is primarily because of the pluralist and ecuмenical vision of things now prevailing in the Catholic world. According to this vision, everybody is to mix together without anybody needing any longer to convert, as Cardinal Kasper said in connection with the Orthodox and even the Jєωs. From such a standpoint there will even be a little room for Catholic Tradition, but for our part we cannot accept this vision of variable truth any more than a mathematics teacher can accept a variable multiplication table.

The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome's own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos. For this purpose, let us emphasize two points in the evolution of the Campos situation: firstly, how their attitude to Rome has changed since the agreement and secondly, how Campos is moving further and further away from ourselves, with all the upset that that implies.

CHANGES IN CAMPOS

Campos, through its leader, Bishop Rifan, is crying out for all to hear that nothing has changed, that the priests of the Apostolic Administration are just as Traditional as before, which is the essence of what they have been granted, and why they accepted Rome's offer: because Rome approved of the Traditional position.

For our part, let us begin by noting that we are well aware that in any disagreement one tends to discredit one's adversary. For instance in the case of our former friends in Campos, there are certainly false rumors circulating to the effect that "Bishop Rifan has concelebrated the New Mass", or, "Campos has completely given up Tradition". However, that being said, here is what we observe:

The Campos website lays out the Campos position on the burning question of ecuмenism: they claim to follow the Magisterium of the Church, past and present. There are quotes from Pius XI's encyclical letter Mortalium Animos, next to quotes from John Paul II's Redemptoris Missio. We cannot help observing that there has been a careful selection process: Campos quotes John Paul II's traditional passages while other passages introducing a quite new way of looking at the question are passed over. We read, "Being Catholics, we have no particular teaching of our own on the question. Our teaching is none other than that of the Church's Magisterium. The extracts which we publish here from certain docuмents old and new, bear especially on points of Catholic doctrine which are in greater danger today".

The ambiguity implicit here has become more or less normal in the new situation in which they find themselves: they emphasize those points in the present pontificate which seem favorable to Tradition, and tip-toe past the rest. Say what we will: there took place in Campos on January 18, 2002, not only a one-sided recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but also, in exchange, an undertaking by Campos to keep quiet, And how could it be otherwise? It is clear by now that Campos has something to lose which they are afraid or losing, and so in order not to lose it they have chosen the path of compromise: "We Brazilians are men of peace, you Frenchmen are always fighting". Which means that, in order to keep the peace with Rome, one must stop fighting. They no longer see the situation of the Church as a whole, they content themselves with Rome's gesture in favor of a little group of two dozen priests and say that there is no longer any emergency in the Church because the granting of a traditional bishop has created a new juridical situation...They are forgetting the wood for a single tree.

Bishop Rifan, in the course of a brief visit to Europe, went to see Dom Gerard at Le Barroux Abbey in France to present his apologies for having so criticized him back in 1988 when Dom Gerard condemned Archbishop Lefebvre's consecrating or four bishops. In a lecture he gave to the monks, Bishop Rifan pretended there were two phases in the life or Bishop de Castro Mayer: up till 1981 he was supposedly a docile bishop respecting the rest of the hierarchy, from 1981 onwards he was a much harder churchman... "We choose to follow the pre-1981 de Castro Mayer", said Bishop Rifan to the monks, some of whom were surprised at such words, and one of them was scandalized to the point of coming over to the SSPX.

Within this way of thinking even the Novus Ordo Mass can be accommodated. Campos forgets the 62 reasons for having nothing to do with it, Campos now finds that if it is properly celebrated, it is valid (which we have never denied, but that is not the point). Campos no longer says that Catholics must stay away because the New Mass is bad, and dangerous. Bishop Rifan says, by way of justifying his position on the Mass: "So we reject all use of the traditional Mass as a battle-flag to insult and fight the lawfully constituted hierarchical authority of the Church. We stay with the traditional Mass, not out of any spirit of contradiction, but as a clear and lawful expression of our Catholic Faith (…)". We are reminded of the words of a Cardinal a little while back: "Whereas the SSPX is FOR the old Mass, the Fraternity of St. Peter Is AGAINST the New Mass. It's not the same thing". That was Rome's argument to justify taking action against Fr. Bisig of the Fraternity of St. Peter at about the same time that Rome was cozying up to the SSPX. The cardinal's curious distinction is now being put into practice by Campos, as they pretend to be for the old Mass but not against the new. Likewise for Tradition, but not against today's Rome. "We maintain that Vatican II cannot contradict Catholic Tradition", said Bishop Rifan quite recently to a French magazine, Famille Chretienne. Yet a well-known cardinal said that Vatican II was the French Revolution inside the Church. Bishop de Castro Mayer said the same thing....

So little by little the will to fight grows weaker and finally one gets used to the situation. In Campos itself, everything positively traditional is being maintained, for sure, so the people see nothing different, except that the more perceptive amongst them notice the priests' tendency to speak respectfully and more often of recent statements and events coming out of Rome, while yesterday's warnings and today's deviations are left out. The great danger here is that in the end one gets used to the situation as it is, and no longer tries to remedy it. For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted.

LEAVING THE SSPX BEHIND

Besides this wholly foreseeable evolution of minds by which the Campos priests have, whatever they say, given up the fight, we must note another occurrence, the increasing hostility between us. Bishop Rifan still says that he wants to be our friend, but some Campos priests are already accusing us of being schismatic because we refuse their agreement with Rome.

A little like one sees a boat pushing into mid-river, drifting down-stream and leaving the bank behind, so we see, little by little, several indications of the distance growing between ourselves and Campos. We had warned them of the great danger, they chose not to listen. Since they have no wish to row up-stream, then even while inside the boat things carry on as before, which gives them the impression that nothing has changed, nevertheless they are leaving us behind, as they show themselves more and more attached to the magisterium of today, as opposed to the position they held until recently and which we still hold, namely a sane criticism of the present in the light of the past.

To sum up, we are bound to say that the Campos priests, despite their claims to the contrary, are slowly being re-molded, following the lead of their new bishop, in the spirit of the Council. That is all Rome wants —for the moment.

One may object that our arguments are weak and too subtle, and of no weight as against Rome's offer to regularize our situation. We reply that if one considers Rome's offer of an Apostolic Administration just by itself, it is as splendid as the architect's plan of a beautiful mansion. But the real problem is the practical problem of what foundations the mansion will rest on. On the shifting sands of Vatican II, or on the rock of Tradition going back to the first Apostle?

To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today's Rome clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday. When the Roman authorities have re-stated with actions speaking louder than words that "there must be no innovations outside of Tradition", then "we" shall no longer be a problem. And we beg God to hasten that day when the whole Church will flourish again, having re-discovered the secret of her past strength, freed from the modern unthought of which Paul VI said that "It is anti-Catholic in nature, Maybe it will prevail. It will never be the Church. There will have to be a faithful remnant, however tiny".

LIFE INSIDE THE SSPX

Let us also tell you of life inside the Society, to give you a little share in our apostolic joys and labors. And let us make use of this letter to tell you a little of our activity in missionary countries. It is true that today almost all countries, especially in our old Europe, are again becoming missionary countries. Priests, in their apostolic travels, visit over 65 countries, some of them still today suffering direct persecution of the Faith. But as this letter is already long, let us confine ourselves to two new areas of our apostolate. We had been visiting them off and on for a number of years, but just recently we think they are opening up in an astonishing way: Lithuania and Kenya.

In order the better to organize our apostolate in Russia and White Russia, we have established a bridgehead in Lithuania, a country which suffered much under Russian Communist persecution and where it took heroism to keep Catholicism going. Once the Iron Curtain fell, the Eastern countries put their trust in the novelties from the Vatican, being persuaded that anything coming from the West had to be good… These countries swiftly caught up on the state of disaster inflicted by the reforms. Any reaction is rather passive than visible, so we do not see them taking action. But once our priests got over the language difficulty, they are discovering ground that promises to be fertile for Tradition, more so than our first fruitless attempts had given us to expect. Welcomed with a severe warning from the local bishops to Catholics to stay away from us, our priests nevertheless discovered numerous priests wishing to join us. These explained their bishops' severity: it was out of fear that Catholics would come to us in large numbers. For instance we have been approached by a little congregation of sisters, founded by Cardinal Vincentas Sladkevicius, Archbishop Emeritus of Kaunas. Before he died on May 28, 2000, he left orders with the sisters: "When the Society of St. Pius X comes, you must join them. They will restore the Church in Lithuania". May God with His grace enable us to live up to the Archbishop's expectation! The main cities now have their little Mass center where interest is slight for the moment, but becomes more pressing each day.

Kenya has been receiving sporadic visits from Society priests for the last 25 years, but we have only just discovered the existence of a group of 1,500 faithful organizing their struggle for the Faith with their refusal of communion in the hand and standing. Our first contacts with them show very clearly that they are battling not only for the right way to receive communion but also for a whole traditional attitude. We are discovering also a number of nuns who have left their different Congregations or been chased out of them because they refused the Vatican II reforms. Living in the world they remained faithful to their vows. Now 16 of them are coming over to us in the hope of being able once more to live in community.

A young priest said to us, "If you set up a chapel here, it will empty out the cathedral. When I visit the faithful they say to me: 'Why have you changed our Church? Say Mass like it used to be!' But I don't know the old Mass, I don't know how the Church was before. When I ask older priests, they send me packing. Can you teach me to say the old Mass? Can I visit you to learn?" Another priest, also young, said in a tone of voice that spoke volumes. "I will note down in my diary for this evening: my first Tridentine Mass".

How can the Church authorities not heed the cry of these souls thirsting for grace and the Catholic life? Beneath the ashes and ruins left by Vatican II, there are still traditional Catholic embers glowing, needing only to blaze up again. The Church does not die. God watches over it. May He grant us to be His docile instruments to spread the fire that His Heart burns to spread throughout the world!

But you in particular, dear faithful, are well aware that we cannot manage to do all we would like to do; how we need priests! Pray, pray the master of the harvest to send numerous workers into his apostolic field.

At the beginning of this new year, full of gratitude and warm thanks for all your unfailing generosity, we entrust you with praying for priests, for the sacrifice of the Mass. God bless you and all your families with an abundance of all His graces.

+Bishop Fellay
January 6, 2003

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** June 10, 2012, 03:58:14 PM »

Archbishop Lefebvre Refutes Bishop Fellay's Assertion That "It Is Not Realistic To Expect To Have To Wait For A Roman Conversion Before Signing A Practical Deal."

About 3/4 down in the letter, ABL clearly expects that before too long, "we will again have a perfectly Catholic Pope."!

Refutation of Bishop Fellay's New Thoughts on Dignitatis Humanae:

The Arch-modernist Fr. Congar writes, apropos Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae:

It cannot be denied that a text like this does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-9 of the docuмent.12

For the full, unambiguous pre-2012 SSPX position condemning Dignitatis Humanae, please see this masterful article which still survives on the SSPX-Asia website:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Letter_to_the_Future_Bishops.htm

My dear friends,

The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below, especially through the corruption of the Holy Mass which is both the splendid expression of the triumph of Our Lord on the Cross - Regnavit a Ligno Deus - and the source of the extension of His kingdom over souls and over societies. Hence the absolute need appears obvious of ensuring the permanency and continuation of the adorable Sacrifice of Our Lord in order that "His Kingdom come." The corruption of the Holy Mass has brought the corruption of the priesthood and the universal decadence of Faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

God raised up the Priestly Society of St. Pius X for the maintenance and perpetuity of His glorious and expiatory Sacrifice within the Church. He chose Himself some true priests instructed in and convinced of these divine mysteries. God bestowed upon me the grace to prepare these Levites and to confer upon them the grace of the priesthood for the continuation of the true Sacrifice according to the definition of the Council of Trent.

This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. Since this Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the Liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove, I find myself constrained by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of the Catholic episcopacy which I received, in order that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to subsist for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls.

That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circuмstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it.

The main purpose of my passing on the episcopacy is that the grace of priestly orders be continued, for the true Sacrifice of the Mass to be continued, and that the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation be bestowed upon children and upon the faithful who will ask you for it.

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, expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in your seminary. Remain faithful in the handing down of this Faith so that the Kingdom of Our Lord may come.

Finally, I beseech you to remain attached to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, to remain profoundly united amongst yourselves, in submission to the Society's Superior General, in the Catholic Faith of all time, remembering the words of St. Paul to the Galatians (1:8-9): "But even if we or an angel from heaven were to teach you a different gospel from the one we have taught you, let him be anathema."

As we have said before, now again I say: "if anyone teaches you a different gospel from what you have received, let him be anathema." My dear friends, be my consolation in Christ Jesus, 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 glory of Jesus in heaven and upon earth, for the salvation of souls, for the salvation of my own soul.

In the hearts of Jesus and Mary I embrace you and bless you. Your father in Christ Jesus,

+ Marcel Lefebvre

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #5 on:** June 10, 2012, 03:59:43 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Refutation of Bishop Fellay's New Thoughts on Dignitatis Humanae:

The Arch-modernist Fr. Congar writes, apropos Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae:

It cannot be denied that a text like this does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-9 of the docuмent.12

For the full, unambiguous pre-2012 SSPX position condemning Dignitatis Humanae, please see this masterful article which still survives on the SSPX-Asia website:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Letter_to_the_Future_Bishops.htm

PS: The comments of Fr. Congar can be found here:

Challenge to the Church (London, 1977), p. 44.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #6 on:** June 10, 2012, 05:27:23 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Archbishop Lefebvre Refutes Bishop Fellay's Assertion That "It Is Not Realistic To Expect To Have To Wait For A Roman Conversion Before Signing A Practical Deal."

About 3/4 down in the letter, ABL clearly expects that before too long, "we will again have a perfectly Catholic Pope."!

Refutation of Bishop Fellay's New Thoughts on Dignitatis Humanae:

The Arch-modernist Fr. Congar writes, apropos Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae:

It cannot be denied that a text like this does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-9 of the docuмent.12

For the full, unambiguous pre-2012 SSPX position condemning Dignitatis Humanae, please see this masterful article which still survives on the SSPX-Asia website:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Letter_to_the_Future_Bishops.htm

My dear friends,

The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below, especially through the corruption of the Holy Mass which is both the splendid expression of the triumph of Our Lord on the Cross - Regnavit a Ligno Deus - and the source of the extension of His kingdom over souls and over societies. Hence the absolute need appears obvious of ensuring the permanency and continuation of the adorable Sacrifice of Our Lord in order that "His Kingdom come." The corruption of the Holy Mass has brought the corruption of the priesthood and the universal decadence of Faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

God raised up the Priestly Society of St. Pius X for the maintenance and perpetuity of His glorious and expiatory Sacrifice within the Church. He chose Himself some true priests instructed in and convinced of these divine mysteries. God bestowed upon me the grace to prepare these Levites and to confer upon them the grace of the priesthood for the continuation of the true Sacrifice according to the definition of the Council of Trent.

This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. Since this Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the Liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove, I find myself constrained by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of the Catholic episcopacy which I received, in order that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to subsist for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls.

That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circuмstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it.

The main purpose of my passing on the episcopacy is that the grace of priestly orders be continued, for the true Sacrifice of the Mass to be continued, and that the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation be bestowed upon children and upon the faithful who will ask you for it.

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, expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in your seminary. Remain faithful in the handing down of this Faith so that the Kingdom of Our Lord may come.

Finally, I beseech you to remain attached to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, to remain profoundly united amongst yourselves, in submission to the Society's Superior General, in the Catholic Faith of all time, remembering the words of St. Paul to the Galatians (1:8-9): "But even if we or an angel from heaven were to teach you a different gospel from the one we have taught you, let him be anathema."

As we have said before, now again I say: "if anyone teaches you a different gospel from what you have received, let him be anathema." My dear friends, be my consolation in Christ Jesus, 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 glory of Jesus in heaven and upon earth, for the salvation of souls, for the salvation of my own soul.

In the hearts of Jesus and Mary I embrace you and bless you. Your father in Christ Jesus,

+ Marcel Lefebvre

Somehow, two distinct posts of mine got merged here.

One refuted Bishop fellay's new orientation on religious liberty.

The other refuted his claim that it is not realistic to wait for a Roman conversion before signing a deal.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #7 on:** June 10, 2012, 07:57:23 PM »

Fellay v Fellay #2:

Refutation that a practical agreement would work.

Refutation that the Sspx would not have to drink the V2 poison.

Both in the words of Bishop fellay's himself.

Taken from his 2008 "State of the union address" as published in the June 2008 Angelus:

"They would like us to come in and help them get out of the crisis. Of course it would not be such a bad idea, if at the same time they did not oblige us to accept Vatican 2. They want us to absorb what caused the evil, and after that we are supposed to help. We have tried to explain to them that it would not work."

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #8 on:** June 10, 2012, 08:04:32 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Fellay v Fellay #2:

Refutation that a practical agreement would work.

Refutation that the Sspx would not have to drink the V2 poison.

Both in the words of Bishop fellay's himself.

Taken from his 2008 "State of the union address" as published in the June 2008 Angelus:

"They would like us to come in and help them get out of the crisis. Of course it would not be such a bad idea, if at the same time they did not oblige us to accept Vatican 2. They want us to absorb what caused the evil, and after that we are supposed to help. We have tried to explain to them that it would not work."

In other words, not only have things allegedly changed in Rome since 1988, they have changed since just mid-2008!

JPaul · « **Reply #9 on:** June 10, 2012, 08:37:00 PM »

Some additional notes to provide more context to one or two things mentioned in Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon:

The Information Related by Bishop Fellay to Priests in Austria
In an in-house interview with DICI, published on 8th June, Bishop Fellay stated in regard to this information that "Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false".

Yet a few sentences before his claim that the report was "entirely false" Bishop Fellay inadvertently admitted in reference to the proposed Personal Prelature on offer that one of the points was certainly true. "It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary".

The remarks of Bishop Fellay referred to by Fr. Pfeiffer were in fact made to about 10 priests of the Austrian District, not just the one who passed on the information to concerned laity to publish on the internet. Half of the priests present immediately made it very clear to Bishop Fellay that they would not accept it.

Fr. Iscara, St. Basil and the "Economy of Silence"
Fr. Iscara's article claiming that St. Basil taught that one must be silent or speak ambiguously in the face of heresy is actually a text based upon an article from a Greek Orthodox website and Conciliar 'scholars' as revealed by the citations that he includes. Fr. Iscara's thesis was ripped apart by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in his recently published confirmation sermon of 3rd June in France.

Dom Gueranger also puts paid to Fr. Iscara's thesis, in The Liturgical Year for the Feast of St. Basil the Great, and speaks directly to us and these precarious times that we live through:

"Peace is just what Basil desired as much as anybody but the peace for which he would give his life could be only that true peace left to the Church by our Lord. What he so vigorously exacted on the grounds of faith proceeded solely from his very love of peace. And therefore, as he himself tells us, he absolutely refused to enter into communion with those narrow-minded men who dread nothing so much as a clear, precise expression of dogma; in his eyes their captious formulas and ungraspable shiftings were but the action of hypocrites, in whose company he would scorn to approach God's altar".

As to those merely misled,

"Let the faith of our fathers be proposed to them with all tenderness and charity; if they will assent thereunto, let us receive them into our midst; in other cases, let us dwell with ourselves alone, regardless of numbers; and let us keep aloof from equivocating souls, who are not possessed of that simplicity without guile, indispensably required in the early days of the Gospel from all who would approach to the faith. The believers, so it is written, had but one heart and one soul. Let those, therefore, who would reproach us for not desiring pacification, mark well who are the real authors of the disturbance, and so not point the question of reconciliation on Our side any more."

In someone else's words, commenting upon Fr. Iscara's article:

"It is ironic and almost funny that according to Gueranger's sources, Bp. Fellay's attempt at union is condemned by St. Basil's words in direct contradiction to Fr. Iscara's article!"

Fr. Gregoire Celier - How to Interpret Archbishop Lefebvre
Fr. Celier has been a source of holy anger and scandal in France for many years but has mysteriously found himself continually favoured and promoted by Menzingen to positions of influence despite of it. Fr. Celier controls the main publishing organs of the SSPX in France.

Amongst Fr. Celier's claims to fame can be included the following:

1) He was responsible, with Fr. Lorans - head of DICI - for enabling a certain Professor Jean Borella to lecture young Catholics at the SSPX university in Paris. Professor Borella's ideas were condemned as gnostic heresies by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in a book reviewing them written by Fr. Basilio Meramo (expelled from SSPX for publicly opposing the sell-out) called Les Heresies de la Gnose du Professeur Jean Borella. The book is available to read, in French, on the internet.

2) Fr. Celier is the driving force, with Fr. Lorans, of a group known as GREC (Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques) that invloves Ecclessia Dei communities and others in an attempt to further Benedict's "Hermeneutic of Continuity".

3) Fr. Celier was centrally involved in secret meetings at a monastery facilitating former SSPX priests to rally to Conciliar Rome and to form the Good Shepherd Institute. This ralliement involved Fr. Celier's close friends Fr. de Tanouran and Fr. Hery who are closely associated with the French pagan and occultist Nouvelle Droite, led by Alain de Benoist, a group that is well known for its promotion of neo-gnostic ideas and Freemasonic idols such as Rene Guenon.

4) The book mentioned by Fr. Pfeiffer in his sermon, Benoit XVI et les Traditionalistes, was edited and had its introduction written by a well-known Freemason, Jean-Luc Maxence.

Maxence is a prolific author who since the 1970's has published many titles with New Age and esoteric publishers. Within the space of a few years leading up to his collaboration with Fr. Celier he wrote and published titles such as: Rene Guenon: le philosophe invisible (Rene Guenon: The Invisible Philospher); L'egrégore: l'énergie psychique collective (Egregore: The Collective Psychic Energy) and Jung est l'avenir de la franc-maçonnerie (Jung is the Future of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ).

5) Fr. Celier's book of philosophy, le dieu mortel, was condemned by the Dominicans of Avrille for its promotion of Naturalism.

6) It is well known that Fr. Celier publicly associates with historical revisionists who counter the falsified history of certain events that allegedly happened during World War II. In April of this year Fr. Celier led prayers at the funeral service of an unbaptised revisionist who is recorded as stating that Jєωιѕн claims of a h0Ɩ0cαųst were "Six Million junior porters for the great Bank of Israel". Fr. Celier's involvement was publicly reported in an obituary for the French patriot, Francoise Brigneau, in the right-wing newspaper Rivarol.

Whilst Bishop Williamson was subjected to a worldwide media maelstrom and threatened with expulsion from SSPX for expressing his own views on the subject the international and Jєωιѕн media remain knowingly tight-lipped about Fr. Celier, and Bishop Fellay quite happily uses him to help spearhead the attempted assimilation of SSPX to Modernist Rome.

Surprisingly, there are no threats of expulsion and no constant and insulting provocations coming from Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pfluger or Menzingen's Zionist lawyer and financial and asset controller, Maximilian Krah, in the case of Fr. Celier!

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** June 14, 2012, 03:39:23 PM »

Also, why are the Church's enemies (for example, the Jєωs) so silent about this impending deal? It can't be good for the SSPX or the Church!