:sign-surrender:I wanted to do a response to a recent rebuttle to Bishop Williamson and this new sudden urge to gain "full communion" with modernist Rome. The SSPX no longer sees the Conciliar Church as such as Archbishop Lefevbre originally taught they hold the pseudo trad position on the Papacy now.

The first error of this article is to somehow have the appraoch that SSPX is not in the Church or already not in "full communion" with Eternal Rome therefore what is with this new push toward being "recognized" when we as true traditionalists are already recognized by the Faith and indeed Christ Himself it is they who have left the Church objectively speaking.

Second, from the article it goes: "Though that April 15th declaration is not without need of some corrections – which Bishop Fellay himself acknowledged."

Yes, you could say that it has clear DOCTRINAL problems hence the resistance.

Three changes in the shift of the "new" direction of SSPX are from the Doctrinal preamble from Bishop Fellay:

5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.

7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.

8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law. ---Bishop Fellay

My Commentary: on point 5, the SSPX NEVER accepted this notion before of accepting the Council in light of Tradition, that is, Vatican II is not Catholic so what more needs to be said about it be reinterpreted or reclarified? Its not Catholic, period, this is the new undersell or pseudo trad approach. On point 7, fr Kramer in his video below covers this, that is, that the new Mass is not licit and not legitimately promulgated NOW the SSPX accepts such. Again a watering down from the previous hardline position hence the resistance(SSPX-SO). The New rites are to be avoided and were put under anathema by the Dogmatic Council of Vatican I. On point 8, again another concession(respect the common discipline/canon law), the new canon laws in some cases are liberal. Naturally if the philosophy( new humanism of Vatican II is bad then the theology would be thence the liturgy would be as well as the Canon, it seems this new direction of SSPX does not recognize this any longer.
*Please do not let any pseudo trad tell you Vatican II can be accepted in light of Tradition, nor that you can or ought use the new rites, (New Mass) the new bibles, and the new canons(where it runs contrary to Tradition/divine Law). We will be exposing this new pseudo trad position like the Remnant and John Venari's now take.

Yet the author of this article states: "At most one may say that this text is weak and contains some inappropriate words (ambiguous, inexact, inappropriate, or simply wrong, like the 7th paragraph) in an effort to find a doctrinal declaration acceptable to the present members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

That is the biggest bunch of bologna it is CLEAR DOCTRINAL deviation form the true traditionalist position!

The author states: “The
problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society
official recognition, and that desire is still very much there.” And the reasoning seems to be this one:
the occupiers of the See of Peter and Roman Congregations are “the apostates of Rome”, men wholly
dedicated to “the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council,” which is “the great apostasy of
modern times”; any agreement whatsoever with them, any canonical recognition by them, makes one a
collaborator in that great apostasy of modern time, a liberal, great enemy of God.
Now in all honesty, such reasoning was NEVER the reasoning of Archbishop Lefebvre!

Now Archbishop Lefevbre:

"That is why we do not rejoin them and why we cannot work with them; we cannot collaborate with the people who depart from the spirit of the Church, from the Tradition of the Church. I think that it is that outlook that should guide us in our present situation. Let us not deceive ourselves by believing that these little breaking actions that are given on the right and on the left, in the excesses of the present situation, that we are seeing a complete return to Tradition. That is not true, that is not true! They remain always liberal minds. But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas. So, from my point of view, it is not a point of doing whatever one can. Those who would have a tendency to want to accept that will end up being recycled.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, December 13, 1984, Address to the priests of the French District)

here is another error form the author implying that we do not have 'full communion" already as true traditionalists again its a distortion of the true trad position

he states: "Catholic Faith teaches us that we cannot be saved alone, separated from the Church. "

comment; were not separated form the Church error on his part

he states more error: "If this internal bond with the Church, consisting in sanctifying grace and charity, is absolutely necessary for salvation, the external bond of the Church, consisting, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, in the profession of the Catholic Faith, the practice of Catholic worship (starting with the sacrament of Baptism) AND the hierarchical communion is also necessary for salvation, “re aut voto”; that is, in case without fault on one’s part one of these external aspect is not possible in fact, then at least the “votum – the firm desire and will” of it is necessary for salvation. Thus the Catholic Church teaches that the very desire of a proper canonical situation (in which basically the hierarchical communion consists) is necessary."

comment: Sanctifying grace in no way has anything to do with gaining a canonically status given the extraordianry times wherein nearly the whole of the Church is consumed in modernism. This is completely perverted!

more error of the author he states about Bishop Willaimson: "In some of your writings (Various Churches) you present the situation as if they are in the Conciliar Church and not in the Catholic Church, presenting the Catholic Church as only that part of the visible Church which would have remained sound. Here are your words:
That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.
Now such thinking was NEVER the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Really, Archbishop Lefevbre was actually much harder that this author so perverts!:

What could be clearer? We must [according to Rome] henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)

We would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects… Amongst the whole Roman curia, amongst all the world’s bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped.

The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome are being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even in His Mystical Body here below… This is what has brought down upon our hearts persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. This Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work on the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican on Religious Liberty prove…” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to the future Bishops, Aug 29, 1987)

more examples, the SSPX does not see a landmine of heresies anymore!!!!

Now such thinking was NEVER the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre. (See my own text on Various Churches?) He never considered the Catholic Church as merely a part of the whole visible Church, a part whose boundaries would no longer be clearly visible, a part where there would no longer be a proper hierarchy, since as you wrote in that same text: "the ‘official Church’ is largely Conciliar and not Catholic." The error of reasoning in that text is to confuse the being/essence and its properties/marks: from the fact that the four Marks of the Church are less visible in many areas due to the errors of the Council, especially the scandalous ecuмenism, one cannot conclude that they are "not Catholic".

they pervert what archbishop said that he said the conciliar church was heretical and schismatic here they are lying about his view and also notice on the ecuмenism portion you once again see the "error" of ecuмenicm. No it is a heresy, following my spiritual director who agrees with us. More watering down!

heres more error form that article:

Catholic Truth is that, in spite of all the imperfection and some deep sins of the successors of the Apostles, some saints, some reprobates and Judases, we must be in communion with them, because they are the successors of the Apostles.

Again the watering down no mention of them being heretics and that we must remain in communion with them? or at least this is what there implying..This is way wrong on sspx

heres more on there assertion they want to be in communion with these modernist heretics trying to twist st Augustine:

Then you might say: Yes, we recognise the Pope, but we ought to keep our distances, since "it is Superiors who mould their subjects and not the other way around." Here the great principle of St. Augustine is there to calm your fears: "in the Church, communion with the wicked does not harm the just, so long as they do not consent with their wicked deeds."

How absurd where does the Church say one can communion with heretics in the church St Augustine does not say this..again they twist words and no implication of heresy on part of st Augustine, poor theology...

heres more:

The first is that no concessions affecting the faith and what follows from it (liturgy, sacraments, morality, discipline) may be demanded of the Society ...Fellay

They already have conseeded in the Doctrinal Preamble which I can find no support top say he didn't say it he doesn't argue against all the points..they have a distorted view on being in full communion with modernist rome, they think it has to do with order when in fact it deals first with the faith...

this letter has very poor theology and thinking of the new sspx...cant go with it..


BY: Eric GaJєωski


Open answer to the Open Letter of Bishop Williamson to the members of the SSPX
--Father François Laisney
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/2013-04-13_FL_Answer_to_Bishop_Williamson.pdf