CathInfo.com

.

RIGHT OFF THE TOP,
I'd like to thank you, MarcelJude, for this most informative post.  

I do wish you could include the name of the author, though.  Unless
you'd like it to remain, "MarcelJude."  

I'm going to take the liberty, if you don't mind, of adding underline
to the various titles you have herein, as well as a few other touches,
and then summarize them at the end for fast reference.


This is great stuff!

They Say Nothing Has Changed…[/i]

So we are told by those in the Neo-SSPX that nothing has changed. They are pushing a talk from one of their priests entitled “Resistance to what?”. Those who support the Neo-SSPX also (ignorantly) believe nothing has changed. I had one particular person comment on one my articles saying that “nothing has changed in the Society since 1974.”  

The facts, however, prove that this just isn’t true. I will go through the changes one by one.


New Position on Judaism

The Neo-SSPX has a new position on Judaism, one that was NOT shared by the Society’s founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. For as he said:

“Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet and has great respect for Mary, and this certainly places Islam nearer to our religion than say, for instance, Judaism, which is far more distant from us. Islam was born in the 7th century and it has benefited to some degree from the Christian teachings of those days.

“Judaism, on the other hand, is the heir to the system which crucified our Lord. And the members of this religion, who have not converted to Christ, are those who are radically opposed to our Lord Jesus Christ. For them, there is no question whatever of recognizing our Lord. They are in opposition to the very foundation and existence of the Catholic faith on this subject. However, we cannot both be right. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Lord and Savior or He is not. This is one case where there cannot be the slightest compromise without destroying the very foundation of Catholic faith.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, interview, 1978)

Even Fr. Schmidberger, who is a pro-Fellay priest of the Neo-SSPX, said that we should never refer to the Jews as our “elder brothers”. Yet, in 2009, Bishop Fellay felt the desire to state the following:

“The Jews are our elder brothers.” (Bishop Fellay, comment in “The Angelus”, 2009)

This statement was never retracted.

Come to think of it, it does seem to be the case, that you are correct.
But it should come as no surprise.  It seems to me that we really, truly
need a LIST of such statements by The Great One that have never been
retracted.  We could really use that.  

Decreasing devotion to Our Lady

The devotion to Our Lady seems to be decreasing in the Neo-SSPX. Those reading this that are pro-Fellay may be thinking “What a slanderous accusation!”. Really, though, it is not “slanderous”, it is the truth.

The Resistance mentioned Our Lady in their declaration to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Consecrations at Econe. The Society’s three Bishops did not mention her in their declaration. This is most odd, especially considering that it is obvious from reading his quotes that Archbishop Lefebvre had a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

One also cannot help but wonder how highly the Society thinks of Fatima, given no real protest was raised after Bishop Tissier, in his infamous 2006 interview with Stephen Heiner, said when asked about Fatima the following: “Fatima is a private revelation. Excuse me, but I do not speak of it”. Perhaps there was no criticism of this because his remarks in the interview about Benedict XVI being a heretic overshadowed his comment on Fatima. Nevertheless, it leads one to wonder if Bishop Fellay and other leaders in the Society feel the same way. The Archbishop, however, spoke fondly of the Apparitions at Fatima several times.

This is why I recommend reading Maurice Pinay’s blog with caution. Though he is right about the Jews, he not only is obsessed with slandering Fr. Malachi Martin but also has spoken negatively about Fatima several times, to a much greater extent than Bishop Tissier did.

Like the formidable InDominoSperavi herself, below, says, this
aspect of the +TdM interview I had likewise overlooked.  

Muito obrigado!

Furthermore, I do appreciate the caution regarding "Maurice Pinay".
I had several misgivings about that anonymous 'groupe de priestites'.

As Fr. Pfeiffer states, Fatima is more than just a “private revelation”. The good news is that there is still hope for Bishop Tissier, perhaps, as mistaken about Fatima as he is. The same likely cannot be said for Bishop Fellay, I’m afraid. If the Blessed Virgin Mary being left out of the Society’s declaration is any indication, the Society’s devotion to her is decreasing.


Vatican II and Religious Liberty

In a CNS interview in May of 2012, Bishop Fellay said this when asked about religious liberty:

“Religious liberty is used in so many ways, and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the council says about it. The council is presenting a religious liberty which in fact was a very, very limited one, very limited. It would, in our talks with Rome they clearly said that, to mean that there would be a right to error or a right to choose each one its religious -  religion – is false. “

That’s not what Vatican II taught. The modernists in Rome lied to Bishop Fellay and he fell for it. As Archbishop Lefebvre taught, religious liberty as taught by Vatican II is a HERESY. It is simply astonishing that Bishop Fellay would attempt to deny this.

Later in the interview he says:

“The Pope says that the…, he even said it recently, that the council must be put within this great tradition of the Church, must be understood within this, and in correlance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely.”

And how is Vatican II in-line with the tradition of the Church? It isn’t. How can Bishop Fellay try to suggest that it’s possible for Vatican II to be put in-line with Tradition?

In his disgusting 2012 “doctrinal preamble”, Bishop Fellay made similar remarks, saying that Vatican II “deepens certain aspects of the Church”.

In this abominable AFD, there is much to be regretful for, to be
sure, but the thing that "gets my goat" is how the Accordistas
doggedly cling to the false principle that it's really okay now because
the Vatican didn't accept it, and after all, The Great One has
"rescinded" this, or he has "retracted" this, this, this..

..MINOR FULFILLMENT OF OUR LORD'S PROPHESY in Matthew xxiv. 15.



Anyone who thinks that such horror and abomination can be swept
under the rug like so much sleaze and jetsam has no idea what
the word "doctrine" signifies.  They haven't a clue what it really
means, therefore, to be Catholic in spirit and in truth.

To those who insist that the SSPX remains dedicated to exposing the errors of Vatican II, I ask you, do the words I quoted sound like criticisms of the council? Is that your definition of opposing the errors of the council?


GREC, Krahgate, and the secular PR firm

All three of these things have played a big role in the downfall of the Society, and are all a sign of significant interior corruption.

GREC (Group For Reflection Among Catholics)* was started in 1997. Its goal was to create discussion about serious issues between the SSPX and Rome without any anger or bitterness and eventually pave the way for a “reconciliation”. One of GREC’s four founders, Neo-SSPX priest Fr. Lorans, immediately received permission from Bishop Fellay to participate in GREC. Bishop Fellay has never commented publicly on GREC.

*Le Groupe de Reflexion Entre Catholiques for those who
comprende la Francais lingo.

Maximilian Krah is a lawyer for the Neo-SSPX. It was his responsibility to find a defense lawyer for Bishop Williamson after his denial of the “h0Ɩ0cαųst” led to a trial in Germany. Despite Krah (supposedly) being on +Williamson’s side, he criticized him publicly, saying that he had a “serious disconnect from reality”. No one at the time came to +Williamson’s defense.

Krah responded to rumors that he is a Jєωιѕн infiltrator in a 2012 interview with “The Remnant”. He denied the rumors, though he did make numerous pro-Jєωιѕн statements, saying that “there’s nothing bad about being Jєωιѕн”, and “I have many Jєωιѕн friends”, and claimed that Jews “are people of Jesus and Mary”. Such beliefs were not shared by Archbishop Lefebvre, nor are they in line with what the Church has always taught.

The secular PR firm was hired by Menzingen to “rebrand” the SSPX. This explains the “new” look of the Society and the changes to their site.

None of this is something Archbishop Lefebvre would have tolerated in his Society.


The Novus Ordo

In his 2012 doctrinal preamble, Bishop Fellay stated that the Novus Ordo was “legitimately promulgated”, and later referred to it as a “legitimate Mass”.

Once again, Bishop Fellay contradicts Archbishop Lefebvre, who called the New Mass a “bastard mass”. It is neither legitimately promulgated nor legitimate.

Bishop Fellay also suggested in a January 2013 interview that a “reform of the reform” would be acceptable, whereas the Archbishop said not to attend even a reverent Novus Ordo. The Society’s new position on the Novus Ordo is a departure from the mindset of their founder.


The New Attitude of Priests

The behavior of the Society’s priests has changed the past few years or so. There are many instances of Neo-SSPX priests who do not behave as priests, but behave more like liberal hotheads. There are many instances of this.

A man in Florida was physically harassed by a Neo-SSPX priest for merely attending a Resistance barbecue.

This goes to prove that Fellayites are not Texan, because nobody ever
gets in trouble in Texas for having a barbeque or for attending one.  

In fact, in Texas, ALL barbecues are "Resistance" barbecues!

Ask Matthew or MaterDominici.  .  .  .  .  .  .  

Several priests – including US District Superior Fr. Rostand – have been spying on internet forums attempting to figure out the identities of pro-Resistance poster. Fr. Rostand reportedly found out the identity of one man whom he had never met and discovered what parish he went to. One Neo-SSPX priest even printed the posts of a pro-Resistance layperson who he knew went to his parish and handed the printings of the posts out to other members of the parish asking them if they knew who the poster was.

One pro-Resistance layman sent news of a Resistance conference in Idaho to various priests in the area. One particular Neo-SSPX replied: “I’d appreciate it if you kept your crap to yourself and your other disillusioned Williamson leeches”. How can a priest, someone who is supposed to be a man of God, speak this way? It is sickening.

Another priest stated that the home of Fr. Pfeiffer’s parents was burned down by God as punishment for Fr. Pfeiffer’s “disobedience” and called him “Kentucky Fried Priest”. Again, another instance of a priest who does not speak like a priest and needs to go to Confession for speaking in that manner.

Several pro-Resistance laymen have even been denied Communion from their Neo-SSPX priests.

Anyone who could defend these actions cannot possibly call themselves a truly good Catholic.


Dealings with Rome

I have shown many quotes from the Archbishop from 1988 onwards, proving that he was against a deal with Rome until after they converted. Here is another quote that I have not yet mentioned:

“To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness,               would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the               faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6th, 1988)

So, as Archbishop Lefebvre says, the faithful have a right to know that the priests they support are not in communion with the conciliar church. This quote would certainly justify the pro-Resistance faithful’s reaction to Menzingen’s actions.

And as many erroneous quotes Bishop Fellay has made, he used to speak differently. In his January 2003 letter to friends and benefactors, Bishop Fellay was critical of Campos for selling out to Rome. In the same letter, he said:

“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.”

Compare that to what he said last year:

“Unfortunately, in the current context of the Society, the new declaration will not be accepted. [...] I am committed to this perspective [practical agreement without doctrinal agreement] despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path to reach the necessary clarifications. [...] May Your Holiness deign to believe my filial devotion and my dearest wish to serve the Church.” (Bishop Fellay, letter to Benedict XVI, 2012)

So much for people’s claim that “nothing has changed”.


Conclusion

To conclude, there is no truth to the ridiculous claim that “nothing has changed”. The Society has absolutely changed, and there are actually more examples of change that I left out, such as:

Their new, more hostile position on sedevacantism,

Their new position on Indult Masses,

Their refusal to criticize the conciliar popes (I.e., remaining silent after Francis making pro-gαy remarks and restricting the TLM),

Etcetera


Everything, from their new position on Vatican II and the Novus Ordo to their refusal to mention the Blessed Virgin Mary in their June 27th declaration and the new attitude of their priests serves as proof that many things have changed. So please, to any pro-Fellay people who may be reading this, do not leave a comment telling me that still nothing has changed, because that is a lie.

It is in no way logical to say nothing has changed.

As for the Resistance, however, they remain faithful to the true Catholic Faith, to Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother, and to the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre.

God Bless.

In summary:


New Position on Judaism
Decreasing devotion to Our Lady
Vatican II and Religious Liberty
GREC, Krahgate, and the secular PR firm
The Novus Ordo
The New Attitude of Priests
Dealings with Rome

Not to mention:
Their new, more hostile position on sedevacantism,

Their new position on Indult Masses,

Their refusal to criticize the conciliar popes

Etc.




So, now after leaving this legacy in pixels of the objective facts
that prove the falsehood of the lie that "nothing has changed,"
without one word of emotionalism, hyperbole, or presumption of
any kind, what do you get but the false accusation of "hype, emotion
and false presumption," by the longstanding and pertinacious
mudslinger, O.K.A. Johnnier:

Marcel,

Once more I see a lot of hype and emotion and false presumption. The very thing the resistance are accusing the SSPX of doing is now being done by a number within the resistance.

Many of the various things you cite are being taken out of context – regarding the Jews for example. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself was a Jew. –
Bp. Fellay has also said some negative things about the Jews, but as Fr. Denis Fahey has pointed out, the Jews still have a special place in the heart of Our Lord and for this reason the Sacred Heart at the end of time will bring about a general conversion of the Jews. Fr. Denis Fahey will pointing out the great evils committed by the Jews also has some favorable things to say about them, putting the issue in it’s proper perspective.

As for Fr. Themann – It is most reasonable that the SSPX give a response to the faithful about the questions raised by the resistance. – The false presumption by some is that regardless what the SSPX says or does is that it is wrong, and that regardless of what the resistance says or does is good – this is totally sectarian thinking. It isn’t Catholic, especially since the entire resistance isn’t on the same page. Bp. Williamson doesn’t share equal views as many of the other resistance priest on many things. – We can’t make of this a question of personalities.

Bp. Fellay is quoted by some resistance as though he has the status of Pope. Sorry, regardless of what he, or any resistance priest might think, he isn’t Pope, (well not yet :) )

Sorry, contrary to what some might think, Fr. Pfieffer isn’t pope either. Fatima, remains a private revelation, and a very special one, but this is basic Catholic teaching (non negotiable). Public revelation ended with death of the last apostle – St. John (De Fide Catholic teaching). Unless Fr. Pfieffer thinks he knows better than the clear teaching of the Church, he needs to retract his statement.

Can you give a clear citation from the Archbishop that states that the Conciliar text on religious liberty is heresy? (It is false, but does make it automatically heretical? There are various notes of error that the Church attributes to false ideas. Not all errors are heretical, as erroneous as they may be).

As to the whole question of the Novus Ordo – Even the Archbishop in his may 5th protocol admit as much – the word legitimate here also needs to be taken in it’s proper context, even the Vatican itself had to clarify this point. The word ‘legitimas’ in regards to papal promulgation

Your whole pile of nonsense is exposed for what it is, Johnnier,
when you realize the FACT that the Newmass was never promulgated
at all.  It was a big joke on you, and they're laughing at you behind
your back, for being a dunce.  Unfortunately, ABL was fooled as well,
but you should know better.  You outlived him.  Now we know.  It's too
late to still be fooled.  Get over it.  

simply refers to the fact that due proceed was followed and not that what was put out is necessarily orthodox. – For a law to be ‘legitimas’ in the formal sense in needs to be for the common good. The Novus Ordo is not legitimas in the formal sense. The SSPX again clarified this point as she has many of the other various points. For people only want to hear what they want isn’t being honest to say the least. I fear that some while the have a dislike for Bp. Fellay have allowed that to blind them from being more objective in the present situation.

In the peace of Christ.

While better Catholics than I am continue to give such members
as this one, above, the benefit of the doubt, I have to refrain from
what I want to say, because it would not be something becoming
for the Resistance.  


If it's any consolation, there are people like this who mutter things
to themselves over and over again, in their vain attempt to convince
God of their doctrine, and they will do so in eternity, because they
are going to be muttering the same things at the Second Coming
of Our Lord and at their own particular judgment;  things like,

..But.. but revelation ended with the last Apostle!  This can't be
happening to me!  I didn't have to believe in the Message of Fatima!  
It was only a 'private revelation'!  Bishop Tissier told me so!  
And guess who is going to be next in line?  "WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO
SAY FOR YOURSELF, TELLING THE FAITHFUL THIS LIE?!"

The Menzingen apologists from IA have migrated to CI and are preforming the same kind of disruption here as they have done over there.

J.Paul, as usual, is right on the money.  Certain members of CI are
consistently definitive for what it means to be the Resistance, and
you, J.Paul are a good example.  Thank you very much.  

MarcelJude, thank you for your help because for me, it is difficult to write in English. I didn't know Bp Tissier had spoken about Fatima. Can you please give the references ? I would like to know what he told exactly. Thank you in advance.

Ditto.

Neil,

Yes, Ab. Lefebvre was fooled, but you are the 'smart' one. Please spare us.

You fail to answer any of the basic points I make. If you can't answer just say so, no need to hide behind insults.

While I have been a staunch resistance follower for the greater part, I can say honestly, I can now see that they are not correct in their assessment. I think with time is becoming clearer to me and others. They want to combat what they perceive as an error on Part of the SSPX with another error, namely failing to make some of the basic distinctions which the SSPX has always made.

To me it seems like a emotional reaction to a real problem. Just look at how certain people here reaction to even basic object errors pointed out to them.

Fr. Pfieffer is mistaken on trying to claim that Fatima isn't merely a private revelation. This point is basic Catholic teaching. It seems to me, that all people have done is deflect what they persevered as the infallibility of Bp. Fellay to Fr. Pfieffer. I think this is madness to say the least.

Well, to say the least you are a Menzingen apologist and that is the weight which must given to your efforts here. It appears that the only following of the resistance which you have done is to continue to harass their supporters.

We have no need to perceive the problems of the progressives in the Society, as they have already been docuмented and are undeniable to a reasonable person who is capable of critical thinking.