They Say Nothing Has Changed…
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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), etc.
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.
Topic: Letter fo Fr Chazal (Read 5489 times)