http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9871

http://z13.invisionfree.com/straphaelforums/index.php?showtopic=3&st=15&#entry22002916

An Open Letter to Bishop Fellay
from some concerned faithful of the SSPX District of Great Britain



June MMXII

Your Excellency,

We wish to approach you, in a spirit of charity, in order to bring before you certain concerns that we wish to address to you as the Superior General of the SSPX.

For some time now we have been hearing reports regarding a practical arrangement with Rome. We are concerned at the potential danger that this might pose to the integrity of the Faith—which is our Faith, and the Faith of our children and grandchildren.


Rome's intentions regarding an SSPX agreement

Several high-ranking SSPX clerics (Frs. Pfluger, Schmidberger and others) have stated that Rome is prepared to give the SSPX “carte blanche”—in other words, to accept the SSPX as it is, without compromise. However, in contradiction to that we have the published words of several high-ranking individuals in Rome, including the Vatican Press Spokesman, who make it clear that they view this as a question of the acceptance by SSPX of the “Vatican II” version of religion in order to achieve a ‘return to Rome’. At the same time, we are warned that we ought to pay no heed to ‘rumours’. Since there exists a contradiction between the two reported versions of what is being offered to the SSPX, and since a Vatican press announcement is not a rumour, are we to conclude that we ought to pay no heed to the words of Fr. Pfluger, for example?


Your own position regarding the Second Vatican Council

We are also scandalized at your recent remarks, published across the world by CNS, that:

“[thanks to the doctrinal discussions with Rome] we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council, but is the common understanding of it”.

...and that:

“The Pope says that the Council must be put within the great Tradition of the Church... these are statements we agree with, totally, absolutely.” (CNS, May 2012)

We, the signatories to this letter, wish to point out that when you say “we” you do not speak for us. Furthermore, we wonder how you can reconcile this idea that the Council was misinterpreted, with the words of Archbishop Lefebvre (in his books “They Have Uncrowned Him” and “I Accuse the Council!” for example), or even with your own statements from not so very long ago, such as:

“Ratzinger should prepare for a direct revision of the Council texts and not just denounce their incorrect hermeneutic (interpretation)”. (CNA, 30 October 2007)

From certain quarters we are being urged to show loyalty, obedience and unity. Leaving aside the awkward memory of how these very same words were used to silence opposition to conciliar teachings and the New Mass some 40 years ago, we feel compelled to ask: which Bishop Fellay are we expected to obey? The Bishop Fellay of 2007, who declared that Vatican II must be revised, or the Bishop Fellay of 2012 who thinks that Vatican II was merely misunderstood and can be accepted? Furthermore, which Bishop Fellay is more consistent with the example of Archbishop Lefebvre?


Your attitude towards Benedict XVI

We also must confess ourselves confused, to say the least, regarding your recent statements about Benedict XVI. It has been said that nobody in the SSPX has a right to refuse if the Pope insists on a canonical accommodation. You yourself have spoken of him in terms of his being our leader in the fight for Tradition:

“But we are not alone in working to defend the Faith … It’s the Pope himself who does it; that’s his job. And if we are called to help the Holy Father, then so be it.” (CNS, May 2012)

May we remind you that this is the very same man (as Cardinal Ratzinger) whom Archbishop Lefebvre felt he could not trust in 1988? That this is the same man who has professed heresies that he has never retracted, as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has pointed out on several occasions? That in the mind of this same Benedict XVI, the idea ‘defending the Faith’ appears to include speculating about the non-existence of Limbo, about the possible moral probity of contraception when used by the depraved, and that he appears to believe that conversion, baptism or the confession of Christ are not necessary for Jєωs to be saved?

Given that a person as prominent as yourself is not normally ignorant of these things, is it unreasonable for us to conclude that you are consciously and deliberately overlooking the heterodox teachings and leadership of Benedict XVI? The SSPX USA District website currently carries an article purporting to show that, following the example of St. Basil of Caesarea, the correct attitude of Catholics when faced with heterodoxy and heresy in high places might often have to be one of silence in the face of apostasy, in order to accommodate themselves so as to continue to do good. We cannot for one minute imagine that Archbishop Lefebvre would have agreed that this should be the strategy of the Society at this particular time, nor that he would have tolerated for one moment such an idea being published in or by his SSPX in these circuмstances. The reaction of your fellow Bishops of the Society would indicate that rapprochement (or more than that) with Rome at this present time is, to say the least, taking a hasty and overly perilous step.

We find that in remaining faithful to the legacy of the great Archbishop Lefebvre, remaining faithful to Catholic Tradition, we are placed at odds with you and your leadership. We neither desired this nor asked for it: the cause lies with you, therefore with you also lies the solution. We, the sheep adhering to Holy Tradition gladly gathered around the Society, because the Society spoke with the Voice of the Eternal Shepherd, and we recognized His Voice in what the Archbishop and his faithful followers proclaimed. Whatever the result of the present circuмstances, we—the Flock faithful to Holy Tradition and to the Faith of the Eternal Church—we shall not be the ones to change. We will remain faithful to Tradition, whatever the consequences.


Rumours, information, openness and honesty

Finally, we wish to express our very deep concern that amidst this turmoil, amidst what appears to be a huge upheaval affecting the SSPX—therefore all of us and, by implication, the future of Tradition and the whole Church—there appears to be a reticence on the part of the leadership of the SSPX, a reluctance to come forward with information in a spirit of honesty and openness.

We are told on the one hand that we ought to pay no attention to rumours or internet gossip, and only pay heed to information which comes to us from the official sources of the SSPX. On the other hand, when solid facts come to light (such as the letter of the three Bishops, or your recent interview with CNS, or the Vatican press release about the SSPX) we are supposed not to look at that either.

On the one hand, we are told that we should get our information solely from the official organs of the SSPX (dici, sspx.org, pius.info etc.). On the other hand, these same news organs have been demonstrably hiding from their readers any facts that do not help the cause that they are trying to advance (namely, the argument in favour of reaching a practical agreement with Rome). Nowhere on DICI.org, or on SSPX.org, or on pius.info will one find the May press statements from the Vatican, nor any reference to the fact that a majority of the Society’s Bishops, as well as a large proportion of the Priests of the SSPX and of the Faithful adhering to the SSPX—quite possibly the majority—would be against the idea of a practical agreement with Rome at this time.

We are castigated for reading what is termed “private correspondence”, when our only desire is to put an end to rumour by making ourselves informed of the facts. The letter which the three SSPX Bishops sent to you last month did not contain any personal information, and treated only of public matters affecting the future of the SSPX, therefore it is surely somewhat disingenuous for it to be termed “private correspondence”. What is more, it does appear that there is a double standard in allowing clerics who are in favour of reaching a practical arrangement to express their personal opinions from the pulpit, whilst at the same time requiring absolute silence from those who are against such an arrangement. We therefore feel that we are justified in both reading and circulating that letter to other faithful Catholics who, like us, are concerned for the future of the SSPX, and who—except for seeing that letter—might feel themselves alone and confounded.

In short, if Your Excellency wishes the Faithful to trust the leadership of the SSPX, if the Faithful adhering to the SSPX are exhorted to pay no heed to rumours, then we feel you ought to take steps to dispel the current climate of fear and distrust, and allow all opinions on the matter to be stated openly, all information (regarding, for example, whether the Rome of today has converted from its Modernism to any significant degree) to be circulated openly, and it is in a spirit of honesty and openness that we write this letter to you, in genuine concern for the future of Tradition throughout the world.


The future of the SSPX and the future of Tradition

When you became Superior General of the SSPX in 1994, you took your place at the head of a Society that was strongly united, fervent, devout and unworldly, which knew what it stood for and why, and which had a clear vision of where it was going. Our Lord entrusted this Society into your hands. Were He to ask you now to render an account of what you have done with that same Society, what would you be able to show Him? What sort of a Society will you bequeath to your successor?

It is abundantly clear to us that Rome has not converted, that Rome is as steeped in Modernism as ever it was. What is not clear to us is what the leadership of the SSPX is doing or why—i.e. your own attitude, beliefs or motives. Archbishop Lefebvre taught us admirably well, both through his writings and in the personal example that he gave to the world, that the duty of Catholics is not one of merely believing in a passive way. It is also apostolic, of converting the world, and of pointing out and denouncing error when one sees it. In his own day, Archbishop Lefebvre denounced the various errors spread by Church authorities, including the Pope. He founded the SSPX not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end: the end being the continuation of Tradition and the denouncing of error. He did not found the SSPX in order for it to “... not be provocative [or] aggressive,” to use some more of your recent words. We are perplexed and dismayed that certain members of the SSPX appear to see a motive, an end, which outranks that of preaching the Truth and denouncing error in season and out of season, and are thus willing to fall silent in the face of the many errors and evils of our day.

It is our fervent hope that the future of the SSPX and the future of Tradition are, as in days past, one and the same thing. Whatever may be the case, however, we will do all within our power to believe and spread the Truth, to denounce error, and in so doing to remain faithful to Our Lord and His Church, to Tradition, and to the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre—whatever the cost, and whether Your Excellency chooses to abandon us or remain with us.

St. Pius X, ora pro nobis!



Gregory Taylor
Waltraud Taylor
Michael Fishwick
Thomas Fishwick
Alun Rowland
John Harmsen
Anthony Flynn
Hannah Flynn
Robert Gomez
Miryam Cecilia Gomez
Robert Antonio Sebastian Gomez
Andres Santiago Gomez
Maria Gabriela Gomez
Alejandro Gomez
Angela Maria Gomez
Renée Neuville
E. Marlies Parker
Alan Richard Ælfred Fennelly
Geoffrey Godber
Charlotte Rogers
Michael M. Rhead
Michael Docherty
Alan Webber
Clare Webber
Maureen Brennan
Christine Kilgallon
Norma P. Boyle
Mary O'Sullivan
Teresa Glennon
John Dodsley
James Griffin
Michael Sellers
Maureen Day
Theresa Watt
Zoltan Szabo
Madeleine de Remusat
Maria Elena Orihuela
Maureen Sinclair
Antonio Vitellio
John Gill
Vera Wenninger
Cyril Holland
Maureen Holland
Teresa Halligan
Mike Tucker
Matilda Tucker
Wicslaw Kaczmarski
Greg Sikora
Sylvia Sikora    
Anna Thompson
Joan Ryan    
William Young
David Seeber
Olivia Bevan
Jeremy Bevan  
John Lowther
David McNee
Tamara Martinez (Miss)
Tamara Martinez (Mrs)
Daniel Starck    
Clare Starck
Annabel Starck
Matilda Starck
Albert Starck
Louis Starck
Marieke Oude Elferink    
Michael Frogley
Nicola Frogley
Laura Boniface
Emma Cosgrove
Vicky Languuth
Felicity Outtrem
Kate Morris
Alex Kennedy
Zita Dew
Alexandra Dew
James Dew
Katarina Dew
Tamara Dew
Lara Sequeira    
Carla Queen
Gonzalo Martinez
Kristian Girling
Sab Gitany
Anni Hardess  
Joseph Easton
David Yates
Gemma Drury
Fiona Morant
Daniel Gaskin    
Jennifer Gaskin
Peter Wimberley
Vivienne Richardson
John Wetherell
Liz Wetherell
Michael Morley
Geoffrey Kelly
Paul Whitburn
Veronica Whitburn
Hugh Batchelor  
Elaine Wakeling    
Caroline Fenston
Mary Codd
Mary Kingston
Philip Cranshaw
Veronika Cranshaw
Vincent Withams
Callum Withams
Ellis Withams
Libby Withams  
Erin Withams
Brian Withams
Rose Withams
Christine Withams
Stephanie Withams  
John M. Jensen
Valter Pasquali
Thomas Gjerulff
Ralf Karlsen
Alex Blatchford    
Ivy Cheung
Vincent McKimmey
Kieran Trent
Juko Prtenjaca    
Sofija Prtenjaca
Višnja Klaric
Peter Coupe
Sue Warren
Cecilia Yates
Stephen Yates    
Jonathan White
Marie White
Ronald Warwick
Celia Warwick  
John Hooley
Patrick Brophy
Susan Horton
Stephen Wylie
Brian Martelli
Peter Haversham    
Oliver Ibbeamuchem
Jonas de Geer
Lisa de Geer    
Paul Flynn    
Maureen Flynn
Stephen Flynn
Margaret McDermott
Catherine Reitzik
Jim Slowey    
Tom Slowey
Mary Fryd
David Huball
Anne Nott      
John McAuley
Piers Hugill
Michael Howley
John Britten
Anne Britten
Stefan Colley    
Anabella Karlsen
Philippa Carvalho
Marco Bellini
Dennis Whiting
Michael Rooney
Margaret Rooney
Jane Morley
Adele Gray
Alexandra Robson
Jacinta Cooper    
Luise Mirfin
Austin Seal
Peter McEnerny
Daniel Aldington
John Kirkpatrick
Ronnie McDonald
Aidan Richardson
Margaret Reynolds
Dan Mcenemy
Ina Mcenemy    
Alice Gerard
Liam Mooney
James Dolan
Denise Dolan
Timothy Duffy
Gerald Purves
Richard Cullen
Angela Cullen
John Palmer
Stephen Palmer    
Lynda Palmer
Patrick Walsh
John Walsh
Mary Marshall
Maeve Eustace
Dorothy Johnson
Donatus Ihenagwe
Rite Ihenagwe
Carmel Gill
Thomas Paul    
Miss L.L. Antoine
Tom Cullen
Gemma Cullen
Evelyn Peℓσѕι
Thomas Doyle
Joan Doyle
Peter Panton
Maria Panton

[...tbc...]

Well, well, that certainly lays it out in lavender!

That's the kind of English that goes to work and gets the message across.
Excellent.

They put the bee on several items I hadn't thought of. I would like to know
which of the names in the list was the author, though. I don't recognize any
of the names, but then again, I'm not from their area.

It was very brave of them to sign up like this and be counted.

Does anyone know if we are not making trouble by copying parts of this
letter for our own use, to send +Fellay our message? It might be a bit much
to copy the whole thing, but there are certain clips that would be most useful:



We are scandalized at your recent remarks, published across the world by CNS, that:

“[thanks to the doctrinal discussions with Rome] we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council, but is the common understanding of it”.

...and that:

“The Pope says that the Council must be put within the great Tradition of the Church... these are statements we agree with, totally, absolutely.” (CNS, May 2012)

We wish to point out that when you say “we” you do not speak for us. Furthermore, we wonder how you can reconcile this idea that the Council was misinterpreted, with the words of Archbishop Lefebvre (in his books “They Have Uncrowned Him” and “I Accuse the Council!” for example), or even with your own statements from not so very long ago, such as:

“Ratzinger should prepare for a direct revision of the Council texts and not just denounce their incorrect hermeneutic (interpretation)”. (CNA, 30 October 2007)



I would back off of that last item and simply demand that the nefarious Council
texts be thrown out wholesale, because they reek with the UNCLEAN SPIRIT
OF VATICAN II. Maybe the Brits are bold, but not quite that bold.



Further on:


When you became Superior General of the SSPX in 1994, you took your place at the head of a Society that was strongly united, fervent, devout and unworldly, which knew what it stood for and why, and which had a clear vision of where it was going. Our Lord entrusted this Society into your hands. Were He to ask you now to render an account of what you have done with that same Society, what would you be able to show Him? What sort of a Society will you bequeath to your successor?


Excellent points. At this juncture, it seems to me that reminding +Fellay of the
words he can read to this day carved in the headstone of Archbishop Lefebvre:
he can read words there, that at this time he would never anticipate reading on
his own future headstone, but rather, perhaps could expect to see something
like the following:

  They bought with them
 the Potter's field,  to be a
burying place for strangers
      ~Matt xxvii. 7~

Bravo!!!

Very brave catholics!

Many names. I wonder if they're nearly the entire British district?  :scratchchin:

I believe Gregorio Sarto (who originally posted it on Ignis) has added more names to the list since I posted it here. So I know there's even more names than this!

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/

Are the rebels in the SSPX determined to split from the Society, no matter what?

Dear Editor,

Is Bishop Fellay among the "rebels"? My admiration is for those that signed the letter though I'm not a massive believer in letters of petition. Generally a waste of time but a point needs to be made some way.

Does this remind you of anything?