Letter to our fellow priests

Quarterly contact letter between members of the Society Saint Pius X

 (Number 3 – February 2013)

Our articles of association recommend that we avoid “modern errors carefully, specifically liberalism and all its substitutes.” Our articles of association are binding on the Superior General and on the Assistants so that they make sure that the Society does not fall “into tepidity” nor “into compromise with the world frame of mind”. By the light of teachings of our founder, Bishop Lefebvre, and that of our Superior General, Bishop Fellay, we are setting out to work in such direction.

The General Council reminded the three bishops, on April 14 2012, of the need to make “necessary distinctions” “about the liberal” in order to avoid “a ‘total’ hardening”. Indeed, the conciliar liberal seeks a compromise between the Church and the world whereas the traditional liberal seeks a compromise between the catholic tradition and the conciliar Church friend of the world. In a conference given in Ecône in December 1973, Bishop Lefebvre noted that our “drama” is today “infinitely more severe” than in the past, because “liberals are nowadays widespread within the Church to such extent that one wonders who is not a liberal! Soon, we will have enough with our fingers to count the few individuals that truly respect the Church’s doctrine!”  Arguments of “liberal Catholics” were:

 “The Church must find an agreement with the society in which we live, we cannot continue to live on the fringes of the society, the Church must in the end accept the world such as it is, in order to penetrate inside the world and supposedly convert the world … The separation between Church and the State, the Church on equal footing with other religions, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience …, it is not possible to continue to fight against those things. These things are now admitted by everybody, even by priests!”

 

“But”, responded Bishop Lefebvre, “one must take it or leave it. This is the end of Catholicism, either we defend truly Our Lord Jesus Christ and the whole Church and the whole Catholic religion … If we were to start to cohabit with the evil, to discuss endlessly with the evil, to make compromises with the  evil, then it is a lost battle, it really is a lost battle.”

I) To study liberalism is a pastoral duty

The Chapter insisted several times on the critical duty for a priest to study. Among topics that need to be studied, liberalism plays an important role. During a retreat that took place in Ecône, on September 22 1988, Bishop Lefebvre expressed its astonishment because of the “number of encyclicals about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ”.

“Why talk about those things in a seminary, as if this be the knowledge needed to be acquired in a seminary, as if this be what was needed to be taught to the faithful? But if one does not know the source of errors, of what destroys societies, souls and the Church, we would be incompetent shepherds …it is an absolute requirement to study liberalism and to understand it well and I believe that many of those that left us to reportedly join Rome, did not understand what is liberalism and how Roman authorities since the Council are infested with these errors. If they had understood, they would have flown away from danger and would have stayed with us. This is serious, because by coming close to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. They represent the authority and we are subordinates … they impose on us their principles … so long as they do not get rid of liberalism errors, there is no way one can find an agreement with them, it is just not possible.”

Fellow priests “in favor of an agreement” and priests that find favor with the director of DICI – by the way this director is also a founder of GREC – have they read and understood references recommended by Bishop Lefebvre on this topic? If yes, how could they wish to subject Tradition to Roman authority? Rome deceives the world, bemeans the Church and instead of denouncing this imposture, we are asking Rome to acknowledge us “such as we are” (footnote 1)? And this, knowing that “discussions have showed profound disagreement on almost all topics discussed” (footnote 2)? What can explain such self-delusion, if it is not ignorance of liberalism?

II) The liberal is an illogical individual

“We are so much tempted by illogicality which stands very close to liberalism. The liberal person is one that would be tempted not to follow his intelligence when it needs to be put into practice because it is difficult, because it is hard work. He understands, but in practice, he compromises. He makes compromises with himself, but this compromise is a sin. We are illogical when we sin … there are always reasons to say: “it was a good thing in the past, it probably will be a good thing in the future, but today no … there are some truth that one should not say, that one should not assert”. Thus, about this attitude, it is imperative that this not be our attitude in our live. We must avoid to be illogical persons, to be those that always seek compromises, that compromise, that compromise …” (footnote 3).

Bishop Fellay and his Council yet wrote to the three bishops: “For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current interim solution of the statu quo, but obviously Rome no longer tolerates this situation”. (Bishop Fellay, letter dated April 14, 2012)

III) The virtue of Prudence

“Catholic liberals have kept on saying that their will for orthodoxy is equivalent to that of those most intransigent persons. The compromise they have sought is not theoretical but practical.” … They always come back to this reasoning. They are telling us: “see, we are shepherds. We accept the reality, we are concrete people, we are practical!” But what is the practice? The practice is the implementation of principles with the help of the virtue of prudence, it is not something else than that. What is the practice when principles are missing? … “yes, yes, yes, we agree, we share the same Credo, etcetera. Yes, but when we find ourselves in the world, then one must adjust oneself to the level of the others, one must live with the others, if not you will never convert others”. To say this is a total error! … Popes have perceived the danger of those Catholics that are almost elusive because they claim when one wants to corner them: “No, no, I agree”. But afterwards, they come to terms with enemies of the Church … They are traitors … more dreadful than avowed enemies … they divide the minds, destroy unity, weaken strengths that instead should be combined all together against the enemy … You will be told that it is you who cause division, but it is not possible to divide when one abide by the truth … those who divide are those who try to diminish the truth in order to find agreement with everyone … Those that have it wrong must convert themselves into the truth and should not try to find common grounds between truth and error …” (footnote 4)

During the Council, liberals have put to sleep Catholics by telling them that dogma would remain untouched and that the Council was only taking care of pastoral matters; During the Society Council, liberals among us put us to sleep by saying that catholic principles are not being reviewed but that “this is not about a human prudence but” this is about a supernatural prudence, this is about “an equilibrium that is very fragile, that requires the assistance of the Holy Spirit and the Gift of Advice” (footnote 5). Bishop Lefebvre, in a conference dated in year 1978 (assisted by the Holy Ghost?) claimed:

“I think that during the next meeting, it will be me who will ask them questions. I will be the one who will interrogate them and I will ask them: “what is your Church?” Which Church do you represent, I would like to know if I am talking to the Catholic Church or if I am speaking with another Church, with an organization that is against the Church, with an organization that is a forged Church and not the true Catholic Church? I sincerely believe that we are currently dealing with a forged Church and not with the Catholic Church. Why do I say this? Because they no longer teach Catholic faith. They no longer defend catholic faith. They are leading the Church into something else than the Catholic Church. It is no longer the Catholic Church. They are sitting on the chair of their predecessors but they do not speak the same language than their predecessors.”

Bishop Fellay does not think that way: “we are not talking about a Church that does not exist materially! We are talking about the Church that exists, really exists, that is in front of us, that has a hierarchy, with a pope. It is not the product of our imagination: the Church is there, the Church truly is there, it is the Roman Catholic Church. We claim and we must confess that this Church is holy, is one, because faith requires us to do so.” (footnote 6)

IV) This concrete Church, is it Catholic ?

Bishop Lefebvre wished “to reintegrate in the official and standard structure of the Church”.

And yet:

“I believe, did he say, that we find ourselves within the Church and that we are the true sons of the Church, and that others are not. They are not the true sons of the Church, because liberalism is not a son of the Church. Liberalism is against the Church, liberalism operates to destroy the Church, in that sense they cannot claim that they are sons of the Church … some are prepared to sacrifice the fight for the faith by saying: “let us first reintegrate the Church! Let us first do everything to integrate the official structure, the public structure of the Church. Let us be silent about dogmatic issues. Let us be silent about the malice of the Mass. Let us keep quiet over the issues of religious freedom, Human Rights, ecuмenism. And, once we will be inside the Church, we will be able to do this, we will be able to achieve that … but to think that is a great mistake! One does not integrate a structure and does not accept superiors, by claiming that we will overthrow everything as soon as we are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They have all the authority. What first matters to us, it is to maintain the catholic faith. This is what we are fighting for. Then the canonical issue, this purely exterior issue, this public issue inside the Church, is secondary. What matters, it is to stay within the Church … inside the Church, in other words, to keep the same catholic faith and the true priesthood and the true Mass and the true sacraments, and the same catechism, with the same Bible. This is what matters to us. This is what the Church is about. Public recognition is a secondary issue. Thus we should not seek what is secondary by loosing what is primary, by loosing what is the initial purpose of our fight! “Once we are admitted, we might maybe be able to operate from inside the Church ?” … no, to say that means that one does not know well those that currently lead us! One only needs to read this well-known sentence from Cardinal Ratzinger to get well informed … I am now reading to you immediately this sentence which is essential in his interview: “The problem of the nineteen sixties was to acquire for the Church the best values expressed during two centuries of liberal culture … this objective has been attained”. Yet the principles of two centuries of liberal culture are ecuмenism and the declaration of Human Rights, religious freedom! And Cardinal Ratzinger recognizes them. He says: “this has been done!” … To say such a thing is very serious! This condemns all what he says in his interview, because that is the heart of his thoughts, and this is what we are blaming for, this is what we do not want. It is not possible to put oneself under an authority which has liberal ideas, which will inevitably lead us, step by step, by force of circuмstances, to accept liberal ideas and all consequences of those liberal ideas which are the new Mass, changes in the liturgy, changes in the Bible, changes in catechism, all these changes … Some say: “but they have fought against catechism!” … yes, but they simply put the brakes on, because the changes were going so far that putting on the brakes was necessary. Consequences of their own principles scare them. Thus they put on the brakes at times, but they nevertheless continue to want to keep liberal ideas. In no way should liberal ideas be changed!”(footnote 7)

But Bishop Fellay stated: “priests or bishops [and the pope?] are leading souls to hell […] And the Church, even in that state, remains holy, remains capable to sanctify. If today, dear faithful, we receive sacraments, grace, faith, it is through this Roman Catholic Church, not thanks to its faults, but thanks to this real concrete Church. […] The Church is today capable to transmit the faith, to communicate the grace, the sacraments.”(footnote 8) The illegitimate Mass ? Heresies of the new code and of the new catechism ? Sins against the faith in Assissi …? Bishop Lefebvre did not preach that way, here is what he said:

“I believe that you should be convinced of this: you truly represent the Catholic Church … lately, we are being told that it is necessary that Tradition integrates the visible Church. I think that to say that is an extremely serious error. Where is the visible Church ? … Where are the true marks of the Church? … It is clear that we are the ones who keep the unity of the faith, which has disappeared from the official Church … it is us who possess the marks of the visible Church … it is not us but it is the modernists that leave the Church. And about the expression “to leave the visible Church”, it is an error to equate official Church with visible Church … to leave thus the official Church? To some extent, yes, it is obvious. One is obliged to leave this circle of bishops, if one does not want to loose one’s soul. But this will not suffice because it is in Rome that heresy has settled. If bishops are heretics, it is not without the influence of Rome.” (footnote 9)

Bishop Fellay sharply distances himself from the ecclesiology of Bishop Lefebvre. On the pretext of mystery, he mixes up and amalgamates Catholic Church and conciliar Church in one unique “Church that is very tangible … that is in a miserable state.” (footnote 10)

V) To tell off publicly those responsible for liberalism errors

Our articles of association ask us to be attached “unfailingly to the Roman Church and to the successor of Peter who is acting as a true Successor of Peter”, but not to the conciliar Church, neither to a modernist that offers as an example of holiness a sacrilegious pope who kisses the Coran, neither to a pope who invites Julia Kriteva, representing the non-believers, in order “to pray for the peace” (sic). This person declared, after having praised Jean-Paul II as apostle for the Human Rights: “thanks go to Pope Benedict XVI for having invited for the first time in these locations humanists among your ranks.” This woman wanted, in the sanctuary, “a world governance that is ethical, universal and solidarity-based.” How is it possible that some superiors remained silent and sought an agreement with this conciliar Church when our patron saint warned the Catholic Church against this “vast movement of apostasy organized, in all countries, for the establishment of a universal Church.” (footnote 11)

The Chapter wants that the Society continues to “freely” “tell off even publicly those responsible for liberalism errors and its consequences”. Yet, one should not delude oneself, if the head of the Church is modernist, the head of the Society is today seriously tainted with liberalism. All of us, particularly our superiors, have to examine our own conscience: are we not, each of us from our own seat, responsible of the rise of liberalism in our own congregation?

Not long ago, Bishop Fellay explained to us that in 2006, “heresies spread quickly” and “authorities were propagating a frame of mind that is both the modern and modernist one of Vatican II”, but that in year 2012, things are being restored, ad intra, by Benoît XVI. And that “this requires us to take a new positioning with regards to the official Church … it is about a supernatural view on the Church.” (footnote 12) How is it possible that these lines have been written after Assissi III? Benoit XVI, is he restoring the faith ad intra by organizing ad extra interreligious gatherings condemned by the Church, with on top of this, the help of humanists who are also atheists in order to work for the “promotion of the true good of humanity”? One of our theologians who participated in the Roman discussions confided to one fellow priest: “the head of bishop Fellay is rotten but the Chapter will prevent him from signing. One must grin and bear it for the next 6 years.” Is that a sure thing? Is that enough? How many members of the Chapter are prepared to profess publicly the Catholic faith with all its consequences:

“We never wanted to belong to that system that calls itself a conciliar Church, and defines itself by the Novus Ordo Missae, the ecuмenism disengaged from the Catholic cause and the widespread secularization of all the society.”(footnote 13)

Bishop Lefebvre got it wrong in May 1988. In September 2012, in spite of God’s given grace to perform its role and in spite of his Counsel, in spite also of “the help of the Holy Ghost and the Gift of Advice”, Bishop Fellay recognized he has been mistaken on the intentions of the Pope. But, in reality, the error is not there, because Benoît XVI never hid its intentions. The problem comes from a hazy concept of the “real Church” which is “a very, extremely serious mistake.”

Errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicuм! The liberalism of our superiors is a punishment for our congregation. Do we not share responsibility in that sin because of our negligence to live from the treasure transmitted by our founder, because of our laxity, because of our worldly ties and because of our clerical self-wise swollen with pride ?

Vigilate et orate.

Footnotes

1          Bishop Fellay, Cor unum, number 102, Summer 2012

2          Bishop Fellay, Cor unum, number 101, March 2012

3          Bishop Lefebvre, retreat in Ecône, September 17, 1981
4          Bishop Lefebvre, spiritual conference, Ecône, January 1974

5          Bishop Fellay, Cor unum, number 102, Summer 2012

6          Bishop Fellay, conference in Flavigny, September 2, 2012

7          Bishop Lefebvre, spiritual conference, Ecône, December 21, 1984

8          Bishop Fellay, November 1, 2012, Ecône

9          Ecône, September 9, 1988

10        Bishop Fellay, conference in Flavigny, September 2, 2012

11        Pie X, Notre charge apostolique, August 25, 1910

12        Bishop Fellay, Cor Unum, number 101, March 2012

13        Open letter of the superiors of the SSPX to cardinal Gantin, Ecône, July 6, 1988


http://www.antimodernisme.info/info/?p=178

[Commentary:]

Letter to our fellow priests

Quarterly contact letter between members of the Society Saint Pius X

(Number 3 – February 2013)

Our articles of association recommend that we avoid “modern errors carefully, specifically liberalism and all its substitutes.” Our articles of association are binding on the Superior General and on the Assistants so that they make sure that the Society does not fall “into tepidity” nor “into compromise with the world frame of mind”. [Good advice!  I wonder why the present SSPX leaders are not following this.] By the light of teachings of our founder, Bishop Lefebvre, and that of our Superior General, Bishop Fellay, we are setting out to work in such direction. [say WHAT!!!???]

The General Council reminded the three bishops, on April 14 2012, of the need to make “necessary distinctions” “about the liberal” in order to avoid “a ‘total’ hardening”. Indeed, the conciliar liberal seeks a compromise between the Church and the world whereas the traditional liberal seeks a compromise between the Catholic tradition and the conciliar Church friend of the world. In a conference given in Ecône in December 1973, Bishop Lefebvre noted that our “drama” is today “infinitely more severe” than in the past, because “liberals are nowadays widespread within the Church to such extent that one wonders who is not a liberal! Soon, we will have enough with our fingers to count the few individuals that truly respect the Church’s doctrine!”  Arguments of “liberal Catholics” [Bishop Fellay and the General Council] were:

“The Church [N-SSPX] must find an agreement with the society [Conciliar Church] in which we live, we cannot continue to live on the fringes of the society, the Church [N-SSPX] must in the end accept the world [Conciliar Church] such as it is, in order to penetrate inside the world [Conciliar Church] and supposedly convert the world [Conciliar Church]  … The separation between [Conciliar ] Church and the State [N-SSPX], the [Conciliar ] Church on equal footing with other religions, freedom of the press , freedom of conscience…, it is not possible to continue to fight against those things. These things are now admitted by everybody, even by [N-SSPX] priests!”

(…)

Bishop Fellay and his Council yet wrote to the three bishops: “For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current interim solution of the statu quo, but obviously Rome no longer tolerates this situation”. (Bishop Fellay, letter dated April 14, 2012)

[Yes, ENOUGH SAID.  Problem solved – “…the traditional liberal seeks a compromise between the Catholic tradition and the conciliar Church friend of the world.”]

It's a confusing letter.  Which reminds one of "Let your yes be yes and your no be no."  Where exactly do they stand?

It's a confusing letter.  Which reminds one of "Let your yes be yes and your no be no."  Where exactly do they stand?

It's written by priests of the SSPX who are opposed to an agreement and who run the website antimodernisme.info.

http://www.antimodernisme.info

This is Letter No. 3. With Letter No. 2 there is an explanation (I've translated it from the French):

A new review [source of information?] in Catholic Tradition has just seen the light of day: "Letter to our Fellow Priests." It has received encouragement from the highest moral authorities of the SSPX (who, unfortunately, are not always identical with the legal authorities) and is written by priests of the Society. Its aim: To inform the priests and faithful regarding the infiltration of Liberalism, whether practical or ideological, in the SSPX. Letter No. 2, below, was sent to all the priests of the SSPX in November 2012, and in four languages. So the faithful can ask their priests about it and judge for themselves the degree of Liberalism of their priest. The next letter (No. 3) will be sent out and made available in January 2013.

In French, English and Spanish.

Here is Letter No. 2 (in English on the website - scroll down past the French version). I can't find Letter No. 1.

http://www.antimodernisme.info/info/?p=163


Letter to our Fellow Priests
 
Second quarterly contact letter among members of the Society (SSPX)
 (number 2 – Fall 2012)
 
This time, we propose to come back over a key directive given by our General Superior in “Cor Unum”, thanks to thoughts provided by a fellow priest quoted on the site “AntiModernisme.info”.
 
“It is of the utmost importance to work on all sides to encourage everywhere supernatural principles that oppose distrust, this corrosive and destructive worm of human relations and of all societies.” Bernard Fellay, Cor Unum, number 102, Summer 2012.
 
Fact number one: the ridge line established by Archbishop Lefebvre
 
“In this letter dated April 17th, I followed the approach undertaken by Bishop Lefebvre in 1988 […] It was about statement of the following type: “I recognize that the new Mass is valid, if it is celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does.”  In that sentence, it is not mentioned that the Mass is bad, because that is what we keep saying! Coming from the other side of the ridge line, we say: “The Mass is bad, but if it is celebrated correctly, then it remains valid.” (Bishop Fellay, Brignoles, May 4th 2012 – Nouvelles de Chrétienté number 135).
 
Do these two versions really correspond to one single ridge line? One is equivocal because incomplete (valid Mass), the other is not equivocal (Mass being illegitimate even though it is a valid Mass) ! Father de Cacqueray stated: “the truth should not be sidestepped”; “Let’s put a stop to political nit-picking” said Bishop Tissier. Indeed, the vocabulary used by the enemy (ordinary rite instead of illegitimate Mass favouring heresy) must be denounced, because the acceptance of those words prepares the acceptance of the thought. First, imposture is not denounced, then it becomes common place, and then finally it is accepted. Further, does this “ridge line” really match that of Bishop Lefebvre?
 
“Their own ideas, it is to succeed to have authority on us in order to bring us to accept the Council and conciliar reforms. They have not changed one iota since the Council, on the contrary, they are all the more strong that now they have some sort of tradition in Rome. […] They cannot admit in their mind that we anatomize everything that they do. “But come on, it is the Mass that I celebrate everyday” stated Cardinal Ratzinger […] “are you going to deter the faithful to attend those masses?” It is not me who responded, it is Father Laroche: “yes, because it is a protestant Mass”. “If this is how you see things, then the commission will have plenty of work to do … “ said Cardinal Ratzinger. Yes, because for them, the mandate of the commission is to bring about reconciliation. No, their intention has not changed because their principles have not changed. […] For them, there is only one Church, it is the Church of Vatican II” (Flavigny, June 11, 1988).
 
Fact number two: two prominent persons are being forgotten
 
On January 24th 2009, Bishop Fellay communicated as follows: “the excommunication of the bishops consecrated by Bishop Lefebvre on June 30, 1988, which had been delivered by the Congregation for the Bishops in a July 1, 1988 decree and which we have always disputed, has been taken out in another decree established by the same Congregation on January 21, 2009, upon the request of Pope Benoît XVI. We express our filial gratitude to the Holy Father for this act […]’’
 
The decree for the lifting of the excommunication Latae sententiae of the bishops of the Society (SSPX), indicates that Bishop Fellay, in a letter dated December 15, 2008, “appealed once again to lift excommunication”. The same decree also indicates that “Pope Benoît XVI – receptive as would be a father, to the spiritual uneasiness communicated by those concerned due to the sanction of excommunication, and trusting their commitment, expressed in the letter identified above, to not spare any effort to study in depth, during necessary colloquium with Authority of the Holy See, questions that remains unresolved, so as to find quickly a solution that is complete and satisfactory to the problem identified initially – decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tisser de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galaretta, that resulted from their episcopal consecration. […] It is being wished that this step soon brings about the entire Society (SSPX) to enter into full communion with the Church, giving thus clear indication of a real loyalty and true recognition of the role and authority of the Pope through evidence of visible unity.”(1)
 
The Roman decree does not mention Bishop de Castro Mayer nor Bishop Lefebvre. This is only logical since the decree speaks about a lifting of the sanction and not about a revocation. This concerns the forgiveness that “a father” applies to repentant sons afflicted by a spiritual uneasiness coming from “the scandal caused by the dissension”. And only living beings can benefit from papal indulgence. The joy of the Superior General and his “filial gratitude towards the Holy Father” have they not been hasty, inept and ambiguous? This “gratitude”, does that not imply a concession towards the modernists and ingratitude towards those two prominent figures of the faith which memory continues to be blackened? All the more since the person that caused their “excommunication”, Jean-Paul II, grimly remembered, has been (by a supreme imposture) “beatified” and exalted on the altar.  “This new climate”, could that really announce “an early recognition of the rights of the Catholic tradition”?
 
Fact number three: own will
 
“The Chapter (the general one) is a legal entity representing the entire Society […] The General Chapter has more powers than the Superior General who is elected by the General Chapter.  The General Chapter can bring about laws or at least take measures that must stay in force until the next Chapter.” (Naz, Traité de droit canonique, Tome 1, No. 816 &1)
 
Yet, the will expressed by the General Chapter in year 2006, concerning relations with Rome, was double: 1) “In case an agreement with the Holy See is seriously envisaged, an Extraordinary General Chapter will be called for in order to discuss the issue.” 2) “The contacts” that the Society “occasionally maintains with Roman authorities” have not as an objective “to reach an impossible simply practical agreement”.(2) Yet, on those two points, the Superior General went publicly against the will of the Chapter.
 
Bishop Fellay, by considering only the signature of the 1988 protocol, neglected the conclusions of Bishop Lefebvre after year 1988. Between Rome and Menzingen, as long as there was no “yes”, the objective was to continue to discuss in order to reach an agreement that would solve things “simply at the practical level”. The sign of the Providence so followed or the will of God so sought, were only investigated in just one way: in the way to match the own will of the Superior General. To that end, he turned down and penalised all voices that expressed their opposition. He decided to do without wise advice by keeping secrets the terms of the discussion, under false pretext (the secrecy enabled him to denounce any opposition as being based on rumours). Bishop Fellay even confided, in private, to some priests in Austria, between May 17 and 20th: “The General Chapter in July will not gather to discuss the acceptance of the agreement, but simply to be informed of the new statutes of the Society”. But, these words, later on, were denied by Bishop Fellay. Because, as he said to Father Ceriani, on February 17th 2009 in Flavigny: “You understand, Father Ceriani, all this, it is only politics.” Else, as specified by Father Pflüger, on September 29, 2011 in Hattersheim: “Diplomacy plays here a key role.”
 
Fact number four: the common good of the Society
 
“It should be noted, by the way, that we have not sought a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused a priori, as you are asking, to consider the offer from the Pope. For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current solution of the statu quo which is an interim solution, but it is obvious that Rome does no longer tolerate that situation.” (Bishop Fellay to the three Bishops, letter dated April 14th 2012),
 
Yet the three Bishops had been writing: “Bishop Fellay, Father Pflüger and Father Nély, please be careful, you are leading the Society in a direction where it will be impossible for the Society to go back, you are leading the Society to dissensions where a come-back will be impossible, and, should you succeed to reach such an agreement, you would be surrendering the Society to highly powerful destructive influences that the Society will not be able to cope with. If, until now, the Bishops of the Society have been able to protect the Society, it is precisely because Bishop Lefebvre refused a practical agreement. Given that the situation has not changed substantially, given that the condition expressed by the Chapter in 2006 has not materialised (doctrinal change on the part of Rome that would permit a practical agreement), do continue to listen to your founding father.’’
 
In spite of that, on June 13th 2012, Bishop Fellay went to Rome with the intent to sign the agreement that was 100% practical. If he suffered a setback (he was not able to sign) it was thanks to Rome that added explicitly two conditions that were too grossly inacceptable. On June 13th, it is Benoît XVI who saved us from a suicidal operation. “We express our filial gratitude to the Holy Father for that action”!
 
Fact number five: the case of the three Bishops
 
Once the episcopal correspondence was disclosed, Bishop Fellay, on May 11th 2012, confided to the American press (CNS): “I cannot rule out that there might be a split” within the Society (SSPX).
 
On May 16th 2012, a press release from Vatican City informed that “given the stand taken by the three Bishops, the case of the three Bishops of the Society will have to be handled separately and individually.” On June 8 2012, Bishop Fellay stated to DICI (no. 256), concerning the refusal of his fellow Bishops, of an agreement that would be simply practical: “About their sentiments, I do not rule out the possibility that they might change. […] I believe that if my fellow Bishops see and understand that from legal and practical matters, there is in the Roman proposal a true opportunity for the Society “to restore everything in Christ”, in spite of all the troubles that exist currently in the Church, then they will be in a position to adjust their judgement, – then, that is with the canonical status in hand and with the facts under their eyes. Yes, I believe so, I hope so.”
 
On June 14th 2012, Vatican City, after having transmitted to Bishop Fellay the project for a personal prelacy, communicated again that “the situation of the three Bishops of the Society will be treated separately and individually.” But, on the same day, Menzingen indicated that, during this two hours meeting that took place between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Levada: “the situation of the three other Bishops of the Society had not been mentioned.”
 
Bishop Fellay said he was convinced that the will of the Pope was to give us recognition, without saying the price to pay: “Yes, the Pope himself wants it. I have enough precise evidence of that in my possession that enables me to claim that what I say is true…“ (DICI no. 256). But, on June 14th, after two years of discussions, Menzingen finds out that there remains “doctrinal difficulties” about the “Council Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae”. This late discovery is stunning, because it was not needed to read between the lines to know that; what was required was just to be able to read:
 
“Two fears were mainly opposed to that docuмent […]. First, there was the fear to reduce, so doing, the authority of the Council Vatican II, and to shed some doubt on one of its key decision: the liturgical reform: This fear does not have any ground. » (3)
 
“Myself, I have seen, in the years that followed 1988, that, thanks to the come-back of communities previously separated from Rome, their internal climate has changed; that the return in the large and vast common Church enabled to bypass unilateral positions and attenuated strong positions in such a way that, as a result, positive forces have emerged to the benefit of the whole group.” (4)
 
How has Bishop Fellay been able to give his preference to his “new friends in Rome” (5) against his former and clear-sighted fellow Bishops? Mainly, how is it possible for him to have tried or even accepted to solve the fate of the Society without the three Bishops? Admittedly, during his 18 years as a superior, Bishop Fellay has never betrayed. But during their 25 years as Bishops, our three other Bishops have they ever fell short in the good battle? Then, why did he show contempt for their advice that is prudent and true to the wish of the 2006 Chapter?
 
Fact number six: deliberate vagueness
 
“About the response I sent to Rome on April 17th […], I have the impression that this is suitable. In our circle, I believe that it will have to be explained properly, because there are (in that docuмent) expressions or statements that are so much on the ridge line that if you do not have a positive mind or if you put on black or pink glasses, you will see things one way or the other.  Then it will be necessary to explain to you that this letter does not change anything to our position. But, if one wants to read the letter in a crooked way, it will be possible to understand this letter the wrong way.” (Bishop Fellay, Brignolles, May 4th 2012 – Nouvelles de Chrétienté no. 135)
 
If it is possible to read the letter of Bishop Fellay the wrong way, it is because the letter is ambiguous. If the letter suits Rome, it is because it no longer represents the thoughts of the Society, because our thoughts, from a doctrinal point of view, cannot be acceptable to modernist Rome: rejection of Vatican II and its reforms, rejection of the bastard Mass of Paul VI, rejection of the canonisation of Jean-Paul II, …
 
Bishop Fellay felt “that the Roman authorities” were “too much in a hurry. We would like to put on the brake, but we do not really know where the brake is.” Bishop Fellay thus does not know that the brake to stop Rome is the directives outlined by our founder: “if you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk. As long as you do not agree to reform the Council, taking into account the doctrine of those Popes that are your predecessors, dialogue is not possible. It is useless.”(6)
 
The person who does not know where the brake is, is he capable to lead others? Shouldn’t his driving licence be withdrawn, for safety reasons?
 
Fact number 7: Vatican II in the Tradition
 
“The Pope says that the Council must be viewed in the large tradition of the Church, that it must be understood in the context of the Church. These are statements with which we fully agree, without a doubt.” (CNS, May 11th, 2012); “Many people understand wrongly the Council. […] The Council presents a religious freedom that is a freedom that is very, very limited; […] After the discussions, we found out that the errors that we believed were sourced from the Council, in fact are not sourced from the Council but result from the general interpretation which has been made.” (Bishop Fellay, YouTube, Traditionalist leader talks about his movement, Rome).
 
This is very far from “I accuse the Council” pronounced by Bishop Lefebvre as “a necessary response to the “I excuse the Council” of Cardinal Ratzinger!”(7) When Bishop Fellay writes: “the entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and the guide to understand the teachings of Council Vatican II, which in turn clarifies some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church which are implicitly included in the Church even though not explicitly formulated” (8) does he still believe that Vatican II has been “the contrary to the Syllabus”? One of the participants to doctrinal discussions revealed that “about fifteen (15) different formulae” for each text of Vatican II “were successively presented” to the Society to facilitate our acceptance. In spite of that, Bishop Fellay continued to speak up proudly: “it is the Pope who really wants this canonical recognition, he is not laying a trap for us.” (DICI number 256)
 
Fact number eight: since when is life free of difficulties?
 
In their apostolate, the Society Saint Peter or the ecclesia Dei are totally subdued to the power of bishops. They have thus no freedom. When they try to open their mouth, immediately their apostolate is taken away from them, it is a dead end for them … it is not the type of solution that we need. We need to enjoy real autonomy … I have received enough words from the Pope that indicate that it is really and truly his will.” (Bishop Fellay, Brignoles, May 4th, 2012); “It remains true – as is the right of the Church – that, to open a new Chapel or to create a Charity, it will be necessary to obtain the permission of the local Church authority. […] Here and there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life free of difficulty?” (Bishop Fellay, DICI no. 256 dated June 8th, 2012)
 
When a Superior, facing a problem of this magnitude, responds with such thoughtlessness and supports such vagueness: one can only be stunned. Saint Bernard, writing in a filial spirit to Pope Eugene III, was right: “it is a monstrous thing to have a supreme high ranking role fulfilled by a low-grade character”.
 
Conclusion
 
All this may be has only been a dreadful misunderstanding and an appalling mistake. Let us pray with generosity holy Pie X for our Superior General. Because it is only by taking a straight line when speaking, by retracting those statements that are crooked and by withdrawing sanctions against those who have been thinking the right way and who dared to speak up (the fathers Abrahamowig, Ceriani, Pfeiffer, Chazal, …) that he will be able to restore trust.
 
 “I am ready and willing, if on one issue or another, it were proved that I am mistaken … I am ready and willing to retract …“ (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ecône, June 21, 1978).
 
The Editorial Office


   

Quote from: magdalena

It's a confusing letter.  Which reminds one of "Let your yes be yes and your no be no."  Where exactly do they stand?

It's written by priests of the SSPX who are opposed to an agreement and who run the website antimodernisme.info.

http://www.antimodernisme.info

This is Letter No. 3. With Letter No. 2 there is an explanation (I've translated it from the French):

Quote

A new review [source of information?] in Catholic Tradition has just seen the light of day: "Letter to our Fellow Priests." It has received encouragement from the highest moral authorities of the SSPX (who, unfortunately, are not always identical with the legal authorities) and is written by priests of the Society. Its aim: To inform the priests and faithful regarding the infiltration of Liberalism, whether practical or ideological, in the SSPX. Letter No. 2, below, was sent to all the priests of the SSPX in November 2012, and in four languages. So the faithful can ask their priests about it and judge for themselves the degree of Liberalism of their priest. The next letter (No. 3) will be sent out and made available in January 2013.

In French, English and Spanish.

Here is Letter No. 2 (in English on the website - scroll down past the French version). I can't find Letter No. 1.

http://www.antimodernisme.info/info/?p=163


Letter to our Fellow Priests
 
Second quarterly contact letter among members of the Society (SSPX)
 (number 2 – Fall 2012)
 
This time, we propose to come back over a key directive given by our General Superior in “Cor Unum”, thanks to thoughts provided by a fellow priest quoted on the site “AntiModernisme.info”.
 
“It is of the utmost importance to work on all sides to encourage everywhere supernatural principles that oppose distrust, this corrosive and destructive worm of human relations and of all societies.” Bernard Fellay, Cor Unum, number 102, Summer 2012.
 
Fact number one: the ridge line established by Archbishop Lefebvre
 
“In this letter dated April 17th, I followed the approach undertaken by Bishop Lefebvre in 1988 […] It was about statement of the following type: “I recognize that the new Mass is valid, if it is celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does.”  In that sentence, it is not mentioned that the Mass is bad, because that is what we keep saying! Coming from the other side of the ridge line, we say: “The Mass is bad, but if it is celebrated correctly, then it remains valid.” (Bishop Fellay, Brignoles, May 4th 2012 – Nouvelles de Chrétienté number 135).
 
Do these two versions really correspond to one single ridge line? One is equivocal because incomplete (valid Mass), the other is not equivocal (Mass being illegitimate even though it is a valid Mass) ! Father de Cacqueray stated: “the truth should not be sidestepped”; “Let’s put a stop to political nit-picking” said Bishop Tissier. Indeed, the vocabulary used by the enemy (ordinary rite instead of illegitimate Mass favouring heresy) must be denounced, because the acceptance of those words prepares the acceptance of the thought. First, imposture is not denounced, then it becomes common place, and then finally it is accepted. Further, does this “ridge line” really match that of Bishop Lefebvre?
 
“Their own ideas, it is to succeed to have authority on us in order to bring us to accept the Council and conciliar reforms. They have not changed one iota since the Council, on the contrary, they are all the more strong that now they have some sort of tradition in Rome. […] They cannot admit in their mind that we anatomize everything that they do. “But come on, it is the Mass that I celebrate everyday” stated Cardinal Ratzinger […] “are you going to deter the faithful to attend those masses?” It is not me who responded, it is Father Laroche: “yes, because it is a protestant Mass”. “If this is how you see things, then the commission will have plenty of work to do … “ said Cardinal Ratzinger. Yes, because for them, the mandate of the commission is to bring about reconciliation. No, their intention has not changed because their principles have not changed. […] For them, there is only one Church, it is the Church of Vatican II” (Flavigny, June 11, 1988).
 
Fact number two: two prominent persons are being forgotten
 
On January 24th 2009, Bishop Fellay communicated as follows: “the excommunication of the bishops consecrated by Bishop Lefebvre on June 30, 1988, which had been delivered by the Congregation for the Bishops in a July 1, 1988 decree and which we have always disputed, has been taken out in another decree established by the same Congregation on January 21, 2009, upon the request of Pope Benoît XVI. We express our filial gratitude to the Holy Father for this act […]’’
 
The decree for the lifting of the excommunication Latae sententiae of the bishops of the Society (SSPX), indicates that Bishop Fellay, in a letter dated December 15, 2008, “appealed once again to lift excommunication”. The same decree also indicates that “Pope Benoît XVI – receptive as would be a father, to the spiritual uneasiness communicated by those concerned due to the sanction of excommunication, and trusting their commitment, expressed in the letter identified above, to not spare any effort to study in depth, during necessary colloquium with Authority of the Holy See, questions that remains unresolved, so as to find quickly a solution that is complete and satisfactory to the problem identified initially – decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tisser de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galaretta, that resulted from their episcopal consecration. […] It is being wished that this step soon brings about the entire Society (SSPX) to enter into full communion with the Church, giving thus clear indication of a real loyalty and true recognition of the role and authority of the Pope through evidence of visible unity.”(1)
 
The Roman decree does not mention Bishop de Castro Mayer nor Bishop Lefebvre. This is only logical since the decree speaks about a lifting of the sanction and not about a revocation. This concerns the forgiveness that “a father” applies to repentant sons afflicted by a spiritual uneasiness coming from “the scandal caused by the dissension”. And only living beings can benefit from papal indulgence. The joy of the Superior General and his “filial gratitude towards the Holy Father” have they not been hasty, inept and ambiguous? This “gratitude”, does that not imply a concession towards the modernists and ingratitude towards those two prominent figures of the faith which memory continues to be blackened? All the more since the person that caused their “excommunication”, Jean-Paul II, grimly remembered, has been (by a supreme imposture) “beatified” and exalted on the altar.  “This new climate”, could that really announce “an early recognition of the rights of the Catholic tradition”?
 
Fact number three: own will
 
“The Chapter (the general one) is a legal entity representing the entire Society […] The General Chapter has more powers than the Superior General who is elected by the General Chapter.  The General Chapter can bring about laws or at least take measures that must stay in force until the next Chapter.” (Naz, Traité de droit canonique, Tome 1, No. 816 &1)
 
Yet, the will expressed by the General Chapter in year 2006, concerning relations with Rome, was double: 1) “In case an agreement with the Holy See is seriously envisaged, an Extraordinary General Chapter will be called for in order to discuss the issue.” 2) “The contacts” that the Society “occasionally maintains with Roman authorities” have not as an objective “to reach an impossible simply practical agreement”.(2) Yet, on those two points, the Superior General went publicly against the will of the Chapter.
 
Bishop Fellay, by considering only the signature of the 1988 protocol, neglected the conclusions of Bishop Lefebvre after year 1988. Between Rome and Menzingen, as long as there was no “yes”, the objective was to continue to discuss in order to reach an agreement that would solve things “simply at the practical level”. The sign of the Providence so followed or the will of God so sought, were only investigated in just one way: in the way to match the own will of the Superior General. To that end, he turned down and penalised all voices that expressed their opposition. He decided to do without wise advice by keeping secrets the terms of the discussion, under false pretext (the secrecy enabled him to denounce any opposition as being based on rumours). Bishop Fellay even confided, in private, to some priests in Austria, between May 17 and 20th: “The General Chapter in July will not gather to discuss the acceptance of the agreement, but simply to be informed of the new statutes of the Society”. But, these words, later on, were denied by Bishop Fellay. Because, as he said to Father Ceriani, on February 17th 2009 in Flavigny: “You understand, Father Ceriani, all this, it is only politics.” Else, as specified by Father Pflüger, on September 29, 2011 in Hattersheim: “Diplomacy plays here a key role.”
 
Fact number four: the common good of the Society
 
“It should be noted, by the way, that we have not sought a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused a priori, as you are asking, to consider the offer from the Pope. For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current solution of the statu quo which is an interim solution, but it is obvious that Rome does no longer tolerate that situation.” (Bishop Fellay to the three Bishops, letter dated April 14th 2012),
 
Yet the three Bishops had been writing: “Bishop Fellay, Father Pflüger and Father Nély, please be careful, you are leading the Society in a direction where it will be impossible for the Society to go back, you are leading the Society to dissensions where a come-back will be impossible, and, should you succeed to reach such an agreement, you would be surrendering the Society to highly powerful destructive influences that the Society will not be able to cope with. If, until now, the Bishops of the Society have been able to protect the Society, it is precisely because Bishop Lefebvre refused a practical agreement. Given that the situation has not changed substantially, given that the condition expressed by the Chapter in 2006 has not materialised (doctrinal change on the part of Rome that would permit a practical agreement), do continue to listen to your founding father.’’
 
In spite of that, on June 13th 2012, Bishop Fellay went to Rome with the intent to sign the agreement that was 100% practical. If he suffered a setback (he was not able to sign) it was thanks to Rome that added explicitly two conditions that were too grossly inacceptable. On June 13th, it is Benoît XVI who saved us from a suicidal operation. “We express our filial gratitude to the Holy Father for that action”!
 
Fact number five: the case of the three Bishops
 
Once the episcopal correspondence was disclosed, Bishop Fellay, on May 11th 2012, confided to the American press (CNS): “I cannot rule out that there might be a split” within the Society (SSPX).
 
On May 16th 2012, a press release from Vatican City informed that “given the stand taken by the three Bishops, the case of the three Bishops of the Society will have to be handled separately and individually.” On June 8 2012, Bishop Fellay stated to DICI (no. 256), concerning the refusal of his fellow Bishops, of an agreement that would be simply practical: “About their sentiments, I do not rule out the possibility that they might change. […] I believe that if my fellow Bishops see and understand that from legal and practical matters, there is in the Roman proposal a true opportunity for the Society “to restore everything in Christ”, in spite of all the troubles that exist currently in the Church, then they will be in a position to adjust their judgement, – then, that is with the canonical status in hand and with the facts under their eyes. Yes, I believe so, I hope so.”
 
On June 14th 2012, Vatican City, after having transmitted to Bishop Fellay the project for a personal prelacy, communicated again that “the situation of the three Bishops of the Society will be treated separately and individually.” But, on the same day, Menzingen indicated that, during this two hours meeting that took place between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Levada: “the situation of the three other Bishops of the Society had not been mentioned.”
 
Bishop Fellay said he was convinced that the will of the Pope was to give us recognition, without saying the price to pay: “Yes, the Pope himself wants it. I have enough precise evidence of that in my possession that enables me to claim that what I say is true…“ (DICI no. 256). But, on June 14th, after two years of discussions, Menzingen finds out that there remains “doctrinal difficulties” about the “Council Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae”. This late discovery is stunning, because it was not needed to read between the lines to know that; what was required was just to be able to read:
 
“Two fears were mainly opposed to that docuмent […]. First, there was the fear to reduce, so doing, the authority of the Council Vatican II, and to shed some doubt on one of its key decision: the liturgical reform: This fear does not have any ground. » (3)
 
“Myself, I have seen, in the years that followed 1988, that, thanks to the come-back of communities previously separated from Rome, their internal climate has changed; that the return in the large and vast common Church enabled to bypass unilateral positions and attenuated strong positions in such a way that, as a result, positive forces have emerged to the benefit of the whole group.” (4)
 
How has Bishop Fellay been able to give his preference to his “new friends in Rome” (5) against his former and clear-sighted fellow Bishops? Mainly, how is it possible for him to have tried or even accepted to solve the fate of the Society without the three Bishops? Admittedly, during his 18 years as a superior, Bishop Fellay has never betrayed. But during their 25 years as Bishops, our three other Bishops have they ever fell short in the good battle? Then, why did he show contempt for their advice that is prudent and true to the wish of the 2006 Chapter?
 
Fact number six: deliberate vagueness
 
“About the response I sent to Rome on April 17th […], I have the impression that this is suitable. In our circle, I believe that it will have to be explained properly, because there are (in that docuмent) expressions or statements that are so much on the ridge line that if you do not have a positive mind or if you put on black or pink glasses, you will see things one way or the other.  Then it will be necessary to explain to you that this letter does not change anything to our position. But, if one wants to read the letter in a crooked way, it will be possible to understand this letter the wrong way.” (Bishop Fellay, Brignolles, May 4th 2012 – Nouvelles de Chrétienté no. 135)
 
If it is possible to read the letter of Bishop Fellay the wrong way, it is because the letter is ambiguous. If the letter suits Rome, it is because it no longer represents the thoughts of the Society, because our thoughts, from a doctrinal point of view, cannot be acceptable to modernist Rome: rejection of Vatican II and its reforms, rejection of the bastard Mass of Paul VI, rejection of the canonisation of Jean-Paul II, …
 
Bishop Fellay felt “that the Roman authorities” were “too much in a hurry. We would like to put on the brake, but we do not really know where the brake is.” Bishop Fellay thus does not know that the brake to stop Rome is the directives outlined by our founder: “if you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk. As long as you do not agree to reform the Council, taking into account the doctrine of those Popes that are your predecessors, dialogue is not possible. It is useless.”(6)
 
The person who does not know where the brake is, is he capable to lead others? Shouldn’t his driving licence be withdrawn, for safety reasons?
 
Fact number 7: Vatican II in the Tradition
 
“The Pope says that the Council must be viewed in the large tradition of the Church, that it must be understood in the context of the Church. These are statements with which we fully agree, without a doubt.” (CNS, May 11th, 2012); “Many people understand wrongly the Council. […] The Council presents a religious freedom that is a freedom that is very, very limited; […] After the discussions, we found out that the errors that we believed were sourced from the Council, in fact are not sourced from the Council but result from the general interpretation which has been made.” (Bishop Fellay, YouTube, Traditionalist leader talks about his movement, Rome).
 
This is very far from “I accuse the Council” pronounced by Bishop Lefebvre as “a necessary response to the “I excuse the Council” of Cardinal Ratzinger!”(7) When Bishop Fellay writes: “the entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and the guide to understand the teachings of Council Vatican II, which in turn clarifies some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church which are implicitly included in the Church even though not explicitly formulated” (8) does he still believe that Vatican II has been “the contrary to the Syllabus”? One of the participants to doctrinal discussions revealed that “about fifteen (15) different formulae” for each text of Vatican II “were successively presented” to the Society to facilitate our acceptance. In spite of that, Bishop Fellay continued to speak up proudly: “it is the Pope who really wants this canonical recognition, he is not laying a trap for us.” (DICI number 256)
 
Fact number eight: since when is life free of difficulties?
 
In their apostolate, the Society Saint Peter or the ecclesia Dei are totally subdued to the power of bishops. They have thus no freedom. When they try to open their mouth, immediately their apostolate is taken away from them, it is a dead end for them … it is not the type of solution that we need. We need to enjoy real autonomy … I have received enough words from the Pope that indicate that it is really and truly his will.” (Bishop Fellay, Brignoles, May 4th, 2012); “It remains true – as is the right of the Church – that, to open a new Chapel or to create a Charity, it will be necessary to obtain the permission of the local Church authority. […] Here and there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life free of difficulty?” (Bishop Fellay, DICI no. 256 dated June 8th, 2012)
 
When a Superior, facing a problem of this magnitude, responds with such thoughtlessness and supports such vagueness: one can only be stunned. Saint Bernard, writing in a filial spirit to Pope Eugene III, was right: “it is a monstrous thing to have a supreme high ranking role fulfilled by a low-grade character”.
 
Conclusion
 
All this may be has only been a dreadful misunderstanding and an appalling mistake. Let us pray with generosity holy Pie X for our Superior General. Because it is only by taking a straight line when speaking, by retracting those statements that are crooked and by withdrawing sanctions against those who have been thinking the right way and who dared to speak up (the fathers Abrahamowig, Ceriani, Pfeiffer, Chazal, …) that he will be able to restore trust.
 
 “I am ready and willing, if on one issue or another, it were proved that I am mistaken … I am ready and willing to retract …“ (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ecône, June 21, 1978).
 
The Editorial Office


   

You do realize these priests are lobbying for a sellout, right?

There is nothing hardline about the position they take.

They seem to think we need a juridical approval by apostate Rome, and the letter is published in pursuance of that end.

Quote from: magdalena

It's a confusing letter.  Which reminds one of "Let your yes be yes and your no be no."  Where exactly do they stand?

It's written by priests of the SSPX who are opposed to an agreement and who run the website antimodernisme.info.

http://www.antimodernisme.info

This is Letter No. 3. With Letter No. 2 there is an explanation (I've translated it from the French):

Quote

A new review [source of information?] in Catholic Tradition has just seen the light of day: "Letter to our Fellow Priests." It has received encouragement from the highest moral authorities of the SSPX (who, unfortunately, are not always identical with the legal authorities) and is written by priests of the Society. Its aim: To inform the priests and faithful regarding the infiltration of Liberalism, whether practical or ideological, in the SSPX. Letter No. 2, below, was sent to all the priests of the SSPX in November 2012, and in four languages. So the faithful can ask their priests about it and judge for themselves the degree of Liberalism of their priest. The next letter (No. 3) will be sent out and made available in January 2013.

In French, English and Spanish.

   

"...It has received encouragement from the highest moral authorities of the SSPX."

This statement is what makes it all the more confusing.  

How can the present "inside" SSPX priests put out a website about such things, receive encouragement from the "highest moral authorities" of the SSPX, and for the faithful to "judge for themselves the degree of Liberalism of their priest."  Does this not give permission and "encouragement" to seed division within their our ranks?

What a bunch of CONTRADICTION!

"Let your yes be yes and your no be no."  Period!

 :surprised:

It's a good letter.  It shows all is not lost inside the SSPX, ie, that there is still internal resistance to what's been happening.

On the contrary.

It shows just the opposite.

It is lobbying for a sellout with Rome.

Antimodernisme.info is a website of priests who are completely against Bp Fellay. If you could read averything they wrote, you wouldn't have any doubt about it. The "moral authorities" are priests that are not belonging to the official hierarchy of the sspx but that are leading the priests of antimodernisme in secret. There have authority, probably because they have been for a long time in the sspx or because they have quite high functions even if there are not at Menzingen. We don't know them because everything is secret.

I think that the way french people write is less clear than the way english people write. We suggest things but in the context, it is understood. English language explains more.  It is not the first time I notice that. So when they compare each time Abp Lefebvre speeches with Bp Fellay speeches, it is not said each time : look Bp Fellay is awful ! But that is the meaning of that : the proof is that they say at the end : errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicuм. It is said in fact that Bp Fellay's behaviour is "diabolicuм".

The only difference between these priests and us is that they don't want to leave sspx and us we think we have to leave it. But they have the same ideas as us.
So when they say :
By the light of teachings of our founder, Bishop Lefebvre, and that of our Superior General, Bishop Fellay, we are setting out to work in such direction. it doesn't mean they want to follow Bp Fellay's teachings. That means that they want to compare his teachings and the teaching of Bp Lefebvre to show the liberalism of Bp fellay and the difference between them.

I'm going to tell them to try to write a little bit clearly next time and you'll see that they have good ideas... I think that some of these priests may come and join us one day, perhaps not so far... So let's be prepared to welcome them.