The Policy of Monsignor Fellay Unmasked by a Disciple of Monsignor Lefebvre

A Spanish website has published an open letter to Mgr. Fellay from Father Méramo, prior of the SSPX in Mexico (Orizaba). The website has just published its French translation in PDF.

We will have occasion to revisit this historic letter in that it breaks the code of silence imposed upon all members of the SSPX by Bishop Fellay, surrounded, since 29 January 2009, by a camarilla of infiltrators. Finally! A priest of the SSPX has revived Archbishop Lefebvre’s tradition of transparency by rejecting the fatal fallacy "I am bound by silence".

Remember that Virgo-Maria has already revealed that, it was after the courageous intervention of Father Méramo during the General Chapter of 1994, that the infiltrator Father Schmidberger had to give up running for a second term of office, and that Bishop Fellay was elected [instead], (despite the maneuvers of the infiltrator Mgr Williamson). The Swiss bishop therefore owes his current position to the "kingmaker", Father Méramo.

Virgo-Maria.org

&&&

Prior Rafael Guizar y Valencia
Calle Sur II N° 1114 CP. 94390
Orizaba, Veracruz, Mexique

Open letter to the Superior of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Mgr Bernard Fellay.

Dear Monsignor,

Given the events concerning the whole Fraternity (both the members and the faithful), it is with great pain and sadness that I feel compelled to write you this open letter.

I cannot remain silent about the withdrawal or the lifting of the decree of excommunication, on the part of "apostate Rome" -- according to the expression used on many occasions by Archbishop Lefebvre -- solicited through the crusade of one million rosaries that were brought to Rome for this purpose, because this would amount to an implicit recognition that the Fraternity was excommunicated, which is not the case, despite the puerile explanations that attempt to show otherwise. You yourself acknowledged it, in your sermon at Flavigny, on 2 February 2006, saying: "We have definitely asked about the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication and its annulment. But to say ‘annul’ already means that we recognize something."

As a life member of the Fraternity, I am compelled, personally and in conscience, to express my total disagreement, publicly before God and the Catholic Church, the unique ark of salvation, the exclusive and singular bride of Christ, contrary to what the dominant ecuмenism says, one more religion in the pantheon of false religions, each having its own altar (with its "rights") in peaceful and abominable coexistence in the kingdom of the Antichrist.

It is an act of sweet and secretive surrender that this bouquet (one million rosaries) delivered to the modernist apostate Rome (the scarlet woman riding the beast, or the prostituted, corrupt and adulterated religion as so described by Father Castellani). It is this that has so shocked the pure and virginal Apostle (the most beloved) Saint John like the Gordian knot of the mystery of iniquity in the Holy Places, the abominable desolation of the temple, of religion falsified in collusion with the powers of the world, and fornicating with the kings of the earth.

To lift (or to remove) the decree of excommunication is not the same as declaring or recognizing its invalidity and its nullity from the outset. Moreover, we cannot, here and now,  annul a decree, and therefore declare its (actual and de facto) annulment, if previously it was valid and legitimate : and not simply from now on, because of the sole fact of rectification, modification, or the finding of good will in the person who was punished. In summary, we may cancel or void a law which is regarded as just but no longer serves a purpose. By contrast, an unjust law (as is the penalty of excommunication applied to Tradition) is invalid and void from the outset, not by the will of the legislator but by a lack of legitimacy, truth, justice and right. An unjust law -- and as such null and void -- never was a law. A change of law is only possible if it was valid, legitimate and just according to the classification of what is right. If those two things look similar, they are, nevertheless, quite distinct.

To ask that the decree of excommunication be lifted (removed or supressed) is not the same thing as asking or demanding recognition of the absolute nullity of the excommunication and its total invalidity. Although having a resemblance, these are two very different things. Not to distinguish them comes from a lack of understanding or from ignorance, and if someone does not accept that, it only remains to treat him as either stupidly naive or purely malicious. There is no other explanation.

To lift the excommunication is not the same as saying that there never was an excommunication. So do not confuse the nullity of the decree with its cancellation or withdrawal.

It is clear that, for modernist Rome, it is the remission of a penalty (that is, the censure of excommunication). Because, in legal terms as established by canon law, medicinal penalties (which is the case for censures) are lifted by the remission of the penalty, that is to say that we forgive, it is lifted, one is freed of a sanction that was imposed on account of an offense for which the accused was convicted in absentia. It is therefore clear that anyone who accepts this remission, does so because, in legal terms, he considers himself guilty of the offense. And it is logical that the one censured (the offender) should thus be grateful once corrected and pardoned by remission of the punishment. For a true son of Archbishop Lefebvre to request this is to deny the legacy of his father in the episcopate, acknowledging that the act [of episcopal consecration] was criminal, because, in legal terms, he is left with no alternative. Si, si, no, no. And as the legal adage goes: "In wanting to prove too much, one proves nothing."

If you look closely, it does not lift any excommunication relating to the two consecrating bishops (Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer) with, in consequence, that of the bishops consecrated (by them), but it remits (lifts) the excommunication only of the four consecrated bishops: Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Fellay, and Bishop Galarreta. This clearly demonstrates that the excommunication is lifted for those who beg for it in exchange for their filial good will towards the fatherly feelings of Benedict XVI. There is no retraction on the part of Rome, not in the least, merely a paternal indulgence vis-à-vis the four bishops who devotedly seek the withdrawal of the excommunication out of the magnanimity of Benedict XVI. Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer continued to be "royally" excommunicated, unless they rise up from their graves and also seek, with evidence of good will, the lifting of an excommunication which was, according to Rome, without any doubt legitimate and just. All this is clearer than water!

All these reasons are evoked to hide the fact that the action had no weight and was unnecessary on the substantive issue, which is of the Faith. Modernist and protestantized Rome tried to disable the resistance being formed around the nucleus of the Fraternity and of Archbishop Lefebvre, eighteen years after his death. Today, the process of intrigue, which began to manifest itself publicly from the Jubilee of 2000, closes again.

I am not in agreement and never will be. I cannot, under pain of surrender, give in and be left intellectually and religiously prostituted by the power of evil which has introduced into the Church everything that might pervert or reverse it, that is to say, to spiritually and religiously sodomize it, which is the attitude of the Pharisees (the specific corruption of religion), who today dominate with all the prestige that gives them power, but which is exercised to the detriment of the Truth. The best instrument of the anti-Christian world revolution, never forget, is to make men into "intellectual prostitutes". [1]

A bomb is not deactivited by a blow from a hammer or an axe, but with a fine and subtle manual readjustment of its internal workings. This is how we proceed today with the SSPX in making it unusable (canceling or neutralizing it) for its fight and its heroic resistance against the errors of modernist and apostate Rome, as Archbishop Lefebvre said in his time.

Under the appearance (the mask) of goodness (and a false paternal magnanimity), it disables the resistance and the struggle against the new post-conciliar ecuмenist church, which is in collusion with the worldwide globalism, subject to the reign of the Prince of this world: Satan and his works.

If none of the other three bishops say anything, then they also consent by their silence, which is inexplicable in view of their role as guardians of the faith, for he who is silent consents and agrees that he accepts the error, the deception, the lies and all that that implies.
These are difficult and, above all, apocalyptic times, in which every believer must be like a soldier of Christ confirmed in the faith of his baptism, heroically and valiantly defending his faith, like the martyrs in the early church, without human help or support, solely with God in the face of their executioners.

Our only duty is to stand firm in the faith, faithful to Christ and His divine Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church, which today is overshadowed (this is the total eclipse of the sun: De Labore Solis according to the motto of the previous pontificate) and to act according to the Gospels. We see the abomination of desolation in the holy places, destroying all that is sacred (or is said of God) and invading the Temple, under the tenacious scourge of the short-lived triumph of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan within the Church. (De Gloria Olivae. As expressed in the device of the current pontificate). Thus fulfilling the prophecy of Our Lady of La Salette, "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist." This is now a fact and to recognize it with equanimity and fortitiude, needs a strong faith enlightened with the opposite of what we see in today's world, full of darkness -- or else the Faith is lost.

Despite this, we should not be discouraged, because we know with certainty that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail", that is to say that "They will make war against you, but they shall not overcome you", as explained by St. Thomas, in his commentary on the Creed.

We also know that the true Church, the sole and legitimate virginal bride of Christ shall endure by faith, even if reduced to a small remnant (pusillus grex [little flock] Luke 12:32) dispersed throughout the world, because the Church, as stated by St. Augustine in the Catechism of Trent (Art 9): "It is the faithful scattered throughout the world", who are expecting his return, sustained by the blessed hope spoken of by St. Peter (2 Peter 3:12) and by St. Paul (2 Titus 13), which is the return of Christ the King in Glory and Majesty.

We must remain "steadfast in the faith," as St. Peter exhorts us because "All that is not of faith is sin" (Rom.14:23) and as St. Paul says, "The just shall live by faith" because we have been gratuitously saved by means of the faith. (Heb.10:38). We need only last as brave and strong soldiers confirmed in the faith of our baptism, and also there will be fulfilled in us these words of Saint Paul “confirmed by the testimony of faith, they were faithful in Christ Jesus our Lord "(Heb.12:39).[?]

Moreover it is inconceivable that we should say that the Society wants to help the Pope to resolve the crisis, when in fact the modernist popes have the primary responsibility for it, and thus are the main culprits in this unprecedented crisis that has never been seen and shall never be seen again. And that is to say, to make matters worse, it is Joseph Ratzinger, throughout his life, first as an expert theologian at the Council, then as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under the fatal pontificate of John Paul II and today as Benedict XVI, who maintains all these errors instead of condemning them. It is not with hot towels, that the great evils can be cured. Furthermore, to talk about the crisis without mentioning the crisis of faith, but only the crisis of vocations, of religious practice, of the catechism and of the Sacraments, is to reverse things and confuse the effect with the cause.

On the other hand, to speak of the rights of Tradition, as if it were about the right of some and of right of others, this is wrong, because (if we must speak of rights) it is the sole exclusive right of Tradition of the Church of Truth, while Buddhists, animists, Muslims, Jєωs, Protestants, etc. All can claim their rights in a liberal democracy, since everyone demands his rights by virtue of his human dignity and religious freedom and conscience, this is a liberal modernist approach, and is in accordance with the fake human rights of the anti-Christian Revolutionary.

We must not forget that with regard to the invalid and null (pharisaic) excommunication, Archbishop Lefebvre said: "All these spirits who are modernists were excommunicated by St. Pius X. These are the people imbued with the modernist principles that we excommunicate when they are excommunicated by Pope Saint Pius X. And why do we excommunicate them? Because we want to remain Catholic, because we do not want to follow in this spirit of demolition of the church. Since you do not want to come with us to contribute to the demolition of the Church, we excommunicate you. Very well, thank you. We prefer to be excommunicated. We do not want to participate in this dreadful work that took place 20 years ago in the Church." (Sermon during the Mass sung by Fr Bernard Lorber at the Morning Star School on 10 July 1988, cf. Fideliter no. 65 1988).

"We never wanted to belong to this system that qualifies itself as the Conciliar Church (...) We do not want to have the least part with the Pantheon of religions, our own excommunication by a decree of your eminence would be the irrefutable proof. We want nothing better than being declared ‘excommunicated’ from the adulterous spirit breathing in the Church for 25 years, excluded from impious communion with infidels." (Letter to Cardinal Ganin, 6 July 1988, cf. Fideliter, No.64. pp. 11 to 12).

On another occasion, on the way to Econe with Archbishop Lefebvre and a journalist, who visited him, they asked him, amongst other things about the excommunications and Monsignor replied: "If someone is excommunicated, it is not I, it is they who are excommunicated." All this seems to follow the same fate as the preparatory docuмents of Vatican II that were trashed in order to do everything again, in another way.

All the same, there is Archbishop Lefebvre, referring to Bishop de Castro Mayer and himself for having equally been condemned and excommunicated, who affirmed:
"Those who reckon that they have to minimize these riches and even deny them, can only  condemn us, which only confirms their schism with Our Lord and His Kingdom, for their secularism and their apostate ecuмenism" (Spiritual Journey, p. 9). And besides all this, I would add: "This apostasy makes of these members, adulterers, schismatics, opponents of all tradition, breaking with the Church of the past ..." (Spiritual Journey, p.70).

In conclusion, it should be noted about the Second Vatican Council, that there is much more than "reservations", as you call them, because it is an atypical council, which is not infallible, and which is equally contradictory, as is a square circle, and for the same reason is imbued with errors (with time bombs), with errors and heresies, to the point of being considered by Archbishop Lefebvre himself as an apostate council, by its ecuмenism (as we have seen), and which moreover is schismatic, as he stated in the following text:

"This council represents, both in the eyes of the Roman authorities, and of ourselves, a new Church, which, moreover, they call the Conciliar Church. We believe we can say, that for us, in keeping with the internal and external criticism of Vatican II -- that is to say by analyzing the texts and studying the endorsements and the outcomes of this Council -- that it has turned its back on Tradition, and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council. We judge a tree by its fruit (...) All those who cooperate in the implementation of this change and agree to adhere to the new Conciliar Church -- as it was designated by His Excellency Archbishop Benelli in the letter which he addressed to me in the name of the Holy Father, on 25 June last -- enter the schism (... How can we, by a servile and blind obedience, play the game of these schismatics, who ask us to collaborate in their enterprise of destroying the Church?" (A Bishop Speaks, p. 97-98).

Faced with all this, it remains only to say "non possumus" (we cannot).

In Christ and the Virgin Mary

Basilio Méramo Priest.
Member in perpetuity of the SSPX and Prior of Orizaba.
26 January 2009

[1] A strong but very graphic expression used by John Swinton, a journalist who was editor of the famous magazine "New York Times," with which he aimed at the press and the  journalists. It was uttered during a toast at a celebration attended by members of his corporation and when he was a guest of honor.

English translation by Sunbeam, June 2012, from the French language version at:
http://www.virgo-maria.org/D-FSSPX/D-Opposition-ralliement-FSSPX/2009-01-26_Labbe-Meramo-%28FSSPX%29-brise-lomerta-du-silence%20.html

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE BETRAYED BY HIS OWN
by
Father Basilio Méramo

Because of his loyalty to Archbishop Lefebvre, Father Méramo was expelled from the SSPX by Bishop Fellay in the Spring of 2010. Here, Father Méramo denounces the eclipse of Archbishop Lefebvre organized by Bishop Fellay, and speaks of Bishop Fellay’s pharisaism. According to Father Méramo, the owner of the sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre is Our Lord Jesus Christ, not the SSPX or Mgr.Fellay.

"What proprietory right has Bishop Fellay to arrogate to himself exclusively the sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre, if neither he nor the Society of St. Pius X are his biological heirs? If the Superior General or anyone else in the Society of St. Pius X holds a will in his favour which shows this, then even if it were so, these prerogatives would only exist for the propagation and dissemination of [the Archbishop’s] testimony without prevaricating over the evidence, and not for its censorship and retention, or even for sending it to the oblivion of a drawer.

“The sermons and everything Archbishop Lefebvre said are the patrimony of the Church and the sole owner of them is Jesus Christ. "

"The act of preventing the faithful from having access to the denunciations of Archbishop Lefebvre proves, illustrates and confirms the compromises with Masonry in the Vatican made by those responsible for this censorship."
(Father Méramo)

Father Méramo posted this text on 8 April 2011, on the occasion of the judicial attack of Father de Cacqueray upon Saint-Remi Publishing, which, according to the SSPX, was guilty for have made known in their entirety 219 public sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre.

This public statement of Father Méramo, who had the confidence of Archbishop Lefebvre, weighs heavily, even though Bishop Fellay has extended his censorship by attacking Father Schoonbroodt through the Public Prosecutor of Belgium as if he were a criminal.

Beginning of the text of Father Méramo:

CENSORED AND IGNORED BY HIS OWN

There are things which call for divine justice and which fill one with indignation.

How is it possible that Monsignor Lefebvre is censored by his own? (Or those who proclaim themselves as such). Why has Monsignor Lefebvre become subject to censorship by the Superior General?

What is it that may well impede or inconvenience Monsignor Fellay? Why is the Fraternity banned from disclosure of sermons in general and especially the one amongat them that was broadcast by Max Barrett, one of the chauffeurs and confidants of Monsignor Lefebvre?

The SSPX should be the first to broadcast each and every sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre and should be grateful to all those who collaborate in this task, and should not do what the enemies of the Church, by imposing the implacable law of silence when it is not that of dishonor.

Bishop Fellay manifests the embarrassment that Archbishop Lefebvre’s sermon provokes in him by censoring its publication and by avoiding its dissemination. In this sermon Archbishop Lefebvre denounced Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ inside the Vatican and the Church; the Masonic principles and ideas that shaped and inspired the Second Vatican Council, as a great charter of errors and heresies; the liturgico-doctrinal revolution within the Church itself effected through hierarchical channels under a cover of "holy obedience".

Archbishop Lefebvre clearly denounced the adulterous alliance between Masonry and the Vatican. He came to note as a valid (acceptable) hypothesis and a likely fact that should a pope be a Freemason prior to his election, [that election] would be unlawful and invalid, because it would be excommunicated. Another thing would be that, by falling into heresy the Pope would cease to be such, and would therefore be excommunicated.

It is obvious that all these statements are not "politically correct" and even less appropriate in the context of negotiations for uniting with official ecclesiastical prelates, who representing the Masonic Lodge, within the Vatican (or the Church).

 The act of preventing the faithful from having access to the denunciations of Archbishop Lefebvre proves, illustrates and confirms the compromises with Masonry in the Vatican made by those responsible for this censorship.

The SSPX is not only financially but also ideologically (in terms of theology and doctrine) in the hands of enemies of the Church, who have infiltrated and captured. If all that was said before was not proven, they would promote and disseminate all that was asserted by Archbishop Lefebvre and there would not be a vile and treacherous silence imposed upon him (as they are currently doing).

 By what proprietory right does Bishop Fellay arrogate to himself exclusively the sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre, if neither he nor the Society of St. Pius X are his biological heirs? If the Superior General or anyone else in the Society of St. Pius X holds a will in his favour which shows this, then even if it were so, these prerogatives would only exist for the propagation and dissemination of [the Archbishop’s] testimony without prevaricating over the evidence, and not for its censorship and retention, or even for sending it to the oblivion of a drawer.

The sermons and everything that Archbishop Lefebvre said are the patrimony of the Church and the sole owner of them is Jesus Christ.

This shameless prohibition, is nothing but a manifestation of self-righteousness on the part of those who impose it.

It is unfortunate that no member of the Society of St. Pius X has said anything about it, and it is still more shameful that none of the other three bishops have commented upon it either.

The fact, that, 20 years after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, nothing has been done to publish his sermons, is a clear proof that his words are no longer interesting to the Superiors of the Society of Saint Pius X.

We must also remember that if Archbishop Lefebvre was indeed the founder of the SSPX, he was not so much a member, and I wish to offer in proof of the fact that as a religious of the Holy Ghost Fathers he always wore the cord of his congregation, and so the SSPX would be ill-advised to assume property rights over his words for the purpose of censoring and suppressing them.

What a pharisaic contradiction that the imposition of silence upon Archbishop Lefebvre by his disciples [comes] at a time when freedom is so vaunted.

There is no doubt that if the Church is eclipsed, then it is no wonder that one of its most faithful servants is also eclipsed. What is surprising however is that those who overshadow him are those who say they are his most loyal followers.

        Father Basilio Méramo

        Bogota, 8 April 2011

English translation by Sunbeam, June 2012, from the French language version at:
http://www.virgo-maria.org/D-FSSPX/D-Opposition-ralliement-FSSPX/2009-01-26_Labbe-Meramo-%28FSSPX%29-brise-lomerta-du-silence%20.html