Another excellent article calling into question Fr. le Roux recent "Letter to Friends & Benefactors", November 10, 2013.

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/11/30/open-letter-to-father-le-roux/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Open Letter to Father le Roux
Nov 30, 2013

In your November 10, 2013 letter to Friends & Benefactors,(Fr leRoux November 2013) you are writing about authority and about Tradition, and unless Traditionalists submit to authority, they will become revolutionaries who will subvert all things Catholic.

In the first four paragraphs, you say that subversion and revolution are contrary to the wishes of God, and you use the French Revolution to make your point. Your readers will recall the comparison made by Archbishop Lefebvre and assume that you are attacking Vatican II and Conciliar Rome.

Then, in paragraph eight, a surprise is thrown in: “For the last months this subtle temptation of distrust of authority has been poisoning the ranks of the defenders of the tradition of the Church”. Since the SSPX has always considered themselves the defenders of Tradition, you are therefore clearly attacking those who resist the new orientation of the SSPX.

Further, your letter implies that Bishop Fellay has authority to which we must submit and that those who refuse to do so are subversive and offensive to God. However, Bishop Fellay has very limited authority: he is the head of a pious union of priests and thus has no real authority. Further, as a priest and bishop, with respect to the laity, he has only that authority which we grant to him through supplied jurisdiction.

Therefore, the Superiors of the SSPX are greatly exceeding their authority by refusing Sacraments to parishioners who express opinions contrary to the Superiors. Further, since the SSPX does not currently have proper canonical status, the Superior General cannot legitimately expel members. He could not even legitimately refuse access to any Superior from the General Chapter, so the exclusion of Bishop Williamson should be considered as invalidating the General Chapter, a true act of subversion that you have failed to refer to in your letter.

Further, among some SSPX faithful there is the naïve notion that the SSPX, once given a proper canonical status, will then reform Rome from within. If the SSPX priests, even from within, cannot correct the thinking of their superiors without being labeled as subversive, how could the inferior (SSPX) reform the superior (Rome)?

Your letter raises many questions. I will limit myself to three:

Why do you compare the Resistance priests and faithful to Monsignor de Talleyrand? Are they worshipping at the “altar of power”? What power are they seeking?

Is it not “treason” to expel priests precisely for what they were ordained to do: teach and defend the Catholic Faith?

Ought we submit to Bishop Fellay’s authority when he declares that Vatican II enlightens the life of the Church, that the new Mass is legitimately romulgated, that the NO Sacraments are valid, etc.?  This is clearly contrary to the teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre and contrary to Catholic common sense.

In your letter you refer to “a new formal attack” that is about to be levelled at the “last vestiges of Tradition”. I am surprised at your fearful attitude when on December 28, 2012, in Canada, Bishop Fellay was optimistic about the future: ‘… we start to see the little signs that start to say that spring is coming’.

I do agree with you that it is “high time to cease this suicidal internal war” started by Bishop Fellay against the largely unsuspecting SSPX priests and adherents and fuelled by fear of punitive action directed against all outspoken individuals.

We are aware of the methods the SSPX headquarters are using when they find someone who disagrees with them. Small wonder that those who are still within the SSPX must hide and be silent – and you call them “secretive”, “anonymous” and “cowardly”! Fear and coercion are the tools of revolutionaries (today’s SSPX); fear and coercion are not the tools of the Resistance!

The Resistance is not using revolutionary methods. We are doing all we can in order to warn others of the dangers coming not so much from the Novus Ordo (we all know by now what to expect from Rome) but especially from the SSPX which has secretly morphed into an Indult entity that has nothing in common with the work started by Archbishop Lefebvre. (The novel The Stepford Wives comes to mind – a rather chilling comparison to what is happening inside the SSPX. No, I am not recommending it – read rather Spiritual Journey.)

Father, the charges that you raise in your letter were levelled at Archbishop Lefebvre. The Resistance should therefore be proud to be equally treated!

Your letter was given to me by a friend in Tradition. She noted the surprising number of harsh words that she understood to be levelled against the Resistance: subversion, Revolution, perversity, infiltrating, weapon, devil, scandalous, satanic, violent, hatred. These words are found in the first two paragraphs alone!

In the past, SSPX superiors never used to write letters of this sort! They used to write pastoral letters in which they warned us of the dangers of Conciliar Rome and they gave clear and relevant examples to make their point. But those days are over.

There is a new orientation being followed today. Paragraph five contains a most revealing statement about this new SSPX orientation: “Sometimes, when the authority in charge ceases to be faithful to its role of guardian of the common good, it falls to the defenders of Tradition to remind authority of its role and to do this even publicly, thus respecting the very nature of authority while rejecting the secretive, anonymous, cowardly methods of the subversive.”

The Conciliar Church, by adopting the new Teachings, the new Mass, the new Sacraments, the new Code of Canon Law, does not only sometimes not guard the common good, but rather the Conciliar Church never guards the common good!

By the above statement and especially by the words “sometimes” and “remind” (could you have selected a weaker verb?), you have proved that the SSPX has joined the ranks of other defectors of Tradition (Campos, FSSP, etc.).

The title of your letter to Friends & Benefactors should read “Subversion Of Tradition”. And this subversion was effected by Menzingen, not by the Resistance.

Your letter was mailed to my friend possibly because many years ago she supported financially and with her prayers a seminarian who has since become a priest. Today he is in danger of losing his faith due to the changed orientation of the SSPX.

My friend was one of the founding members of the SSPX Toronto chapel. She dedicated over two decades of her life to the support of the priests and the needs of the chapel. Today, she no longer supports the SSPX. She now supports the Resistance. She has kept the Faith.

Further, it is unworthy of the SSPX to include a brochure to raise money by advertising a talk by Dr White to give the illusion that he supports the SSPX. Dr White has been a faithful supporter of Bishop Williamson for many years, and his talk in Virginia on the 25th Anniversary of the Episcopal Consecrations on June 29, 2013 gave a morale boost to the Resistance.

For a future fund-raising project, you might consider using Dr White’s talk given in Virginia on Sophocles’ Philoctetes. The opening part is a highly entertaining commentary on the newly rebranded SSPX. It is sure to be a crowd-pleaser!!

Lastly, we have learned of the expulsion of Father Girouard:  “Another head has rolled off the Menzingen guillotine” (Father’s own words). This is another example of the subversion of Tradition by the new SSPX. It is tragic that the SSPX is continuing to self-destruct. It is a blessing and joy to have Father Girouard in the Resistance where he can remain faithful and form future generations of Traditional Catholics.


With my very best wishes, in Jesus and Mary,

Sister Constance

If one reads Fr. Le Roux's letter it does not have the same sense and feel of his past correspondences.
It does however have the vengeful character of a Menzingen publication.
One might even think that it was given to the good Father with instructions to sign and publish.
Just a thought and a feeling?

My wife.

We are both Third Order Franciscans.

Who is Sister Constance?

My wife.

We are both Third Order Franciscans.

My hat off to both you and your wife.  Her article is well done.

“Sometimes, when the authority in charge [of the sspx] ceases to be faithful to its role of guardian of the common good, it falls to the defenders of Tradition to remind authority of its role and to do this even publicly, thus respecting the very nature of authority while rejecting the secretive, anonymous, cowardly methods of the subversive.”

Since Fr le Roux has not been granted facilities by his local bishop, and since we are in a state of emergency, the statement by Sister Constance is correct.

Welcome to Tradition John Anthony - it appears you will have to do some reading to learn what it is about. I am sure many here will be willing to help.

Dear Brother Joseph,

Supplied jurisdiction is supplied by the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.

Sister Constance says:

"Further, as a priest and bishop, with respect to the laity, he has only that authority which we grant to him through supplied jurisdiction."

If read literally, Sr. Constance believes that the laity supplies supplied jurisdiction.

That is not Catholic ecclesiology.  

Now I think that the real explanation is that Sister simply doesn't know what she is talking about.

But I also think that with her, as with most members of the Resistance, there is a very definite tendency towards private interpretation.

In their heart of hearts, they believe with Pope Francis that they have the right to make up their own minds.  They just make up their minds in favor of a different set of errors from the Holy Father.

Or to put it another way, there are both Liberal Roman Protestants, and "Traditional" Roman Protestants.

I have read the SSPX's explanations of supplied jurisdiction; and since I have doctoral degrees in philsophy and law, I understand what I have read.

You in all likelihood have not read the relevant docuмents; and if you have, you clearly have not undestood them.

So it's likely you who need an introduction to genuine tradition.

Fr. Le Roux has one major thing to answer for in my opinion.  He needs to explain to all of us why the bishop, who ran the seminary for years before Father came onboard,  who trained many Society priests and ordained them, is now anathematized by seminarians, and presumably by Fr. LR himself.  He must explain why none of Bp. Williamson's tapes, books or articles have been stripped from seminary library and bookstore.  When Fr. Le Roux speaks to this issue publicly, I'll certainly be listening.

Quote from: BrJoseph

We definitely have to interpret what the Pope is doing. His actions are not Catholic and we have to determine what to make of him. He is in position and has the authority, but we have to determine how far to take obedience.

Bishop Fellay has no claim to our obedience. If the SSPX adhering laity did not exist, there would be no need for supplied jurisdiction, there would be nobody noticing that there is a crisis which requires his services.

While we do not technically supply the jurisdiction, we certainly supply the parishioners on whose behalf the Church supplies. That is close enough for those of us who are not so learned.

Dear Brother,

If the Society has supplied jurisdiction, it has authority over those who take advantage of that jurisdiction, and the right to exclude them if they do not obey.  The same is true of any other individual priest or group of priests who perform their priestly ministry under the theory of supplied jurisdiction.  They are doing the work of Our Lord, the head of the Mystical Body of which we are the members, and so share in his authority.

The problem is not that you are not so learned.  The problem is that your spirit is not so Catholic.  

At bottom, the only reason you or I exist is to give greater glory to God by being members of the Church and doing the will of its Head.  Part of doing his will is to obey those whom to whom the Lord has given jurisdiction over us, whether ordinary or supplied.

If John Smith has no recourse to the Society, then the Society has no authority over him.

But if John Smith goes to the Society but is of the Resistance, he is surely, to some degree, sinning by disobedience.

If he thinks that the Society is not entitled to his obedience, then he shouldn't go to it.  If he goes to it, he is a hypocrite.  He claims that the Society is not worthy of his allegiance, but he nonetheless has recourse to it.

John-

You err on this topic:

1) Supplied jurisdiction springs from the request of the faithful caught in grave general spiritual necessity;

2) Its scope is limited to the request being made (e.g., sacramental absolution, etc);

3) Therefore, the SSPX have no jurisdiction supplied to them by the Church, outside or beyond this request;

4) Thus, the only obedience a layman can owe any member of the SSPX would be that of adhesion to penances administered in the confessional.

5) To pretend one backing the resistance somehow "sins" in doing so, for failure to render a fictitious "obedience" betrays an ignorance on this subject.

6) No doubt, this mistaken notion stems from decades of casual statements of speaking of SSPX superiors as "my bishop" and "my district superior" and "my priest."

7) In fact, all SSPX clergy are nothing more than missionaries authorized by the state of necessity to dispense sacraments which, in ordinary times, would require ordinary jurisdiction.

8) To have given anything more than this was mere voluntary submission, which in saner times was OK at a superficial level;

9) But as the crisis bears out, it seems to have gone to the SSPX's heads if they think it was ever anything more than this;

10) And the faithful have only themselves to blame for not having kept their enthusiasm in check.

11) If you object to this, than perhaps Bishop Fellay was right after all to fear a slide into a schismatic attitude, eh?

....and since I have doctoral degrees in philsophy and law....

And for all your doctoral degrees you side with a bishop (i.e., Fellay) whose thought on Vatican II is consonant with the hermeneutic of continuity.