http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/McCall,Brian_Reply_Justice_Comments_10-13-12.htm


Open Reply to Justice Comments, Brian McCall’s Criticism of Bishop Williamson’s Criticism of the Six Menzingen Propositions


From the perspective of a Conservative Catholic, Mr. McCall has written a good, perhaps the best, defense of the SSPX General Chapter’s Six Propositions that were submitted to Rome as the conditions that Rome must agree to if the SSPX is to be “truly reintegrated into the Church.” This defense by Mr. McCall was written in reply to the critical analysis from Bishop Richard Williamson’s who concluded that the Six Propositions constitute a betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX and all Traditional Catholics. Only three of the six propositions are considered by the SSPX as non-negotiable.  Fr. Franz Schmidberger, the SSPX district superior for Germany and Archbishop Lefebvre’s first successor, summed up the three necessary conditions for “normalization” with Rome:  “Firstly that we can continue to point out certain errors of the Second Vatican Council, which means that we can speak openly about it. Secondly, that we may only use the liturgical books from 1962, especially the Missal, and thirdly that there will always be a bishop in the ranks of the society that is chosen from the ranks of the society.”

 

McCall’s defense of the three necessary propositions may be the best around but that does not make it any good.  To begin, the speculative intellect must firstly correspond not only with truth but with truth in the highest order and in proper relationship with other truths. Mr. McCall’s article does not.  McCall is a Conservative Catholic with Traditional Catholic sympathies.  His article, Justice Comments, was published in the conservative, formally traditional, Catholic  bi-weekly, The Remnant.  Mr. Matt, the editor of the Remnant said four years ago when questioned about his practical support for the Reform-of-the -Reform, “If all this makes us suspect traditionalists then indeed I have no further use for a term that has so obviously lost any sense of its original meaning.” This publication of Mr. McCall's article only confirms that Mr. Matt has “no further use for (the) term.”  McCall's article, presumptuously entitled, Justice Comments, is grounded upon the unstated presuppositions of Conservative Catholicism and written from the perspective of American legal jurisprudence.

 
American jurisprudence leaves the determination of facts to the jury, that is, what constitutes the ‘truths’ upon which the case is determined.  It is a system that is primarily concerned with practical results.  It is a system that seeks accommodation of opinions, that is, an accommodation of truth and error. Canon law, on the contrary seeks truth as an end.  When truth is discovered, it then seeks by coercive measures, as an act of charity, to call those in error back to the truth. In short, it seeks to unite truth and charity.  What Rome is pursuing with the SSPX is not even a legitimate canonical process.

 
McCall describes Bishop Williamson's criticism of the Six Propositions as an "error on these practical matters" when they are not, and have never been, primarily "practical matters". The problem with McCall is that his speculative intellect is not properly formed and his practical intellect seeks, in the best sense of American legal tradition, an accommodation of error, and not the unity of truth and charity.

 
Whoever frames an argument controls the discussion.  And the title of the article explains its framing.  McCall thinks the problem with the SSPX and Rome is primarily a problem of legal justice.  To be fair to McCall, he did not frame the argument.  Unfortunately for Traditional Catholics, that was done at Menzingen by Bishop Fellay and the General Chapter.  Bishop Williamson's critical comments are brief and did not address the presuppositions of Conservative Catholicism, and thus, McCall’s critical remarks are made in kind. The article is worth a review to demonstrate the deficiencies of Conservative Catholicism and consider the great value in Bishop Williamson’s remarks.

 
McCall’s argument can be summarized: There is a distinction between the speculative and practical intellect.  He says correctly, “For the speculative intellect truth is the correspondence of the intellect with reality. For the practical intellect it is the correspondence of a chosen action with a right appetite. A right appetite is directed to, or proportioned to, the true end or good of man. Practical judgments involve the election of proportionate means to a right appetite. Although Man is not free to choose his end, freedom exists in the election among means suited to that end. There may be more than one means suited to a true end and thus more than one action proportionate to the right end of Man.”

 
McCall goes on to say, “The second principle is one of justice. The Society and her members have suffered a grave injustice. Although under Natural and Divine law they possess de facto and de jure the power and authority to exist and to perform their sacred offices, the way in which ecclesiastical law has been executed, or carried out, has unjustly denied them de jure legal recognition through the normal means although they possess it by virtue of exceptions to the written law due to a state of necessity, [Necessity knows no law]. Certain authorities in the Church have unjustly denied this reality by treating the Society as if it lacked de jure and de facto legal recognition. This discontinuity of the actions of certain human authorities in the Church on one hand and the reality of Divine and Natural law as well as the operation of exceptions within ecclesiastical law on the other is a grave injustice, one which those in authority within the Church are obligated to correct by conforming present execution of the ecclesiastical law to reality. Since there is more than one action which can correct this legal injustice, the manner in which the Society should accept such a correction of the legal injustice is an action thus governed by the practical intellect.”

 
He concludes that the three necessary conditions of the SSPX are sufficient to guarantee the defense of the truths of the speculative intellect, that is, the right to teach the truth and to criticize the questionable teachings of Vatican II and the post-counciliar popes; the legal grant of privilege to use the 1962 Missal is a sufficient protection of worship; and the guarantee of a bishop will protect the propagation of the society. With these assurances protecting the non-negotiable truths of the speculative intellect, McCall argues that with respect to the “practical intellect,” that is, the “election of proportionate means to a right appetite,” can be pursued by a variety of means, and that being the case, the subject is duty bound to obey his superior, even though he may disagree that he is choosing the best means.

 
McCall begins well but ends up so very wrong because he is saddled with the false presuppositions of Conservative Catholicism.  Traditional Catholics and Conservative Catholics belong to the genus that holds in the internal forum the revealed truths of our religion (note: this is an assumption of good will toward the Conservative Catholic). The distinctive difference between Traditional Catholics and Conservative Catholics is that Traditional Catholics hold that our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, as well as the dogmatic formulations of our faith, those outward acts of the virtue of Religion that make the faith visible and communicable, are not merely matters of discipline open to the free and arbitrary will of the legislator, but constitute necessary properties of the Faith.  Traditional Catholics hold that the virtue of obedience owed to a legitimate superior is always conditional.  Obedience is proximately governed by the virtue of Religion and no Catholic, regardless of the dignity of his office, has the authority to injure the faith by corrupting the virtue of Religion.

 
The distinctive difference between a Traditional and Conservative Catholic can be illustrated in examining McCall's criticisms of Bishop Williamson.  The first proposition requests a guarantee of freedom to teach truth and condemn errors. McCall says:

Essentially Bishop Williamson is stating that the Society cannot accept a correction of the injustice perpetrated on them until the perpetrators fully convert to Tradition.  Yet, notwithstanding the necessity of the conversion of the perpetrators for their own sake and, given their position of authority, the good of the Church, such a conversion is not strictly necessary to address the specific issue at hand, the correction of an injustice.  This demand would be equivalent to St. Thomas More demanding that before King Henry VIII overturn his unjust conviction and release him from the Tower, Henry VIII must renounce his schism and heresy and convert.  Although St. Thomas would clearly have affirmed the need for such a conversion in itself, it is not necessary to the fulfillment of a duty in justice.

 
McCall has admitted that "The Society... under Natural and Divine law…possess de facto and de jure the power and authority to exist and to perform their sacred offices" and  they have been "unjustly denied them de jure legal recognition through the normal means although they possess it by virtue of exceptions to the written law due to a state of necessity, [Necessity knows no law]."

 
Only a Conservative Catholic could ever think that St. Thomas More in the Tower is an "equivalent" comparison to the situation of the SSPX. The SSPX is not locked-up in a "tower" held incommunicado from family and friends.  Whenever requested by traditional faithful, " they possess de facto and de jure the power and authority " to go anywhere and at anytime in the world and establish chapels, schools and seminaries.  They are free to do this not for their own sakes but for the sake of Traditional Catholics who are the aggrieved party in this 'injustice'. Every Catholic has a right to the true doctrines of the faith without modernist admixtures and the traditional sacraments according to the "received and approved" customary rites of the Church that are perfectly consonant with the faith held in the internal forum.  This right is derived from the duty imposed by God to offer Him fitting worship and to profess our faith in the public forum.  This demonstrates the real nature of the "injustice."  It is first and foremost an injustice against God.  The SSPX has supplied jurisdiction because it has a duty to provide for the rights of faithful Catholics what the Novus Ordo bishops and priests have refuse to do.  Thus the "state of emergency" acknowledged by McCall.  The "guarantee" by Rome would have to be made to Traditional Catholics, not to the SSPX, before the SSPX can be relieved from the duty they have assumed.  There is no reason for the SSPX to exist outside of this function.

 
If they return to Rome at this time they are offering to 'lock themselves in the tower' with a "guarantee" that they are free to 'teach truth' and 'reprove error' which "truth" or "error" will be wholly determined by the offending party that has never admitted to any degree of guilt in this injustice.  Since Rome, the offending party, has admitted to no crime, nothing is grounded in truth that is determined by the speculative intellect.  Therefore, no determination of the practical intellect will necessarily correspond to truth.  That being the case, why should anyone trust a liar?  Furthermore, no "legal" agreement can bind Pope Benedict or any future pope.  And, since jurisdiction is not a necessary condition proposed by Bishop Fellay and the General Chapter, they have essentially agreed to turn over Traditional Catholics to the jurisdiction of the local ordinaries as the trustees responsible for securing their doctrinal and liturgical rights.  This cowardly act of betrayal displays a real deficiency in temperance, fortitude, and prudence without which the virtue of justice is impossible.  The virtue of justice being absent on both sides of this discussion, only a fool could believe that a just resolution will follow.

 
The analogy to St. Thomas More does call to mind Robert Bolt's, A Man for All Seasons.  The 1966 film adaption of the play, that most people are familiar, edited out the most important supporting character, that of the Common Man.  As good as the 1966 film is, the 1988 film by Charlton Heston is better because it is true to the original script's central theme contrasting the character of Thomas More with that of the Common Man.  The Conservative Catholic is the Common Man.  And in this matter, he is playing the role perfectly.  The very idea of asking license to "teach truth" and "oppose error," is absurd.  Every Catholic is bound by his baptismal oath to do this on pain of sin.  To instruct the ignorant, admonish sinners, and counsel the doubtful are spiritual works of mercy.  God will condemn souls to hell for failing in the corporal works of mercy and yet, "It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6, 24).  Only a Conservative Catholic would ever seek a license from authority to teach truth and reprove error.

 
The second indispensable condition is that the Society continues the “use of the 1962 Liturgy” and preserves “the sacramental practice that (they) presently have.”  Bishop Williamson comments: “But do we not right now see Rome preparing to impose on Traditional Congregations that have submitted to its authority a ‘mutual enrichment’ Missal, mixing Tradition and the Novus Ordo? Once the SSPX were to have submitted to Rome, why should it be any more protected?”

 
McCall recognizes “that it appears some Roman authorities may be planning to play with the Missal, mixing in Novus Ordo elements and options.”  It is a little late to be figuring this out.  The Reform-of-the-Reform has been official policy of Pope Benedict since the publication of Summorum Pontificuм and has been his unofficial position for many years before that.  McCall naively believes that if Rome agrees to the 1962 Missal request it will really mean something.  The 1962 Missal is not the immemorial Roman rite of Mass. The proof for this is demonstrated by the manner in which Rome has treated it.  The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal, the extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo, was never intended by Bugnini or anyone else to have anything more than a transitory existence.  Bugnini when asked in 1962 if this Missal was the last of his renovations replied: “Not by any stretch of the imagination. Every good builder begins by removing the gross accretions, the evident distortions; then with more delicacy and attention he sets out to revise particulars. The latter remains to be achieved for the Liturgy so that the fullness, dignity and harmony may shine forth once again” (The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Fr. Alcuin Reid).  

 
It is a fact that the 1962 Missal has never been afforded the standing of Immemorial Tradition by Rome.  Every papal docuмent touching upon this Missal treats it entirely as a subject of Church discipline governed entirely by human positive law first under the norms of Ecclesia Dei as an Indult and now under the restrictive legal stipulations of Summorum Pontificuм as a grant of privilege by positive law.  At no time in the history of the Church has an immemorial liturgical tradition been reduced to the status of an Indult, which is the permission to do something that is not permitted by the positive law of the Church. This constitutes presumptive proof that Rome does not regard the 1962 Missal as the Immemorial Roman Rite.

 
The request itself by Bishop Fellay and the general Chapter represents a concession on their part that the rite of Mass is a matter of simple discipline subject to the free and arbitrary will of the legislator for which they must petition for an Indult.  No agreement can bind this pope or any of his successors to this concession.  And once anything is accepted as a grant of privilege, it can no longer be claimed by virtue of right.  The immemorial Roman rite of Mass is not, and has never been, a matter of simple discipline. Many authorities could be cited to prove this point but Msgr. Klaus Gamber should be sufficient:

"However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote). For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.' To this we can add that there is not a single docuмent, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
"There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."

Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

 

For the SSPX to be "regularized," they will make the 1989 Profession of Faith in which they will, by solemn oath, swear an unqualified submission of the "mind and will," or as Lumen Gentium says, "submission of the soul," to the "authentic magisterium."  The "authentic magisterium," or as it is also called, the "authorized magisterium," is nothing more than a modern term that refers to the legitimate holder of the papal office, that is, the person of the pope.  Vatican II and all the post-counciliar teachings are products of the "authentic magisterium."  So is the Pope's visit to Germany last year where he declared that the Church "demands" that faithful Catholics accept the doctrine of Religious Liberty and acknowledge the right of Moslems to build mosques in Germany for the worship of false gods. When the SSPX accepts the 1962 Missal by virtue of a grant of Indult they have nothing to fall back upon when that privilege is modified in the Reform-of-the-Reform by the same "authentic magisterium" that gave it in the first place.  The only sound liturgical position is to demand, as a right of every faithful Catholic, the use of the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments” (Council of Trent, Sess. VII, can XIII) that are prescribed in the Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis.

 

The third non-negotiable proposition that they have their own bishop is perhaps the most fatuous.  In the diocese of hαɾɾιsburg, its former ordinary, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, when he arrived established the Mater Dei Latin Mass community.  He wanted a reliable priest to properly control the organization with 'traditional' credentials.  He picked a trustworthy friend whom he sent to the Fraternity of St. Peter to be trained to say the Latin mass.  In a couple of months he was a Fraternity of St. Peter priest, formed in tradition, established as head of the community.  Does McCall really believe Rome would have any problem doing the same thing in placing their own people within the SSPX and raising them to the episcopate?

 

McCall's introduction to the speculative and practical intellects is good but incomplete and inadequate.  The first point to remember is that these are natural virtues as they perfect man's knowing powers.  There are three primary virtues of the speculative intellect: Understanding, Science, and Wisdom.  The virtue of Understanding relates to the habit of the First Principles, that is, the principle of identity, non-contradiction, the excluded middle, sufficient cause, etc.  The virtue of Science applies to specific disciplines of study and presupposes the necessary intra and extra disciplinary relationships.  And lastly, the virtue of Wisdom relates to the habit of philosophy, that is, the knowledge of the things in their essences, their most fundamental intelligible aspects.

 

A sure sign of the moral impoverishment of the Conservative Catholic is their supine acceptance of such terms as "extra-ordinary form" and "ordinary form" of the one Roman rite, as a single expression of a unified lex orandi/lex credendi.  They blind themselves to the principle of identity on nothing more than human authority.  The "hermeneutic of continuity/discontinuity," is another example of the same thing.  Even from a natural perspective there is not anything to call real virtue.

 

But more importantly, with Baptism and the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy Ghost, the natural virtues of the intellect are raised to a supernatural level.  That is why a sound Traditional Catholics can read McCall's article and recognize it, even if only connaturally, as entirely specious.  The intellectual virtues guided by the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity make a man of modest intelligence look a lot brighter than McCall.  After all, the most important matter for Traditional Catholics is, and has always been, defense of the Faith, not the correction of any personal injustice, which may or may not have anything to do with the Faith.  Defense of the Faith is not done by begging a chair at the same table with a multiplicity of errors.  What has brought the SSPX to this brink of ruin is Bishop Fellay's acceptance of Pope Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity" paradigm and his refusal to demand from Rome the definitive dogmatic declarations from the Chair of Peter on the novel counciliar and post-counciliar teachings.  Dogma, the formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, is the only weapon we possess to confront the abuse of authority, for every authority is subject to truth.

 

The last three propositions being mere requests, and for that reason, are inconsequential, but two points merit a few comments.  McCall says, “The final three conditions are prudential means to ensure compliance with the ends of the sine qua non conditions.  Means cannot be insisted on with the same absolute necessity as ends, a principle of Thomism of which I am certain His Excellency (Bishop Williamson) is well aware.”  But “means” are not unrelated to the “ends.”  If the “means” are necessary “to ensure compliance with the ends of the sine qua non conditions” then they must have the same sine qua non status as the ends.

 

McCall says addressing the fifth proposition, the request for jurisdiction, “The Society in no way denies the fact that in light of recent history and behavior, the first three sine qua non conditions may be rendered null de facto if diocesan bishops have authority over Society houses.  This has been the experience of a variety of groups who muzzle themselves so as to avoid disfavor of and expulsion by diocesan bishops.”  This is so painfully obvious that to simply point it out sounds like an insult. Here we have an admission that a hostile bishop can “render null” the “first three sine qua non conditions.”  This makes Bishop Fellay and the General Chapter look ridiculous for calling the first three conditions sine qua non in the first place since the necessary means to achieve them are not themselves sine qua non.  McCall says, "In light of current difficulties this condition is deemed prudentially desirable but it is not a matter of principle since His Excellency (Bishop Williamson) cannot deny the principle of the authority of bishops even if a derogation from the principle is desirable in the current crisis."  Bishop Williamson call this "Unbelievable"!  McCall replies, “Bishop Williamson’s criticism here appears disproportionate to the actual condition.” This is related to the first principle of the speculative intellect, the virtue of understanding, which intuitively sees that lacking sufficient means the ends are not possible to obtain.  But this is what we have come to expect from Conservative Catholics.  For them our ecclesiastical traditions are simple matters of discipline subject to the free and independent will of any legislator.

 

The last comment concerns ecclesiastical tribunals and the Pontifical Commission, that is, the fourth and sixth requests.  McCall in both cases, as he does in the question of jurisdiction, accuses Bishop Williamson of a false ecclesiology because his criticism implies, as in the question of jurisdiction, a failure to recognize the pope as the final authority.  This is the complaint of Conservative Catholics again who regard dogma and immemorial ecclesiastical traditions as matters of discipline that the pope is at liberty to do with as he pleases.   Bishop Williamson is only pointing out that our present Pope and the Roman curia are modernists.  They have constructed an utterly false ecclesiology taken from  Lumen Gentium and committed abuse upon abuse of their power to corrupt doctrine and worship.  Authority, an attribute of the Church, exists only for the purpose of defending doctrinal truth and purity of worship.  It has no validity whatsoever to corrupt doctrine and pervert worship.  It is foolish to believe that at this time they could be relied upon to properly judge tribunals and govern commissions with truth and justice when the decisions of these tribunals and commissions or material to the defense of the faith.

 

Dom Gueranger relates the story of St. John Gualbert.  He was a Florentine soldier of nobility, who forgave the murderer of his brother who had pleaded for mercy in the name of Jesus Christ.  John then went to the church of San Miniato which was near at hand, and as he was adoring the image of Christ crucified, the head of Christ turned toward him.  He immediately laid aside his military clothing and embraced the monastic life to become a soldier for Christ.  St. John would eventually become the great reformer of monastic life when he laid the foundations of his Order under the Rule of St. Benedict at Vallombrosa as directed by St. Romuald of Camaldoli under divine inspiration.

   

St. John, having denounced the simoniac bishop of Florence, Peter of Pavia, led the people of Florence in refusing to have communion with him.  Peter responded by killing all his opponents including every one of the monks at San Salvi during their Night Office.  During the next four years the case was appealed to Rome and St. Peter Damien conducted the investigation with full authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, Alexander II.  St. Peter Damien, invoking the principle that no inferior has the right to depose their superiors sided with the cause of Peter of Pavia.

   

Taking the defense of the monks was none other than Hildebrand, later to become Pope St. Gregory VII.  Since the majority of bishops sided with Peter of Pavia, Pope Alexander would not depose him, but took the monks under his personal protection.  Still the matter was unresolved because the Florentines refused to accept Peter of Pavia.

 

In Lent 1067 under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, St. John gave his consent to a "trial of fire," also called "trial by ordeal," as a means to provide testimony of the truth of the accusation brought by him against the Bishop of Florence.  One of St. John’s monks, Peter by name, and since then known as Peter Igneus, walked slowly before the eyes of the multitude through an immense fire without receiving the smallest injury.  Heaven having spoken, the bishop was deposed by Rome and ended his days a happy penitent in the very monastery of St. John at Settimo where the trial of fire took place.

 

Demanding that Pope Benedict sit in the Chair of Peter will be equivalent to a "trial by ordeal."  God will protect His Church from this modernist babble even if a few cardinals, or even the pope, have to die.  St. John, like St. Thomas of Canterbury after him, laid their lives on the line in defense of the Church for matters of pure discipline.  Should Traditional Catholics be any less willing to take a militant stand in the defense of matters of Faith?

 

Another timely story: In 1599, about 40 years after the death of England’s Queen Mary, an odd deputation of Catholic secular clergy, wearied from their protracted defense of the faith, went to Rome, with the ‘blessing’ of Anglican authorities and the approval of the Elizabethan government, who sent along their own government spy, Dr. Cecil.  The purpose of the mission was to seek from the Pope a mitigation of the Catholic policies in England that were then in conformity with the strict spirit and militancy of the Jesuit clergy who would not compromise with the secular clergy.  The last religious edict of Queen Elizabeth published in 1602 made a radical distinction between Catholic secular clergy and Jesuit clergy.  The latter were summarily executed while the former were given time to possibly negotiate more lenient treatment.  Bishop Fellay and the General Chapter with their Six Propositions are asking for Traditional Catholics to make, in many respects, an analogous compromise, a softening of our position.  Pope Benedict recognizes that some Traditional Catholics are failing in fortitude.  He said:

"I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole."

Pope Benedict XVI, March 10, 2009, Letter to bishops regarding lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops

My opinion is that Rome is effectively exploiting this failure in virtue to produce compromise and accommodation of error that will eventually lead to a betrayal of the faith just as it did with the secular clergy in England who began in all good will but ended very poorly.

 

A recent statement from Bishop Tissier is important:

The agreement considered in 2011-2012 lasted for six months, it has not been blessed by the Blessed Virgin. (We had prayed rosary after rosary, and we keep doing that, that is very good.) But the Blessed Virgin was clearly not behind this idea. She did not walk this path, because on June 30 (it's a secret that I reveal to you, but it will be made public), on June 30, 2012, the Pope wrote with his own hand a letter to our Superior General, Bp. [Bernard] Fellay, signed personally: "I confirm to you in fact [that], in order [for you] to be truly reintegrated into the Church  [Tissier: let us move beyond this expression], it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-counciliar Magisterium."

Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, conference to French SSPX priests, 9-16-12

 

"The Blessed Virgin Mary is clearly not behind this idea."  Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is referring to the messages from the Mother of God that have been communicated to Bishop Fellay.  The Blessed Virgin Mary has warned Bishop Fellay not to do exactly what he is doing.  I cannot demonstrate that the messages for Bishop Fellay are in fact from the Mother of God but what can be demonstrated is that Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson, and many priests in the SSPX who have examined the evidence believe the messages to be authentic.  This quote from Bishop Tissier leads me to think that he also believes the messages to be credible because the phrase, "has not been blessed by the Blessed Virgin" is nearly a quote from the visionary.  The Mother of God has warned Bishop Fellay that he is not to move the SSPX any closer to Rome until the Pope in union with the bishops of the world consecrates Russia to her Immaculate Heart as she requested at Fatima.  Bishop Fellay, unless he repents, will get a lesson in both the speculative and practical intellect that "no man can serve two masters " and a "house divided against itself shall not stand."

 

Lastly, if it really were essentially a question of justice, the SSPX would be under no obligation to do anything.  The Pope on his own has the authority to correct this injustice to God for which he is completely responsible by simply establishing Traditional Catholics in a manner analogous to Eastern Rite Catholic Churches that have overlapping geographical jurisdictions with Novus Ordo prelates.  Until Rome brings their own speculative intellects in line with Truth, the state of necessity will persist.  But the end that Rome has in mind has nothing to do with correcting an injustice that they have yet to admit exists.  Unfortunately for all Traditional Catholics, when Rome accepts the three conditions, Bishop Fellay will get his thirty pieces of silver, Conservative Catholics will rejoice and congratulate themselves on their obedient and prudent moderation to a modernist authority that has made a mockery the of virtue of Religion, and Traditional Catholics will begin as they did in the late 1960s to rebuild again.  Our ranks will be purged and our organization scattered but, alas, “The fewer men, the greater share of honour” when the victory promised by the Mother of God is realized.

 

In launching the New Evangelization and the new Year of Faith, Pope Benedict invited “ecclesial realities” to Rome for the celebration.  These “ecclesial realities” included Opus Dei, Focolare, Neo-catechumenal Way, various heretics and schismatics sects, even the clown “Archbishop” Rowan Williams, the pretend cleric and head of the Anglican cult, was present and given the honor of addressing the Pope and the synod of 262 bishops assembled. The New Evangelization and the Year of Faith are built upon the same principles that have left the Church in ruins these past fifty years.  It is certain that more devastation will follow.  Conservative Catholics are anxious to contribute their own “ecclesial realities” to this expedition.  And nothing condemns their supine cowardice more than one Traditional Catholic standing firm. The  heaviest cross over the last fifty years for Traditional Catholics has been the dead weight of the Conservative Catholic.  The corruption of today will someday be swept away but like every heresy in the past, this grace will be paid for with blood.  And, as in Robert Bolt's play, A Man for All Seasons, the Common Man will be our jailer and executioner.

 

May our good God, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, keep us faithful until the end.

 

David M. Drew

Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission

October 13, 2012