(Unedited no running commentary)


I ACCUSE THE COUNSEL
 
On Bastille day, July 14th, the General Chapter of the SSPX elicits a declaration, for public consumption, which is at times sentimental but does not look too bad at first sight.

But it is much weaker than the 1974 declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre, which I do recommend you to read now to see the erosion for yourself.

The venom of this declaration is in its tail, that is, in the mention of some necessary conditions for the SSPX to have a canonical recognition from the new rome. Later distributed in an internal letter on July 18th, these six lamentable conditions, thankfully got leaked, and merit your special consideration.

3 SINE QUA NON (or necessary) CONDITIONS:  The liberty to keep, transmit and teach the good doctrine of the constant Magisterium of the Church and the immutable truth of divine Tradition; the liberty to defend, correct, reproach, even publicly those guilty of errors or novelties of modernism, liberalism, of the council of Vatican II and their consequences. To use exclusively the 1962 liturgy. To keep the sacramental practice we do have nowadays (including: orders, confirmation, marriage). The guarantee of at least one bishop.
 
& sound nice at first. But this claim of liberty for ourselves to teach condemn or keep things is not the fight of Archbishop Lefebvre. He clearly expressed that the first sine qua non condition would be the return of Rome to Tradition.

 We are faced with the Dom Gerard, FSP and Campos syndrome. Dom Gerard said in July 1988 “No hindrance shall be put to our antimodernist predication”, then we saw what happened to that liberty one hopes to get from the enemies of the truth… they were deceived, time and over, who can deny it? Therefore the most grievous sin of this first group& is implicit. It is an

 official sin of OMISSION of a request we have always made for 40 years: that the new rome stops crucifying the Church.This smacks of liberalism that always says “Live and let live” “Disagree but don’t be too judgmental and controversial” “Free Church in free state” “Liberty to one’s opinion and liberty to disagree with other without condemning them” etc. Secondly, those guilty persons referred to in , who are they?... simple and easy lay or priestly targets or bishops, cardinals and Popes?

In 1974 and after, the Archbishop consistently nailed the new rome, ie. the pope especially. He talked about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ reigning in Rome. Look at DICI; see a change of stance: we are careful of not disagreeing too badly with the Pope.

Thirdly one is perfectly entitled, in a liberal democracy, to defend correct and reproach the others, just as some French bishop said recently: “Let them come; let them join us, and disagree with Vatican II, for we disagree also with twenty other councils!” The catholic truth will be reproached in its turn, or simply diluted, or, as the Archbishop feared in 1988, by the mere mixing of our faithful with bad Catholics.

 Then how can a single bishop ensure the future of Tradition (600 SSPX and possibly 400 other priests)? Who will choose him; the Pope, the Commission or the SSPX? Shall we be guaranteed he is no liberal?

3 WISHABLE CONDITIONS (“conditions souhaitables”, a very weak word in French): Proper ecclesiastical tribunals in first instance Exemption of the houses of the SSPX from the diocesan bishops Pontifical Commission in Rome for Tradition in the dependency of the Pope, with the majority of its members and its presidency for Tradition.
 
 Archbishop Lefebvre ordered the SSPX to avail itself of tribunals in order to dodge the malpractice of novus ordo ones, and now we are left to just wish to keep only the smaller type of them, implicitly handing over, already, the dealing of serious matters to the new rome. And which code is all this leading us to use: the heavily tainted new one of 1983, or the code of 1917?

 Any faithful should jump with horror at the prospect of this: the SSPX is no longer an operation survival, putting the faithful entirely out of reach of the local modernist dioceses, but it merely wishes to be exempt from them. Do we just wish St Nicolas du Chardonnet, St Mary’s, Kansas, OLVC , Manila and our other houses, to be exempt from the influence of the modernist bishops, or do we exclude them from directing us until the crisis of the Church is over?

Since the new rome consistently throws the Ecclesia Dei groups back under the dioceses, how can we, in advance and by ourselves, admit that dreadful possibility and put it on a marble plate, as it is. We had believed, so far, that fighting against the new line imposed by the management of the SSPX had for object the avoiding of placing the SSPX under the fornicating new rome.

Now this fight also aims to rescue the SSPX from the clutches of the novus ordo dioceses!


A Pontifical Commission under the Pope is a pleonasm, because anything pontifical is under a pope. Secondly nothing is précised about the majority and presidency of this commission, because the reigning pope can claim to be for Tradition himself, or can appoint members of Ecclesia Dei groups, nay even conservative novus ordo people who fancy themselves as traditional.

 SSPX should have been the precise term. But when we ask from the new rome to be placed in the dependency of it we know already where the ambiguity of the term “for Tradition” is going to lean.

 And since we only wish this, if the Pope insists, the majority and presidency of this papal pontifical commission in dependency of the Pope…can be populated with modernists.

 Heaven forbid us willing this wishy-washy wish-wash.    
 

*