Number CCXCII (292)   16 February 2013

DI NOIA, ANNOYER

Two months ago the Vice-president of Rome’s Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei addressed to the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X and to all its priests a letter of several pages, accessible on the Internet, which Fr. Lombardi as spokesman for the Holy See called a “personal appeal”. The letter has been raising comments ever since. It is clearly the latest move in Rome’s campaign to bring the SSPX to heel, and put an end to its 40-year resistance to the Conciliar Revolution. As Bishop de Galarreta said in October of 2011, even if the SSPX turns down Rome’s offers, still Rome will keep coming back. Sure enough. But let us see briefly what Archbishop Di Noia has to say to “Your Excellency and dear Priestly Brothers of the Society of St Pius X”:--

He begins by admonishing Society leaders, notably Fr Schmidberger, Fr Pfluger and Bishop Fellay (in that order) for giving interviews so critical of Rome as to call in question whether the SSPX really wants reconciliation with Rome. Moreover, doctrinal differences are as intractable as ever between the SSPX and Rome. So he calls for a new approach, focusing on unity instead.

Church unity is hindered by four vices and promoted by the four opposing virtues of humility, mildness, patience and charity. Dividers of the Church are enemies of God. All we need is love. Away then with “harsh and unproductive rhetoric”. Let the SSPX fulfil its charism of forming priests, but priests who will be docile to the official Magisterium, who will preach the Faith and not polemics, and who will treat theological problems not in front of untrained layfolk but with the competent authorities in Rome. The Pope is the supreme judge of such difficult questions. In conclusion, Benedict XVI does want reconciliation. Bitterness must be healed. In Our Lord’s words, “Let them be one.” (End of the Archbishop’s letter.)

Notice in passing how, typically for modern man and for modernists, the Archbishop brackets out the essential question of doctrine, but this letter’s main interest lies elsewhere : how could the Archbishop have dared to address it to all SSPX priests without prior collusion with SSPX HQ ? It served him by forwarding the letter to all SSPX priests ! Here is one indication amongst many others that there are contacts between Rome and SSPX HQ that are kept from public view. But the question then arises, what motive can SSPX HQ have had to give to the modernist Archbishop such privileged and dangerous access to all SSPX priests ? Does it want them to become modernists also ? Surely not ! But it may well want to help Rome towards “reconciliation”.

By transmitting the Archbishop’s loving appeal, SSPX HQ gets the sweet message through to all SSPX priests without anybody being able to accuse HQ itself of going soft. On the contrary, the Roman letter makes them all see how nice the Romans are. True, there is a gentle rebuke to the SSPX leaders for not being nice, but that will serve to show how these are standing firm in defence of the Faith ! Above all, the letter will have served as a trial balloon, to test the priests’ reactions. What are they thinking ? Both Rome and Menzingen need to calculate at what point to go ahead with a “reconciliation” such as will carry with it a large majority of the priests, and not alienate so many that organized resistance to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr religion will continue.

Dear SSPX priests, if you do not want to be swallowed alive by New Order Rome, I gently advise you to react. Let your Superiors know, as discretely as you like but in no uncertain terms, that you want nothing, but nothing, to do with Conciliar Rome, until it clearly abandons the Council.

Kyrie eleison.

"how could the Archbishop have dared to address it to all SSPX priests without prior collusion with SSPX HQ ?"

Response: Indeed!

When Bishop de Galarreta visited India a couple of months ago he told me, and others I presume, that there would be no deal with Rome as long as Vatican II was in place. Yet we see the Roman authorities being granted full access to the individual priests of the Society. An ultimatum has been recently issued by Rome, the deadline being February 22nd. Again, there is a threat that a Roman offer will be made to the individual SSPX priests. So Rome now must have a data file with all the addresses of the priests.

I wonder what Bishop de Galarreta thinks about this? And Bishop de Mallerais? How can Bishop dG be so forthright in saying what he does say, when such things are going on?.

His Excellency always has wise words in regards to the SSPX/Rome drama.

God Bless you, Bishop Williamson.

AJNC

When Bishop de Galarreta visited India a couple of months ago he told me, and others I presume, that there would be no deal with Rome as long as Vatican II was in place. Yet we see the Roman authorities being granted full access to the individual priests of the Society. An ultimatum has been recently issued by Rome, the deadline being February 22nd. Again, there is a threat that a Roman offer will be made to the individual SSPX priests. So Rome now must have a data file with all the addresses of the priests.

I wonder what Bishop de Galarreta thinks about this? And Bishop de Mallerais? How can Bishop dG be so forthright in saying what he does say, when such things are going on?.

Both signed a letter opposing an agreement with Rome. A letter that is in the public domain. Do both Bishops still oppose an agreement with Rome? Also, I would like Bishop de Mallerais to comment. He was quick to admonish Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal, whom both continue the work of the Archbishop Bishop de Mallerais is no fighter. There is general agreement on this but Bishop de Galarreta seems to have caved in also. I exclude Bishop Fellay as compromise  is expected with liberals.

"how could the Archbishop have dared to address it to all SSPX priests without prior collusion with SSPX HQ ?"

Response: Indeed!

G.R.E.C.

G.R.E.C.

G.R.E.C.

"how could the Archbishop have dared to address it to all SSPX priests without prior collusion with SSPX HQ ?"

Response: Indeed!

Consider the enormity and implications of what G.R.E.C/menzingen has done here!!!

Treachery and total betrayal!!!

The keys to the castle have been secretly given to the enemy in time of war.

There are traitors in our midst!

The only question is who specifically the traitors are.

Di Noia could not himself have gained this information.

It had to be provided to him.

Who in the sspx would possess such info?

This is where our gaze and outrage should be fixed.

Was a list stolen and/or provided by unauthorized persons?

If so, menzingen should say so quickly.

If they do not, then collusion is the only answer.

All who would collude in such a damaging act should be expelled before the sun goes down!!

While every Eleison Comments is worthy to be added to the pinned thread "Collection of Resistance Writings," I have refrained from doing so, in order that the thread not become simply a Bishop Williamson thread, whose great weekly letters would soon dominate the thread.

However, given the historical significance and magnitude of the betrayal outlined in the present letter, and my desire that it not be lost to memory, I am going to add this letter to that thread.