The Only Hope for Ukraine — and the World

We receive daily reports from the media of what, according to secular journalists, is happening in Ukraine and how it may affect the nations outside that beleaguered country. As with all secular reporting, the emphasis is on parsing what the principal politicians involved in the conflict are saying in response to developments, as though the situation were to be resolved by rhetoric and media commentary.

We have, among other ironies, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pontificating over what constitutes justice for the Ukrainian people, denouncing the use of force as “19th century behavior”. Implicit in Kerry’s comments is the presumption that what is modern is what is best and that all our predecessors were necessarily more benighted and primitive than we are. Kerry also fails to acknowledge the obvious: that his assumption of authority in the matter is based squarely and solely on the force commanded by the United States, militarily through NATO and economically through its capital investment in Russia. Apparently, 19th century behavior is acceptable from some quarters.

But is the U.S. government vitally concerned with the welfare of the Ukrainian people? Of course not. It is concerned about containing Russian power and influence. Who has the interest of the Ukrainian people at heart? The Ukrainian Catholic Church, for one. In the most significant development during the month of April (one almost entirely ignored by the media), the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, His Beatitude Svatioslav, re-consecrated his nation to the Blessed Virgin Mary. (See: “The Act of placing Ukraine under the Intercession of the Blessed Mother”.)

He reminded his nation – and the world, if it cared to listen – that history is in the hands of God. What secular leaders do may have grave consequences, but those consequences will be directly proportional to whether they have acted according to Heaven’s will or their own presumed wisdom. His Beatitude also reminded us of our own responsibility for the larger happenings in the world for which we may believe we bear no responsibility.

He said the consecration of Ukraine to Our Lady must happen alongside a consecration of each individual life to Our Lady. We must participate in such a consecration, he stressed, if we hope to receive Our Lady’s blessing and help for the nation. The same is true in the matter of the consecration of Russia to Our Lady of Fatima. We must further the consecration not only by urging our Church leaders to obey Our Lady’s request, but by conforming our lives to what Our Lady has asked of each and every one of us: to pray the daily Rosary, perform the First Saturday devotions and make sacrifices for the conversion of sinners.

It is easy to scapegoat our leaders — in Church or state — for their failures, but we must acknowledge our own responsibility for the problems we face as an international community. If we sanctify our lives, the channels of grace may flow in unexpected directions, influencing events in the world at large. And we should not presume, as does John Kerry, to know what constitutes the best possible outcome in any situation. All is in the hands of God, as the patriarch of Ukraine has reminded us.

Should Russia take control of greater portions of her former empire that may not necessarily be undesirable. A strange thing is happening with Vladimir Putin and, one may be permitted to think, with the national mood of the Russian people. Putin is stressing Russia’s past as a Christian nation at every opportunity and urging a return to the moral values of Christendom (see: “The Message of Fatima: Ignore It at Your Peril”).

If Russia is to be Heaven’s instrument for either the chastisement or salvation of the world, we do not know how Providence may prepare us for that eventuality. We do know that Russia will eventually be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope and the bishops of the Catholic Church and that peace will be granted to the world. To what extent the world will have to suffer until that happens is unknown. It has been placed in our hands. So we must do all we can to conform our lives to the Fatima Message and to urge those capable of performing the consecration to act without further delay. The situation in the Ukraine may mark the beginning of a greater chastisement that could engulf the world.


Get your FREE copy of The Fatima Crusader! Provide your name and mailing address on the form at https://secure.fatima.org/forms/crusader.asp or call toll-free 1-800-263-8160. There is NO OBLIGATION of any kind.

Appeal to the Faithful

Faithful to the heritage of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and in particular to his memorable Declaration of the 21st November 1974, “We adhere with all our heart, with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic faith and the necessary conditions to maintain this faith, to eternal Rome mistress of wisdom and truth.”

According to the example of this great prelate, intrepid defender of the of the Church and the Apostolic See, “we refuse on the contrary and have always refused to follow neo-modernist and neo-protestant Rome which clearly manifested itself at the second Vatican council and after the council, in all the reforms and orientations which followed it.”

Since the year 2000 and in particular from 2012 the authorities of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X have taken the opposite direction of aligning themselves with modernist Rome.

The Doctrinal Declaration of the 15th April 2012, followed by the exclusion of a bishop and numerous priests and confirmed by the condemnation of the book, 'Monseigneur Lefebvre, Our Relations with Rome', all that shows the pertinacity in this direction which leads to death.

No authority, even the highest in the hierarchy, can make us abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith clearly expressed by the Magisterium of the Church for twenty centuries. Under the protection of Our Lady Guardian of the Faith, we intend to follow operation survival begun by Abp. Lefebvre.

In consequence, in these tragic circumstances in which we find ourselves, we put our priesthood at the disposal of all those who want to remain faithful in the combat for the Faith. This is why from now on, we are committed to respond to the demands which will be made on us, to sustain your families in their educational duties, to offer the priestly formation to young men who desire it, to safeguard the Mass, the sacraments and the doctrinal formation, everywhere we are required to do so.

As for you, we exhort you to be zealous apostles for the reign of Christ the King and Mary our Queen.
Long Live Christ our King!

Our Lady Guardian of the Faith, protect us!

Saint Pius X, pray for us!

The 7th January 2014

* * *

We are at the disposal of our brother priests : several have not been able or have not wished, for the moment to associate themselves with our stance. That they do not hesitate to make contact with us (discretion assured).

Contact: [email protected]

We are even at the disposal of the traditional religious communities who understand the extreme gravity of the actual situation.

Signatures:

1. Abbe de Merode (prior, France)

2. Father Koller (prior, France)

3. Father Vignalou (France)

4. Father Hubert de Sainte-Marie Lamb (France)

5. Father Nicolas Pinaud (France)

6. Father Matthew Salenave (France)

7. Father Olivier Rioult (France)

8. Father Pierre-Marie OP and 10 other fathers Avrillé (France)

19. OSB Father Bruno (France)

20. April father, founder of the work of Our Lady of Salérans (France)

21. Father Raffali and community Stellamarins (France)

22. Abbe Picot (Kenya)

23. Father Jean-Michel Faure (South America, Member of Chapter 2012)

24. Father Chazal (Asia)

25. Father Florian Abrahamowicz (Italy)

26. Father Brühwiller (Switzerland)

27. Abbot Martin Fuchs (Austria)

28. Father Girouard (Canada)

29. Father David Hewko (USA)

30. Abbe Pierre-Célestin Ondo Ndong (Gabon)

31. Father Ernesto Cardozo (Brazil)

32. Father Arturo Vargas (Mexico)

33. Father Fernando Altamira (Colombia)

34. Abbot Hugo Ruiz (Mexico)

35. Father Juan Carlos Ortiz (Australia)

36. Father Frank Sauer (Germany)

37. Father Eduardo Suelo (Asia)

38. Father Richard Voigt (USA)

39. Father Arnold Trauner (Austria)

40. Father Trincado (Mexico)

41. Father Valan Rajkunan (Asia)

42. Father Raphael Arizaga OSB (Mexico)

43. Father Thomas Aquinas Ferreira da Costa OSB (Brazil)

44. Father Jahir Brito, FMBV (Brazil)

45. Father Daniel Joaquim Maria Sant'ana, FMBV (Brazil)

46. Father Joseph Pfeiffer (USA)

Why I signed our "address to the faithful" by Father Bruno

Some accuse us of being restless, excessive, to be driven by impatience or a bitter zeal. I can truly say that I wrote the following "no bitterness, no resentment" (Lefebvre, Declaration of 21 November 1974) vis-à-vis anyone lines.

I entered Bédoin in 1980, ordained priest by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1986, I left Barroux in 2002. I then held various departments in the district of France of the Fraternity. To date (19 January 2014), I am stationed at Priory Gavrus near Caen.

In recent years, I have observed with growing concern the signs that show a change of mindset in  Tradition. I repeatedly opened up to the District Superior of France, the Abbe de Cacqueray. I also wrote, in April 2012, to Bishop Fellay himself (letter remained unanswered).

Many colleagues and faithful certainly already know my position. But for months it appeared to me more clearly the need to express things publicly, officially, my categorical refusal to shift to what the General House seeks to impose.

I can no longer in good conscience be robbed of that duty.

The priest must love the truth more than anything.

The priest must bear witness to the truth at any cost.

The priest must denounce the same mistake when it comes from the top, regardless of the consequences he may suffer.

He must do so firstly, because he is the representative and the Minister of Our Lord, who proclaimed during his Passion: "If I was born, so I came into this world, to testify to the truth . "

He also must because it is the service of souls: our dear faithful have a right to the truth, and they expect their pastors to have a clear position, therefore public.

This is the meaning of our "address to the faithful," the drafting of which I had the grace to participate. It is not a declaration of failure, but rather the public witness of our unwavering commitment to the principles that have guided the Archbishop in the fight of the faith.

Our text is deliberately short, and some of the faithful are hardly aware of the events of the past two years in Tradition, some guidance can help them to grasp the scope of the "address".

I - The first two paragraphs, and the fifth ("No authority ..."), are borrowed, except for one detail, from the Declaration of Loyalty (published several times, including August 15, 2013), taking and adapting the Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre on 21 November 1974, which is the charter of the Catholic resistance to the conciliar religion.

II - The fourth paragraph mentions three elements: a doctrinal statement, excluding members of the Fraternity, the conviction (banning) of a book.

1) "Doctrinal Statement of 15 April 2012" the text presented to Rome by Bishop Fellay is outrageous and unacceptable. To take just one example, he recognized the legitimacy of the promulgation of the new Mass. Moreover, when a year later the document was published in Cor unum, Bishop Fellay claimed to have done "as Archbishop Lefebvre did in 1988." There is an objectively a grave offense to the memory of the Bishop: who never has recognized the legitimacy of the promulgation of the 'bastard Mass' as he called it in a memorable sermon of 1976.

2) "The exclusion of a bishop and many priests" should be added other sanctions, particularly the conviction of Abbe Pinaud. The sentence is null and void but does not detract from its truly odious character.

This second point is closely related to the first: it is very significant that the text strikes at Father Pinaud suspension to acknowledge our colleague had said about the Declaration of 15 April was "a danger to the faith," which is perfectly correct.

3) "The condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre book, Our relations with Rome"  : It is based on a study of 16 pages, unsigned, but the Abbe Thouvenot states that it "substantially corroborates the judgment" of Bishop Fellay. This "review" includes outrageous passages. Note that this is probably the most serious: The author of this note which substantially corroborates the judgment of Bishop Fellay criticizes Abbe Woodpecker "to focus on specific aspects" (p. 7). And the example he gives is that soon ... Christ the King. Particular aspect? It is instead the idea of ​​Archbishop Lefebvre! "We must always be concerned about [the reign of Our Lord]" (Sermon for the Feast of Christ the King, 1978). "We have to be, I would say, almost obsessed with this need, by the need to meditate on this mystery of our Lord and spread his reign. We have no other purpose or other reason to be priests but for reign Our Lord Jesus Christ "(conference Écône, June 3, 1980) ... This is very general thoughts, some would say. But when it comes specifically relations with Rome, it is very precisely that "Father Woodpecker argues that 'it is this loyalty [Christ the King] that plays all the drama between Rome and Écône' "(p. 7). Discerned from the words of my lord: "The real fundamental opposition is the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ Oportet illum regnare, he must reign, St. Paul tells us, Our Lord, come to rule. They say no, we say yes, with all the popes "(conference Sierre, November 27, 1988). When in 1976 the nuncio claims that the social reign of Our Lord is no longer possible, and that the Pope would not write any more the encyclical Quas primas today (Pius XI), the prelate was indignant: "We are no longer the same religion! [...] If there is something we have been looking for all our lives, it is the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ "(conference Écône, August 20, 1976). And in 1987, at a conference for priests, he brings his reply to Cardinal Ratzinger: "Our apostolate is the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That's what we are. And you do the opposite "(Écône, 4 September 1987).

III - In the sixth paragraph, we place our journey of faith under the protection of "Our Lady Guardian of the Faith." This is the title of the Virgin Bourguillon sanctuary near Freiburg, where Bishop led his first seminarians to devote his nascent work at Our Lady Guardian of the Faith.

Over forty years later, when a terrible crisis shakes Tradition, we must do everything to save the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre:The Fraternity, as an institution, may disappear or at least lose its identity (i.e. which is, alas happening), but the legacy of the Monsignor: his mind, his principles, his fight in the service of Christ the King and Holy Church, this heritage can not, must not disappear . With the grace of God and the help of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, we will maintain.

"The first evidence of loyalty and love that the priest has to give God and men, wrote Father Calmel is to keep intact the infinitely precious deposit that was entrusted to him when the bishop laid his hands. "

Source

Word has reached us that a declaration is pending from the 'Priest's of the Resistance'
The content we are told is in line with the declaration made by Archbishop Lefebvre on November 21, 1974.

"We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.'

This declaration we believe will be signed by all those in the so called 'Resistance' or at least those that represent each group.

We shall keep you posted as more comes to hand.

NB This is from Non Possumus and is translated by GOOGLE TRANSLATE so it is very rough.



Father, can you tell us how is the project of the new Monastery of San Jose? Sure. First I want to thank all the faithful readers and friends for their help Non Possumus spiritual and material. I want to talk to the project has come a long way with the help of God and all of you. Providence we settled in Colombia. There were several important signals called us there, so now our plans are concentrated there. In recent months, these plans have been secured and all resistance is supporting us. The project is well under way and built a monastery, started about 6 years ago, thanks to the faith of some families who wanted to build something that would serve for the preservation of the faith. Without knowing exactly what it would be used, began to build a monastery and a Benedictine Monastery, by the way it was built, and being in the mountains, in a place where he has been for four centuries monasteries. These people God entrusted his work for a day out and consecrated religious house project to San Jose. Then when they saw me and had the project of a monastery, offered this construction, and after analyze it and see it with the superiors, saw it was the most suitable to begin the project of the Monastery of San José.

- When will open the monastery and where it is located? Our plan is to open on October 7, with five monks, with the help of the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Brazil and many benefactors. The new vocations begin arriving next year. San Jose has been in charge of the project from the beginning and we are very pleased that has advanced so quickly. The monastery is located in the most blessed of Colombia, a few kilometers from the city of Chiquinquirá which is the national shrine of Our Lady of the Rosary, the most important in Colombia invocation of the Blessed Virgin. It is also within a mile of a former Dominican monastery, which was built in that area because the Apostle Bartholomew appeared asking to build a house of prayer, a religious house in that area, it was the Will of God. And as the Monastery now a museum, we saw that this desire of Jesus Christ through His Apostle St. Bartholomew, it is up to us to continue that work.
- What role has the Monastery of the Holy Cross in this new foundation? The Santa Cruz saw that the best way to support and help his monastery, was found another Benedictine house. To receive vocations Spanish speaking and at the same time could share the work and ministry of the Holy Cross Monastery in Brazil. Then Dom Thomas has given us all your help, all their support, and with the help of the monks are also going to start this new monastery.

- Will you go monks of the Holy Cross to Colombia? Yes They're going to stay with us monks. Do not yet know how many, but for now comes  in October.

- How will the opening ceremony of the new Monastery on October 7? We'll make a solemn Mass with all the monks and a priest visitor who will also attend, as well as all the faithful. Our Lady of the Rosary is the patron at the start of the Monastery.

- Bishop Williamson is aware of the project? Williamson, seeing how providential work, the desire to put a bastion of faith to preserve the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre, and all the signs of God to settle there, he gave us his blessing and asked us monastic adventure in Colombia. He gave us his blessing and is willing to help us with everything we need. We only asked one thing: that we keep faithfully prayed the Divine Office in common every day, because this is the strongest stone of a Monastery, fidelity to the Holy Rule, the Divine Office and the traditional liturgy.

- How many monks and priests begin the Monastery? We started 5 on October 7. Another priest who will be helping us, a priest friend of Tradition and has always worked in traditional circles.
- How faithful have visited and are helping this work? We have visited in the last three months between 120-150 different faithful.
- They will attend to the faithful of the Resistance in need of sacraments? Yes, at the request of Bishop Williamson, will be traveling to meet faithful, even to the faithful of Ecuador, in Quito and Cuenca. Visits are not yet fixed, but the visit occasionally.
'Father, what is now the monastery needs? Are you quite finished? The Monastery is habitable, you can live there but still very austere. We are still missing important things, for example, no electricity (we are putting solar panels), no drinking water, use water to bring the lake, we need a well. We have furniture, we are missing some windows, and we need to build a second floor to house another 10 monks. In addition, of course, the power of the monks. Therefore, we need the help of all the faithful of the Resistance.

-You have consecrated to San Jose entire project since leaving the United States, is not it? He is the main protagonist of this project. San José is initiated, which continues and will culminate the work. They have been told to the monks who want to enter the monastery that St. Joseph is the Abbot, who all have to be devoted to San Jose, which is the perfect model of monastic life, the one who has loved Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin and help us perfection of Benedictine life. San Jose is the Abbot, is the father of the house and the monastery will be like Nazareth. The aim of all the monks is to become another San Jose who live to love the Blessed Virgin and to sacrifice for Jesus Christ through the vows of perfection and fidelity to the Rule. Working and praying as San Jose and along with him and through him and to him more pleasing to our Lord Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin. - Does the Monastery website? Yes, and we ask all the faithful who visit. Thank you very much for the interview Father.
The website of the Monastery of San José is: http://benedictinos.jimdo.com/ To the faithful who want to cooperate materially to this work, we give the following link: http://benedictinos.jimdo.com/donativos/

He has touched upon the sore spot of the Mass in the ancient rite. Ratzinger permitted its celebration for all. Bergoglio has prohibited it for one religious order that favored it

by Sandro Magister

ROME, July 29, 2013 – One point on which Jorge Mario Bergoglio was eagerly expected  to weigh in, after his election as pope, was that of the Mass in the ancient rite.

There were those who predicted that Pope Francis would not distance himself from the stance of his predecessor. Who had liberalized the celebration of the Mass in the ancient rite as an “extraordinary” form of the modern rite, with the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum" of July 7, 2007:

> Benedict XVI Liberalizes the Ancient Rite of the Mass – And Explains Why

and with the subsequent instruction "Universæ Ecclesiæ" of May 13, 2011:

> Two Masses for a Single Church

And there were instead those who prognosticated on the part of Francis a restriction - or even a cancellation - of the possibility of celebrating the Mass with the rite prior to Vatican Council II, even at the cost of contradicting the decisions of Benedict XVI with him still alive.

To read the decree issued by the Vatican congregation for religious shortly before the voyage of Francis in Brazil, with the explicit approval of the pope himself, one must agree more with the latter than with the former.

The decree bears the date of July 11, 2013, the protocol number 52741/2012, and the signatures of the prefect of the congregation, Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, a focolarino,  and of the secretary of the same congregation, Archbishop José Rodríguez Carballo, a Franciscan.

Braz de Aviz is the only high-ranking official in the curia of Brazilian nationality, and because of this he has accompanied Francis on his voyage to Rio de Janeiro. He has a reputation as a progressive, although that of a scatterbrain fits him better. And he will probably be one of the first to go when the reform of the curia announced by Francis takes shape.

Rodríguez Carballo instead enjoys the pope's complete trust. His promotion as second-in-command of the congregation was backed by Francis himself at the beginning of his pontificate.

It is difficult, therefore, to think that pope Bergoglio was unaware of what he was approving when he was presented with the decree before its publication.

The decree installs an apostolic commissioner - in the person of the Capuchin Fidenzio Volpi - at the head of all the communities of the congregation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

And this in itself is cause for astonishment. Because the Franciscans of the Immaculate are one of the most flourishing religious communities born in the Catholic Church in recent decades, with male and female branches, with many young vocations, spread over several continents and with a mission in Argentina as well.

They want to be faithful to tradition, in full respect for the magisterium of the Church. So much so that in their communities they celebrate Masses both in the ancient rite and in the modern rite, as moreover do hundreds of religious communities around the world - the Benedictines of Norcia, to give just one example - applying the spirit and the letter of the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum" of Benedict XVI.

But precisely this was contested by a core group of internal dissidents, who appealed to the Vatican authorities complaining of the excessive propensity of their congregation to celebrate the Mass in the ancient rite, with the effect of creating exclusion and opposition within the communities, of undermining internal unity and, worse, of weakening the more general "sentire cum Ecclesia."

The Vatican authorities responded by sending an apostolic visitor one year ago. And now comes the appointment of the commissioner.

But what is most astonishing are the last five lines of the decree of July 11:

"In addition to the above, the Holy Father Francis has directed that every religious of the congregation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is required to celebrate the liturgy according to the ordinary rite and that, if the occasion should arise, the use of the extraordinary form (Vetus Ordo) must be explicitly authorized by the competent authorities, for every religious and/or community that makes the request.”

The astonishment stems from the fact that what is decreed contradicts the dispositions given by Benedict XVI, which for the celebration of the Mass in the ancient rite “sine populo" demand no previous request for authorization whatsoever:

"Ad talem celebrationem secundum unum alterumve Missale, sacerdos nulla eget licentia, nec Sedis Apostolicae nec Ordinarii sui" (1).

While for Masses "cum populo" they set out a few conditions, but always guaranteeing the freedom to celebrate.

In general, against a decree of a Vatican congregation it is possible to have recourse to the supreme tribunal of the apostolic signatura, today headed by a cardinal, the American Raymond Leo Burke, considered a friend by the traditionalists.

But if the decree is the object of approval in a specific form on the part of the pope, as it seems to be in this case, recourse is not admitted.

The Franciscans of the Immaculate will have to comply with the prohibition on celebrating the Mass in the ancient rite beginning Sunday, August 11.

And now what will happen, not only among them but in the whole Church?

It was the conviction of Benedict XVI that "the two forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching." He had explained this in the heartfelt letter to the bishops of the whole world with which he had accompanied the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum":

> "With great trust and hope…"

But from now on this is no longer the case, at least not for all. For the Franciscans of the Immaculate, forced to celebrate the Mass only in the modern form, there remains just one way to take to heart what Benedict XVI also hoped: to "demonstrate" in this form as well, "more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage."

The fact is that one pillar of the pontificate of Joseph Ratzinger has been cracked. By an exception that many fear - or hope - will soon become the rule.

__________


(1) Curiously, even six years after its publication, the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” of Benedict XVI continues to be present on the website of the Holy See only in two languages, and these among the least-known: Latin and Hungarian.

__________


The website of the Franciscans of the Immaculate:

> Francescani dell'Immacolata

Courtesy of:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350567?eng=y

Do not miss out on posts about the Saint of The Day, Devotions, prayers and more from the site. Keep up to date and email subscribe for blog posts.

We have also added a Google Translate feature at the bottom of every page. Need something in another language. Easy, just click the arrow button on select language. Select the language you need and google will translate any page you want.

God Bless. Webmasters,

Surrendering to Rome: The Hypocrisy of the Neo-SSPX
by ServusSpiritusSancti


The Neo-SSPX nearly sold out to modernist Rome in 2012, after having been in talks with Rome since 2009. Despite not having reached a sell-out agreement with Rome, they have already sold out on their principles, having ditched the principles of their founder, Archbishop Lefebvre (while claiming they haven't), and having re-branded the SSPX to make it more appealing to the modern society.

The situation was reminiscent of what happened to Campos. The diocese of Campos, Brazil was blessed with a great Bishop, His Excellency Bishop Antonio Castro de Mayer from the 1950s to the 1980s. He was one of the few diocesan Bishops who protected his diocese from the changes made by Vatican II. He forbid the doctrinal changes of Vatican II from poisoning his flock, and allowed his priests to keep saying the Traditional Latin Mass. When his mandatory retirement age of 75 arrived in 1981, modernist Rome took the opportunity to replace him with a liberal bishop who would use force to ensure that the diocese of Campos would be liberalized. Many of the priests rallied around Bishop Castro de Mayer and much of the laity supported them, forming a "Resistance" to the conciliar church. The priests supporting Bishop Castro de Mayer were kicked out of their parishes, but the laity responded by building ten new parishes for these priests in order to keep the Catholic religion of all time.

Bishop Castro de Mayer became allies with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, and participated in the Consecrations of the four Bishops at Econe, Switzerland in 1988. He, along with the Archbishop and the SSPX, was "excommunicated". He was offered a "reconciliation" offer on his deathbed in 1991, but refused.

Following the good Bishop's death, a new Bishop, Liciano Rangel, was Consecrated by three of the Society's Bishops. He remained in charge of the Campos Resistance until his death in 2002. Before his death, however, in August of 2001, after a short period of talks with modernist Rome, Campos reached an agreement with Rome and became "regularized". Following this, the SSPX condemned the agreement and distanced itself from support of Campos. Bishop Rangel was succeeded by Bishop Rifan, who was selected by Rome because of his admission that he was not hostile to the Novus Ordo. Since then, the SSPX and Campos have been opponents just as the FSSP has opposed the Society since it split from the Society following the so-called "excommunications" in 1988.

So Campos betrayed Bishop Castro de Mayer, and its act of betrayal was severely condemned by the SSPX, including Bishop Fellay. However, has Bishop Fellay not now betrayed his own founder? Given his desire to "reconcile" with Rome, why does he remain a critic of Campos? Isn't it hypocritical of him to remain an opponent of them when he tried to do the same thing?

The FSSP is another example. The Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) was formed in 1988 after several priests broke away from the SSPX. These priests wanted to keep saying the Traditional Latin Mass, but also wanted to remain "in communion" with modernist Rome. So, with help from John Paul II, the FSSP was thus formed. Where an SSPX chapel is located, there's usually a FSSP parish nearby. That's not a coincidence either. Rome placed FSSP parishes near SSPX parishes intentionally to draw laypeople away and back into the conciliar church.

The SSPX has been preaching for years that we shouldn't attend a FSSP parish because they are "regularized" by Rome, and attendance at their parishes would imply an acceptance of their positions. What is most dangerous about groups in union with Rome such as the FSSP is their pacifism. The FSSP, because of its status with Rome, cannot criticize Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, or the conciliar hierarchy. Thus, their position is "don't condemn the evil, just seek the good". In other words, ignore the evil happening in the world and leave it to God to deal with, and just focus on the good things in life. A group "regularized" by Rome has to have such a mindset in order to ignore the disgraces occurring in Rome and to only focus on what they do right. They do not have the fighting spirit that Catholics must have, they encourage pacifism, which has never been Catholic and never will be.

The Neo-SSPX, however, has now adopted a similar mindset. Their sermons no longer are hard-hitting sermons against Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. They are now about "love, peace, charity, and obedience". They also refuse to condemn the evil, and only speak about the good now. How are they any different now than the FSSP, other than the fact that they aren't "regularized"?

So Bishop Fellay is a hypocrite. He criticizes Campos for selling out, but he desired to do the same thing and has never apologized. He still does not recommend attendance at FSSP Masses, but his priests now have the same "don't condemn the evil, just seek the good" mindset. He considers himself an opponent of those who have surrendered to Rome, but he nearly did so himself, expelled those who opposed it, and even went so far as to call a "Rosary Crusade" in 2008 for the lifting of the "excommunications" (yet left Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer "excommunicated"). That is how desperate he was to surrender the Society to the modernists in Rome. Bishop Fellay and those who support him are now just another Campos. They have betrayed their founder and are hypocrites for condemning others while doing the same thing themselves. Those who stand by Bishop Fellay must either condemn his actions as they have condemned the actions of Campos and "regularized" groups such as the FSSP, or stop condemning the acts of those who have already sold out if they wish to support +Fellay, otherwise they are also hypocrites.

What did Fr. Pfeiffer say about Bishop Fellay and those who support him?

"...And the priests by their standing behind Bp Fellay, Fr Rostand, and the other superiors in this wickedness – I’m not talking about wickedness of action, wickedness of morals, we’re talking about wickedness of doctrine. By standing behind them in this wickedness, they are guilty. They are not innocent."

God Bless.

ServusSpiritusSancti | July 15, 2013 at 12:45 pm | Categories: Traditional Catholic Faith | URL: http://wp.me/p2MjAo-8O

Conciliar Canonizations by ServusSpiritusSancti

So it has been recently confirmed that two of the revolutionary Vatican II popes - John XXIII and John Paul II - will be "canonized" by Francis I this December. This news, especially the "canonization" of JPII, comes as no surprise, given the "saint factory" the conciliar church is. Of course two of the worst men to sit in the Chair of Peter are going to be given an honorary "seal of approval" by their modernist successors.

John XXIII reigned from 1958 to 1963. The first of the revolutionary popes, John XXIII was the one who called for a Second Vatican Council, which began in 1962. He died before its completion. There are rumors that he shouted on his deathbed "Stop the Council! Stop the Council!". This theory leads some Traditionalists to believe that he wasn't all that bad compared to his successors. However, while I would certainly hope that John XXIII repented of his wicked ways, this claim has never been proven. Thus, our opinion of him should remain that he was a horrible leader for the Church, and was likely a Masonic infiltrator. His successor, Paul VI (who is expected to be "beatified" by the conciliar church soon), who was even more diabolical than his predecessor, was likely an infiltrator as well.

John Paul II reigned from 1978 to 2005, making his reigns one of the longest in Church history. It was also one of the worst, and perhaps THE worst behind only Paul VI. His papacy included a covering up of a plethora of sex abuse cases, two blasphemous inter-religious meetings at Assisi, a phony so-called "third secret" of Fatima released in 2000, and of course, the "excommunication" of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. Despite his shameful reign, he's on the way to "sainthood" nevertheless.

Given that Francis is simply another John XXIII or JPII himself, it's not surprising that he's cleared these two liberals to be "canonized". And Paul VI will likely be next. These modernists need to be excommunicated, not "canonized"! How about Canonizing Archbishop Lefebvre instead? But no, instead he's considered "excommunicated" while these conciliarists are on the way to so-called "sainthood".

And while these two are on the way to "sainthood", Popes who are TRULY worthy of Canonization - such as Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII - are ignored. Of course, these Popes had the true Catholic Faith, their Doctrine was undeniably Catholic and contrary to what these conciliarists teach. So to Canonize them would be contrary to their own beliefs, thus why they're likely being snubbed.

What did Archbishop Lefebvre have to say about these conciliar Popes?

“We must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jewish Freemasonry and of world socialism. John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service of a world communism retaining a hint of religion. He openly attacks all of the anti-communist governments and does not bring, by his travels, any Catholic revival.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography” by Bishop Tissier, pp. 602-603) The Archbishop's words, as usual, are spot-on. Let us not be deceived by these conciliar popes, who are simply wolves in sheep's clothing. I will conclude with the words of a Pope who was truly worthy of Canonization, the great Pope St. Pius X:

“They [modernists] want to be treated with oil, soap and caresses. But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don’t count or measure the blows, you strike as you can.”

God Bless.

ServusSpiritusSancti | July 10, 2013 at 12:41 am | Categories: Traditional Catholic Faith | URL: http://wp.me/p2MjAo-8D