Category: Sspx

The Neo-SSPX - Unfaithful to Archbishop Lefebvre

2/15/2014

The Neo-SSPX’s US district website, which has certainly posted its fair share of anti-Resistance content, is now at it yet again. It recently released a new article defending its deplorable actions while bashing the “rebellion” of the Resistance. In this same article, the Neo-SSPX once again claims that it and its leader, Bishop Fellay, are still faithful to the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre, while those that have dissented have chosen a dangerous and rebellious path which, they tell us, is not pleasing to God. The article is actually taken from an editorial from a Neo-SSPX priory in France, and is written by Fr. Michel Simoulin.

There are several parts of the article worth addressing, in what is, I might add, an obvious attempt at damage control while the Neo-SSPX attempts to pick up the pieces and restore its image in the aftermath of the numerous mistakes made by its leadership. I will begin with this paragraph:

“For several months now actually, it has seemed that a wind of madness is blowing in our circles, and this wind is so violent and irrational that it has caused some priests or laypeople to fall—too many, but fortunately not as many as they would like you to think. Some fall to the left, finding Bishop Fellay too strict, the others fall to the right, finding him too lax or liberal. Thank God, the great majority continues to walk straight ahead, faithful to the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre.“

Firstly, “not as many as they would like you to think” is a misleading remark. The Resistance does not claim to be larger than it actually is. The Resistance priests admit that they are fairly small in size. But as we are all aware, truth is not determined by numbers. The majority of Catholics, in the midst of the turmoil caused by Vatican II, went along with the changes instituted by the Council, while only a portion of Catholics remained faithful to Tradition. We certainly know who was right in that situation.

Furthermore, the Neo-SSPX and its followers are not “faithful to the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre” as the Neo-SSPX would like to have you think. I’ll address this in further detail in a moment.

“But you have to admit that the air sometimes becomes stifling: if you publicly declare your fidelity to and confidence in the Superior General, they will say that you are sowing disorder and making trouble. But if you speak publicly against Bishop Fellay, accusing him of liberalism and of secret maneuvers to bring about a reconciliation, you will have the reputation of being a valiant defender of the Faith and of the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre. So it is, strange to say!“

Bishop Fellay has shown clearly through his own actions that he does not deserve the confidence of the faithful. This has been demonstrated so many times, through both his words and actions, that it is not necessary to delve into too much detail here. Those who declare their fidelity to him are indeed sowing disorder, but it is much more severe than that. They are participating in the creation of a new “brand” of “Traditionalism”. Only it is not genuine Traditionalism in the slightest, it is neo-Traditionalism. Declaring that the Jews are our “elder brothers” or that Vatican II is “95% acceptable” is not truly Traditional.

Here is the next paragraph:

“This has been said and written so many times already that you hesitate to say it once again, but Archbishop Lefebvre never made any claim to “converting” Rome or the Pope. At the very most, he used to say to those who rebuked him for going to Rome: “Who knows? I may do them a little good!” He never rejected contacts or discussions with Rome, in the hope of gaining freedom for his work and for Tradition. He fought and condemned the modern errors, those from before the Council, those of the Council and those after the Council, but he never fought or condemned Rome or the Pope.”

The fact that Archbishop Lefebvre continued to maintain contact with Rome is greatly exaggerated in this piece. He continued to go to Rome in order to convert them, not to have friendly dialogue with them or to try to “reconcile” with them. The Archbishop said this in 1990 of those that sell out to Rome (which is precisely what was attempted by Bishop Fellay in 2012):

“And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor’s field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church’s defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. “After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says” —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Address to his priests, Econe, 1990)

Next paragraph:

“And history, in its objective truth—quite apart from all the interpretations that we can give to the facts--tells us that his work was approved and recognized by Bishop Charriere, a thoroughly conciliar bishop, who never bothered His Excellency; and history also tells us that the protocol agreement that he had signed on May 5, 1988 went much further than Bishop Fellay’s proposals of last year. And Archbishop Lefebvre was not the one who put an end to the meetings; it was none other than Cardinal Ratzinger, by refusing what His Excellency requested in his letter dated May 6, 1988 (the consecration of one bishop, as provided in the protocol agreement). These are things that should not be forgotten [as well as the fact that all of this transpired two weeks later and after the Archbishop had made some visits to Rome—so he did not reject the Protocol the next day as has been falsely claimed —Ed].“

The above is untrue. Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 protocol did not go further than the 2012 preamble of Bishop Fellay. Read the Archbishop’s protocol, then compare it with +Fellay’s. It is obvious to those with sufficient reading comprehension that + Fellay’s proposals went much further.

As for the assertion that the Archbishop did not reject the protocol the next day, I present you with his own words on the matter:

“Regarding the May 5, 1988 Protocol… “If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement! Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.” (‘Marcel Lefebvre’ Bp. Tissier de Mallerais p. 555).

Moving on to the next paragraph:

“Some may disagree with Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance (but then they should have said so during his lifetime!), or Bishop Fellay’s (but then they should have said so at the time of the first contacts in 2000!), but it is strange that this reawakening of consciences is occurring only now that nothing was accomplished and nothing is foreseen; and it is untrue to accuse Bishop Fellay of being unfaithful to Archbishop Lefebvre. Aside from differences in temperament or personal experience, the line has remained the same, and there are no indications that it is about to change; quite the contrary.”

It actually is true to say that Bishop Fellay has been unfaithful to Archbishop Lefebvre. This article should shed some light on that:

http://traditionalcatholicremnant.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/two-conflicting-mindsets/

There are other things worth noting as examples, including the fact that Bishop Fellay recently banned a book in France that consisted primarily of quotes from the Archbishop. If that is not “being unfaithful to Archbishop Lefebvre”, I don’t know what is.

The article is prolonged for several more paragraphs, but I need only address one final paragraph here:

“In all this controversy, what many people lack is quite simply the sensus Ecclesiae, the mind of the Church. I do not claim to be better than those who abandon us, but I wonder: toward what Church are they venturing? The Church of Pius XII? Of St. Pius X? Of St. Pius V? But these “Churches” do not exist, any more than the “conciliar Church” or “modernist Rome” exist—these are merely expressions to describe the state of the Church or of Rome since the last Council, since they have been infested with a “non-Catholic sort of thinking” that tries to give them a more “worldly” face. There is only the Holy Catholic Church and Eternal Rome, to which Archbishop Lefebvre paid a vivid homage at the conclusion of his book Spiritual Journey, and that we desire to serve with all the grace received by the Church on the Feast of All Saints in 1970. They simply forget that the Church is not a “mental object”, as the philosophers say.”

What about the church that Bishop Fellay is venturing towards? It is the conciliar church, and we know what the Archbishop said about those that venture towards it:

“This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)

To sum things up, we must ask ourselves who is truly faithful to the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. Reviewing the facts, it becomes clear that it certainly isn’t Bishop Fellay and the Neo-SSPX! This new jab at the Resistance from (N)SSPX.org only re-affirms that.

God Bless.

http://traditionalcatholicremnant.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/the-neo-sspx-unfaithful-to-the-archbishop/

Declaration of Resistance

1/19/2014

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: adresse.fidele@gmail.com

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

'World Wide Declaration' 40 years later

1/18/2014

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.

Interview with Bishop Williamson 30th Sept. 2013

10/1/2013

REX! Interview with H. E. bishop Williamson (2013)

September 30th, 2013

Motto: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. (Shakespeare, Hamlet)

Your Excellency, let me first thank you very much for allowing me to ask you a few questions which our readers may be interested in.

REX!: Many people want to know your opinion on various things; however, it seems to me that no-one asks you a plain question first: How do you feel a year later since having been expelled from SSPX? And can you in connection with this tell our readers how does your usual daily schedule look like now?

+BW: As for feelings, I do not blame anybody for not asking me about how I feel. As the French would say, the problem is not there. The problem is global apostasy !

As for my daily routine, if I am not travelling, I am living for the moment “under the radar” in London, looking after myself, occupied quite heavily with writing for each week in French and English the “Eleison Comments”, and then with vetting the German, Italian and Spanish translations. The “Comments” have a number of devoted translators, and a Frenchwoman who vets my French !

REX!: I began this interview with the motto as I usually do. In this case it seemed to me quite appropriate to start with Shakespeare. First, I know you like the great author; second, the quotation would quite precisely characterize the present state of the Church and world itself, too. What in your opinion is rotten in today´s Church and world, or let me be more specific, what is the principal root of the rot?

+BW: The principal root of the rot is that the mass of human beings alive on earth, created by God and for God, have turned their backs on Him. It is a Luciferian worldwide revolt against our Creator, and will be severely punished, because only a severe punishment can still stop almost all souls alive from sliding into Hell. God punishes those whom He loves, like any good father. See Hebrews XII, 7. It is a revolt that has built up over centuries, if not millennia, led by true Satanists who want every single soul to fall into Hell.

REX!: You in your Eleison Comments or in your conferences occasionally use the term “fiftiesism” to describe a kind of Catholic mentality of 1950s. It seems you consider this to be one of the precursors of what happened after Vatican II. Can you, please, explain it?

+BW: “Fiftiesism”, as I call it, means that form of Catholicism in the 1950’s which kept up many of the appearances of the true Church, but inside was all ready to go with the modern world in its apostasy. All that was needed for the appearances of the true Church to collapse was churchmen who would disguise the collapse as a “renewal” or “renovation” of the Church, just as Protestantism was disguised as a “reform” or “Reformation”.

REX!: You are often being accused of being a unity breaker; the Resistance blamed for being sectarian. To me it on the contrary seems that Menzingen is right now claiming much more jurisdiction than it really possesses. Can you, please, comment on this?

+BW: Unity that is not unity in the truth will be unity in a lie. Unity is always secondary in this respect. Around what is the unity uniting ? That is the question. Did Archbishop Lefebvre break or uphold the unity of the true Church ? Menzingen today, whatever it may pretend in words, is in reality wanting to unite the Society of St Pius X around a policy of rejoining the mainstream Church, which is Conciliar. Menzingen has no authority whatsoever to promote such a compliance with the worldwide apostasy.

REX!: How does it come, Your Excellency, that the same people who understand that Archbishop Lefebvre´s resistance to the Conciliar authorities was correct and talk about the Revolution, but nevertheless ask for blind obedience in condemnation of the Resistance? I certainly understand that the fundamental problem is whose attitude, is in fact, in line with the Archbishop´s one. We all, however, know that the Archbishop signed the Protocol in 1988 only to cancel it the very next day. Bishop Fellay was ready to sign even the worst version of it under the title Doctrinal Preambule...

+BW: By his wisdom, faith, fidelity, sanctity and personal charisma the Archbishop drew many young men to follow him in the 1970’s and 1980’s who never really understood the fullness of his reasons for resisting the Council, and fighting against it. This is because they never understood just how far the modern world has gone wrong. Therefore as long as the Archbishop was alive, they lined up behind him like ducklings following Mother Duck on a pond. But within a few years of his no longer being amongst them, they began to fall back into the ways of the modern world (see for instance the story of GREC). It is a process all too natural for fallen human nature. Exactly the same thing happened in the diocese of Campos in Brazil when Bishop de Castro Mayer was no longer there amongst his priests, only it happened there faster.

When you mention the Archbishop’s “attitude” and the very different attitude of Bishop Fellay, you are correctly concentrating on the issues which determine where are true unity and obedience, and where are false unity and obedience. It is a shame that so many good SSPX priests and laity apparently never understood the Archbishop’s fight for the Faith and for the Church, or his “disobedience”, but such is the power of the world all around us to distract and to mislead souls.

REX!: You were close to archbishop Lefebvre and I suppose you knew him quite well. How do you think he would hypothetically see things today? Ratzinger becoming the Pope (only to retire after some time), then the new Pope Francis “no-number” etc. And what do you think he would tell bishop Fellay?

+BW: I can remember the Archbishop calling Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was, the “Artful Dodger”, which was a very kind way of putting it. The Archbishop would have had no illusions about Pope Ratzinger. As for Pope Francis, I think the Archbishop would have shrugged his shoulders in horror. Does that sound contradictory ? “What do you expect of the Conciliar Church ?” he would have said. To Bishop Fellay I am sure that – in private ! – he would have spoken very severely. I think even Bishop Fellay would have been shaken. But would Bishop Fellay have changed his ways if he had not had to ? I doubt it.

REX!: Your Excellency, some people say, mostly in a derogatory way, that you are interested in various conspiracies. Thus it is presupposed that anything you say on the topic must be taken with a lenient smile: “The conspiracy nut, you know...” In spite of this, can you give us your opinion on possible conspiracy within SSPX? The Church has been infiltrated long before why should not be much smaller and weaker SSPX at some time, too? Do you think there may be anything true about it? How would such a conspiracy operate in reality?

+BW: As for conspiracies, many people will swallow the absurd conspiracy theory, for instance, of 19 Arabs pulling off the attacks of 11 September, 2001, while they refuse the mass of evidence of the real conspiracy, namely that those attacks were an “inside job”. When the peoples of the world want decadence while pretending not to want it, politicians are two a penny who pretend to be conservative while in fact serving the Revolution. Hence such politicians work in the dark. Hence conspiracy becomes normal.

As for conspiracy within the SSPX, I have never wanted to believe that any of my colleagues could be infiltrators or conspirators, but if I think about it, I might name a few, because what has happened to the SSPX corresponds to the fruits of a conspiracy. Certainly Bishop Fellay likes to work in the dark because he does not like what he calls “leaks”.

However, in many a case, including that of the fall of the SSPX, I do not think that a conspiracy is mainly to blame. Mainly to blame is not the match but the pile of dry wood just waiting to be set on fire. With the SSPX that pile would be too many bishops, priests and laity that have not a strong enough faith to have understood what the SSPX was all about.

REX!: Menzingen´s policy is sometimes described with a slogan, “Pay, pray, obey”. Do you think it is fitting? And what do you think about the economic situation of SSPX? On one hand, money is spent on the megalomaniac purposes such as the new oversized seminary in the USA, on the second hand, the donations are undoubtedly lessening. Do you think the time may come when SSPX ends up in bankruptcy?

+BW:  “Pay, pray and obey” was a slogan attributed to the leaders of the Church in the 1950’s. It is not Catholic, because Almighty God does not want mindless and lukewarm robots in his Heaven. He spits “Fiftiesism” out of his mouth. Menzingen has clearly fallen back into “Fiftiesism”.

As for the present finances of the SSPX, I have no reliable information, one way or the other. But Americans have a saying, “No doctrine, no dollars.” The mainstream SSPX is giving up on doctrine. It would be most normal for it to lose the dollars.

REX!: What would you tell someone who says that in fact all the present quarrels can be traced far back, they are mostly personal, and have nothing to do with principles although now it is presented so?

+BW: In a lecture given in Ireland last spring, I am told that Bishop Fellay said half a dozen times that the problem of Bishop Williamson is a purely personal problem, supposedly a personal antagonism. Now it is true that I find highly distasteful what he has done to the SSPX, but the problem is absolutely not personal. It is a problem of the Faith. This is what he wants to disguise by pretending that the problem is mine, a personal problem with him, or with whoever. Nonsense! My problem with Menzingen is ideological, and it is not my problem, but Menzingen’s. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre’s problem with the Newchurch.

REX!: We have heard about the faithful being denied the Sacraments in SSPX chapels only due to their previous assistance at the Mass celebrated by a Resistance priest. In the Czech republic the situation is not as dramatic as in other countries in the world. Yet we have seen the Czech prior´s Declaration issued a few months ago with the approval of the then District Superior which in one of three points (the other two being irrelevant for our purposes) says:

“The activity of Bishop Williamson after his expulsion from SSPX is more and more directed against our Priestly society, he speaks about us as of a “Newsociety”. He also returns to the thematization1 of his revisionist theories which lead to the relativization of the Nazi crimes, which is unacceptable. Thus all the future activities claiming to support Bishop Williamson will be regarded as being hostile towards our Priestly Society.”

I think you may share any opinions you wish in a case of a free matter but I do not want to ask you about the historical questions because of the national law which is almost identical to the German one. Nonetheless, would you please comment on the Declaration´s point as to the term “Newsociety”? With this Declaration a few of us have become enemies literally overnight...

+BW: Just as what Vatican II has made of the Church is something so different from the true Church that it is realistic to speak of a “Newchurch”, so what Bishop Fellay and his collaborators have done to the Society of St Pius X is so different from what Archbishop Lefebvre founded that it seems to me entirely realistic to speak of a “Newsociety”. The fall of the mainstream Church after Vatican II and the recently manifest fall of the SSPX are entirely parallel. It is the same malady – love of the modern world.

REX!: There is a true story of a young man from the Czech republic who participated in the Walsingham Pilgrimage in England. When he came back home, the Czech SSPX prior asked him simple yet surprising question: “Tell me on which side do you stand? Are you with us or Bishop Williamson? You must decide!” In a small country where there are not many possibilities other than attending the SSPX masses this question seemed rather shocking. The prior even told him that the issue would have to be solved in the district HQ in Jaidhof, Austria [Czech republic technically belongs to the Austrian district]. The man also played the organ regularly during the SSPX masses. He was asked to stop playing because of what was mentioned above. Can you comment on this?

+BW: What do you expect ? The SSPX has changed. I have been consistently and openly opposed to that change. The promoters of the change are bound to defend their change and so to attack anybody who opposes it. Many good priests have been thrown out of the Newsociety for that reason, and any layfolk that follow them are liable to be denied the sacraments. There is a well-known saying: “Nobody is so sectarian as a liberal”.

REX!: Now a question of eminent interest for many. Did anything change that could push you nearer to consecrating a bishop, or bishops in the near future? Are you decided, or will you wait for a sign from God?

+BW: I think that the consecration of a bishop, or bishops to ensure in the present circumstances, as best humans can, the defence of the Faith, is simply a matter of time. I do not know when or where, but I have no objection in principle, especially as it is becoming inconceivable for any of the other three SSPX bishops to consecrate a candidate who would not fit the Conciliar profile, as they say. In practice I am waiting for Providence to show its hand, as I think it will. It is God’s Church. He does look after it !

REX!: A very debated topic recently: Do you think the time is coming when Russia will be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart, i.e. the time when everything will seem almost lost? If yes, why do you think so?

+BW:   I am certain that Russia will eventually be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart, because did not Our Lord say to Sister Lucy in 1931 that it would be? But He also said that it would be late, in other words only when the world situation will seem to be desperate.

REX!: Is there anything special you would like to tell the readers in conclusion of this interview?

+BW:    Watch and pray, watch and pray, Fifteen Mysteries every day. And may God bless abundantly every reader that wishes to adore, love and serve Him.

Thank you, Your Excellency, for your time and for everything you do. May God bless you!

Interviewer: D. Grof

Source: REX!

1Linguistics the mental act or process of selecting particular topics as themes in discourse or words as themes in sentences

How should the 'Body' of our Faith react to disease?

7/2/2013

WHAT? NO RESISTANCE?

A healthy body reacts with a vigorous immune system by resisting viruses, harmful bacteria and diseases that attack it. So, by way of comparison, when the leadership of the Society of St. Pius X officially embraced Liberal ideas most harmful to the Faith and publicized them, rather than react by crying "Resistance to what?", it should rather be, "WHAT? NO RESISTANCE?" Truthfully, there should have been a healthy, unanimous wave of resistance from the very beginning, to that which threatens the very foundations of the Traditional Roman Catholic Faith!

Faced with the manifest ignoring of the wisdom, warnings, and prudence of Abp. Lefebvre never to pursue a purely practical agreement without Rome's conversion to Tradition FIRST, expressed by the shift of principles in July 14, 2012's General Chapter Statement, "WHAT? NO RESISTANCE?"

Faced with the 6 Conditions, which the SSPX "bound itself to," the first one asking for, what amounts to, the freedom to set up one of our own altars in the Pantheon of All Beliefs so aggressively promoted by the Conciliar Church, when Abp. Lefebvre always refused such a false communion, demanding the Pope's and Rome's conversion to the Faith of Tradition,"WHAT? NO RESISTANCE?"

Faced with the willingness to be put under the local Modernist bishops in the second desirable Condition, "WHAT? NO RESISTANCE?"

Faced with the leaders of the SSPX's Liberal statements on the Council, the errors of Vatican II, on Religious Liberty, on the New Mass being legitimately promulgated, on accepting the New Code and the New Profession of Faith, on accepting Vatican II as "enlightening" and "deepening" Catholic Tradition (1), "WHAT? NO RESISTANCE?"

Faced with none of these statements, declarations and affirmations having been publicly rejected, corrected or refuted in a clear, precise manner by the culprits themselves, to all the priests and faithful of the world, scandalized by these compromises threatening the only Revealed Truth, "WHAT? NO RESISTANCE?"
Faced with the Society's leaders unjustly silencing, expelling, threatening bishops, priests, Carmelite nuns and faithful, even to the point of refusing Holy Communion and expelling children from their schools and threatening the same in the future for any who openly oppose the new direction of compromise and false agreements, "WHAT? NO RESISTANCE?"

Faced with the leadership's ever growing silence about Modernist Rome's ongoing destruction of the Faith, Spirit of Assisi, Pope Francis' scandals against the Faith as well as the Modernist bishops throughout the world, "WHAT? NO RESISTANCE?"

Faced with the rising "friendly fire" towards the priests, monks and nuns of the Resistance (who merely repeat the Founder's warnings) as the "greatest evil" and ignoring the real danger and enemy to Christ the King and His Holy Religion, namely, Modernist /Conciliar Rome of 2013, "WHAT? NO RESISTANCE?"
Faced with the 6 Conditions, not one of which demands a doctrinal agreement, proving that Menzingen is ever determined to seeking a "practical agreement" (as if real unity can ever be possible without unity in the Catholic Truth), "WHAT? NO RESISTANCE?"

Faced with the affirmations that the Declarations of Vatican II "On Religious Liberty" and "On Relations of the Church With Non-Catholic Religions"(already condemned by previous Popes), are RECONCILABLE, albeit "with difficulty," with the prior Magisterium (Doctrinal Declaration, III, 5), by Society leaders, "WHAT? NO RESISTANCE?"

Faced with over 500 priests trained to combat Modernism and identify its tactics (such as ambiguous language) and confronted with this in the very documents sent from Menzingen, officially swallowing the Modernist poison, even before a written “canonical normalization” or “agreement” has been signed; faced with the overwhelming silence, “WHAT? NO RESISTANCE?”

When the Faith is compromised or EVEN IN DANGER (cf. Doctrinal -- not "Prudential"-- Declaration, April 15, 2012), St. Thomas Aquinas affirms (2) that inferiors have the duty to publicly correct their superiors, respectfully, but clearly, Bp. de Castro Meyer made it the point of his short sermon at the Episcopal Consecrations, 25 years ago. Abp. Lefebvre did not fear to continually correct the Vatican II Popes, numerous Cardinals and clergy. Was he not labeled "schismatic", "rebellious", "dissident", "sedevacantist", "liberal" (for confronting superiors), "disobedient", "imprudent", etc., etc.? Did he not form a Resistance to the Conciliar Church and its Reforms?Truly admirable was his organization of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X to continue the True Doctrine, Mass, Catechism, and Sacraments. This was, to draw from the example of Sacred Scripture, building with the trowel in one hand.

But he also combatted the modern errors, the scandals of the then, reigning popes, and the destruction of countless souls through the errors and spirit promoted by the Conciliar Church. This was wielding the sword. Yes, the trowel in one hand, to build, the sword in the other, to fight! Fight he did indeed, till his last breath!
The new direction of the SSPX (admitted by Bp. Fellay's "new attitude towards Rome," the new non-critical approach of the newly branded websites, "Rome is changing" (3) and put into practice by the General Chapter Statement, 6 Conditions and the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012) has laid down the sword of combat ("... We must abandon the bulldozer approach") and focus on the "positive side" of solely building with the trowel.

But while the onslaughts of the enemies of the Faith are ever advancing and the Conciliar Reign of Terror heightens, there is nothing the Freemasons would agree with more, than to quit publicly exposing the real enemies to the Faith in today's Modernist Rome, and grow more agreeably silent on their errors, scandals and betrayals to Our Lord Jesus Christ. "Polemics" rains on the Conciliar parade.

This brings us to "Why the Resistance?"..."Resistance to what?" It is because OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IS GOD, KING, AND THE ETERNAL HIGH PRIEST! He is the One betrayed, denied, mocked, and uncrowned by Vatican II and its adherents. To make the slightest compromise, even in the name of "practical prudence" with Vatican II, its illegitimate ("bâtarde") Mass and Reforms is to humiliate and betray Our Lord Jesus Christ! "...By their fruits you will know them" (St. Mt. VII 20).

So, "Resistance to what?" needs to be re-examined in the Light of the Faith and then, when one honestly reads the General Chapter Statement and 6 Conditions, the April 15th Doctrinal Declaration, the May 11, 2012 Interviews on CNS, the DICI Interviews of June 7, 2012, along with the continual double-speak and contradictions which still continue, then what honestCatholic cannot but ask, "WHAT? NO RESISTANCE TO ALL THIS? What must we do?"

Referring back to the example of a healthy body, only an emergency surgery can, short of a miracle, revive the SSPX from the mortal wound of the compromise committed last Summer. The steps taken depart from the mission and purpose of the Society's Founder in an official capacity. Miracles? That is Our Lady's "forte" and She knows how to invoke them! She has the mission to revive the Church and can save the SSPX we love and hold dear. But while praying and sacrificing, what else can we do?"...I am not a pessimist. The Holy Virgin will have the victory. She will triumph over the great Apostasy, the fruit of Liberalism. One more reason not to twiddle our thumbs! We have to fight more than ever for the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ! In this battle, we are not alone: we have with us all the Popes up through Pius XII inclusively. All of them combatted Liberalism in order to deliver the Church from it. God did not grant that they succeed, but this is no reason to lay down our weapons!

"We have to build, while the others are demolishing. The crumbled citadels have to be rebuilt, the bastions of the Faith to be reconstructed: firstly the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of All Times, which forms saints; then our chapels, which are our true parishes; our monasteries; our large families; our enterprises faithful to the social doctrine of the Church; our politicians determined to make the politics of Jesus Christ--this is a whole tissue of Christian social life, Christian customs, Christian reflexes, which we have to restore, on the scale that God wants, at the time God wills. All that I know, the Faith teaches us; it is that Our Lord Jesus Christ must reign here below, now, and not only at the end of the world, as the Liberals would have it!" (4).

"Let us, therefore, fight on, with the trowel in one hand  and the sword in the other!"
"Of them that built on the wall and that carried burdens, and that laded: with one of his hands he did the work, and with the other he held a sword!" (II Esdras IV 17)

REFERENCES

(1) See: DICI Interview with Bp. Fellay On Relations With Rome, June 7, 2012, CNS Interview May 11, 2012 in Menzingen and Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012.
(2) St. Thomas Aquinas [IIa IIae Q. 33 a. 4 ad 2um]: "It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."
(3) Letter of Bp. Fellay and Assistants to three Bishops, April 14, 2012, "We have observed a change of attitude in the Church...Vatican II...is no longer in people's heads. Fewer and fewer believe it." Interviews of June 7, 2012, DICI: "The attitude of the official Church has changed, not me."
(4) They Have Uncrowned Him, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter 34.

Letter to Pope from Bishop Fellay June 17, 2012

7/1/2013

Letter to Pope
File Size:	2615 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

Ecône declaration

6/29/2013

Declaration on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecrations (30th June 1988 – 27th June 2013

1- On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecrations the bishops of The Society Saint Pius X are eager to express solemnly their gratitude towards Archbishop Lefevbre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer for the heroic deed they were not afraid of performing on the 30th June 1988. Most especially they would like to express their filial gratitude towards their venerable founder who, after so many years spent serving the Church and the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to safeguard the Faith and the Catholic priesthood, did not hesitate to suffer the unjust accusation of disobedience.

2- In his letter addressed to us before the consecrations, he wrote, “I beseech you to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all churches, in the integral Catholic Faith, as expressed in the Professions of Faith, in the catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with that which you have been taught in the seminary. Remain faithful to the transmission of this Faith so that the reign of Our Lord may come.” It is indeed this phrase which expresses the profound reason for the act which he was going to undertake “so that the reign of Our Lord might come,” adveniat regnum tuum!

3- Following Archbishop Lefebvre, we affirm that the cause of the grave errors which are in the process of demolishing the Church does not reside in a bad interpretation of the conciliar texts – a “hermeneutic of rupture” which would be opposed to a “hermeneutic of reform in continuity” – but truly in the texts themselves, by virtue of the unheard of choice made by Vatican II. This choice is manifest in its documents and in its spirit; faced with “secular and profane humanism,” faced with the “religion (as indeed it is) of man who makes himself God,” the Church as unique custodian of Revelation “of God who became man” has wanted to make known its “new humanism” by saying to the modern world, “we too, we more than any other, have the cult of man.” (Paul VI, closing speech, 7^th December 1965). But this coexistence of the cult of God and the cult of man is radically opposed to the Catholic Faith which teaches us to render the supreme cult and to give the primacy exclusively to the one true God and to only His Son, Jesus Christ, in whom “dwelleth all the fullness of the Divinity corporeally” (Col. 2:9).

4- We are truly obliged to observe that this Council without comparison, which wanted to be merely pastoral and not dogmatic, inaugurated a new type of magisterium, hitherto unheard of in the Church, without roots in Tradition; a magisterium resolved to reconcile Catholic doctrine with liberal ideas; a magisterium imbued with the modernist ideas of subjectivism, of immanentism and of perpetual evolution according to the false concept of a living tradition, vitiating the nature, the content, the role and the exercise of ecclesiastical magisterium.

5- Henceforth the reign of Christ is no longer the preoccupation of the ecclesiastical authorities, despite the fact that Christ’s words, “all power is given to me on earth and in heaven,” (Mt 28:18) remain an absolute truth and an absolute reality. To deny them in action is tantamount to no longer recognising in practice the divinity of Our Lord. Hence because of the Council, the sovereignty of Christ over human societies is simply ignored, and even combatted, and the Church is imbued with this liberal spirit which manifests itself especially in religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality and the New Mass.

6- Religious Liberty, as exposed by Dignitatis humanae and its practical application these last fifty years, logically leads to demanding God-made-Man to renounce His reign over man-who-makes-himself-God, which is equivalent to dissolving Christ. In the place of a conduct which is inspired by a solid faith in the real power of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we see the Church being shamefully guided by human prudence and with such self-doubt that she asks nothing other from the State than that which the Masonic Lodges wish to concede to her: the common law in the midst of, and on the same level as, other religions which she no longer dares call false.

7- In the name of a ubiquitous ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and of a vain inter-religious dialogue (Nostra Aetate), the truth about the one true Church is silenced; also, as a large part of the clergy and the faithful no longer see in Our Lord and the Catholic Church the unique way of salvation, they have renounced to convert the adepts of false religions, leaving them rather in ignorance of the unique Truth. This ecumenism has thus literally killed the missionary spirit through seeking a false unity, too often reducing the mission of the Church to that of delivering a message of a purely terrestrial peace and of a humanitarian role of lessening want in the world, placing it thereby in the wake of international organisations.

8- The weakening of faith in Our Lord’s divinity favours a dissolution of the unity of authority in the Church, by introducing a collegial, egalitarian and democratic spirit, (see Lumen Gentium). Christ is no longer the head from which everything flows, in particular the exercise of authority. The Sovereign Pontiff who no longer exercises effectively the fullness of his authority, and the bishops who – contrary to the teaching of Vatican I – esteem that they can collegially and habitually share the fullness of the supreme power, commit themselves thereby, with the priests, to listen to and to follow ‘the people of God,’ the new sovereign. This represents the destruction of authority and in consequence the ruin of Christian institutions: families, seminaries, religious institutes.

9- The New Mass, promulgated in 1969, diminishes the affirmation of the reign of Christ by the Cross (“regnavit a ligno Deus”). Indeed, the rite itself curtails and obscures the sacrificial and propitiatory nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Underpinning this new rite is the new and false theology of the paschal mystery. Both one and the other destroy Catholic spirituality as founded upon the sacrifice of Our Lord on Calvary. This Mass is penetrated with an ecumenical and Protestant spirit, democratic and humanist, which empties out the sacrifice of the Cross. It illustrates the new concept of ‘the common priesthood of the baptised’ which undermines the sacramental priesthood of the priest.

10- Fifty years on, the causes persist and still engender the same effects. Hence today the consecrations retain their full justification. It was love of the Church which guided Archbishop Lefebvre and which guides his sons. It is the same desire to “pass on the Catholic priesthood in all its doctrinal purity and its missionary charity” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey) which animates the Society of Saint Pius X at the service of the Church, when it asks with insistence for the Roman authorities to regain the treasure of doctrinal, moral and liturgical Tradition.

11- This love of the Church explains the rule that Archbishop Lefebvre always observed: to follow Providence in all circumstances, without ever allowing oneself to anticipate it. We mean to do the same: either when Rome returns to Tradition and to the Faith of all time – which would re-establish order in the Church; or when she explicitly acknowledges our right to profess integrally the Faith and to reject the errors which oppose it, with the right and the duty for us to oppose publicly the errors and the proponents of these errors, whoever they may be – which would allow the beginning of a re-establishing of order. Meanwhile, faced with this crisis which continues its ravages in the Church, we persevere in the defence of Catholic Tradition and our hope remains entire, as we know by the certitude of Faith that “the gates of hell will not prevail against her.” (Mt 16:18)

12- We mean to follow well the injunction of our dear and venerable Father in the episcopacy: “Dear friends, be my consolation in Christ, remain strong in the Faith, faithful to the true sacrifice of the Mass, to the true and holy Priesthood of Our Lord, for the triumph and the glory of Jesus in heaven and on earth” (Letter to the bishops). May the Holy Trinity, by the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, grant us the grace of fidelity to the episcopacy which we have received and which we want to exercise for the honour of God, the triumph of the Church and the salvation of souls.

Ecône, 27^th June 2013, on the feast of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour

(Source : FSSPX/MG – DICI June 27, 2013)

Bishop Bernard Fellay
Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta

A Testimonial

6/28/2013

A Testimonial:
Rome and the “Reconciliation”.

“Could Rome not have been trusted? Had not Rome given enough signs of good will, and of a sincere desire for reconciliation?” Such will be the questions that many will ask-on the occasion of the episcopal consecrations of June 30th.

It is not for us to judge men’s intentions, so rather than question the good will of the Roman authorities we prefer to state the facts for which they are responsible.

That is why we are giving here below the extracts from a letter written by a seminarian who left Ecône to join the seminary; Mater Ecclesiae, at Rome, an establishment desired by the Holy Father and opened by him on October 15th, 1986, and protected by a commission of Cardinals. Mater Ecclesiae was designed, you will remember, to be a Seminary to receive seminarians who left Ecône and “any others who felt like them.”

“How sorry I am! Yes! I have everything, absolutely everything to be sorry about in this ‘enterprise’ of Mater Ecclesiae. Firstly my being sent away for having made insistent requests in favour; for example, of more frequent Tridentine Masses, the wearing of ecclesiastical dress, the correction within the seminary of the errors of the courses being taught us at the Angelicam University…

“The reply to these requests, repeated many times, was silence, and above all, the steady and by now complete realigning of the House and of each of the seminarians on Modernist Rome. The whole enterprise is the laughing-stock of the progressives, with the French bishops at their head, including some of the most traditional!

“Day by day we saw the situation growing worse, the seminarians taking off their habit, seminarians getting themselves accepted by the bishops by renouncing everything, being ready for anything…Then there came the time of sanctions when all those who had been given the task of helping us were ordered by the authorities to look after us no longer…Henceforth for anyone who wanted nothing to do with the bishops of France or anywhere else, there is absolutely no further solution…Vagus…we are from now on wandering clerics, left hanging in the void.

“And the Pope did nothing, and no doubt next year the House Mater Ecclesiae will be closed, which may well be no bad thing.

“Several times I had the occasion to say either to Cardinal Ratzinger or to certain Monsignori of the Curia that, alas, we were forced to admit that Archbishop: Lefebvre was right on most questions and that I was wrong.

“It causes me much suffering to write you these lines as I think of my idiocy in having abandoned Ecône despite your advice, the cowardice of the authorities (I am weighing my words) when it comes to Tradition and their similar cowardice when it comes to ‘ecumenism’ towards the others, the abandoning and denial on the part of almost all those who had undertaken never to let go…everything, yes, absolutely everything, fills me with regret!”

Letter from an ex-seminarian. Rome June 2. 1988.

A letter of Appeal to the unfaithful to Resistance

6/26/2013

As time has passed in the terrible crisis within the SSPX along with the insurmountable evidence of compromises, lies, secrecies and blatant betrayal from the highest authorities (Bp. Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, Fr. Schmidberger, Fr. Rostand, etc.), much hope or expectancy has been placed on the old-timer priests--most of them formed by Bp. Williamson--as far as having their help to counter-fight the myriads of new language, approaches and actions taken towards the worst enemy of the Church: The Modernists! (Pope Saint Pius X)

Here is "the" very big deception with regard to this hope: Bishop Tissier!

In 2012 he was reported as saying that if the deal really goes through, he will retire. He has done nothing against the liberal attacks of Bp. Fellay, thereby seriously compromising the work of Archbishop Lefebvre which is none other than to preserve intact the Catholic Faith. He has even stated he wasn't sure if Archbishop Lefebvre did the right thing in consecrating his "not-too-long-ago friend" Bishop Williamson. Later reports from France have also mentioned Bp. Tissier saying that a "regularization" wouldn't be bad after all [2013]. So there you have it: Bp. Tissier's "engine" has already given signs of having the same problems as his clutch.

Much hope was placed in some really good priests of the SSPX, but many fell short on this hope. I would like to mention some names, but I'm certain you could also have your own list of good priests who have helped you become a Traditional Catholic but who right now have let themselves be silenced. We should feel urged to encourage them as we were once encouraged by them to stand for the Truth.

How in the world could one imagine priests of the caliber of Fr. Peter Scott (my biggest deception after Bp. Tissier), Fr. Morgan, Fr. Robinson, Fr. Cooper, Fr. Novak, Fr. Fox, etc. being muzzled by the liberal dictator from Menzingen???

Mystery of iniquity!

Many are the excuses of these priests... A major one is "obedience" so...
“What should I do? I am told: ‘You must obey. You are disobedient. You do not have the right to continue doing what you are doing, for you divide the Church.’ ” What is a law? What is a decree? What obliges one to obey? “A law,” Leo XIII says, “is the ordering of reason to the common good, but not towards the common evil. This is so obvious that if a rule is ordered towards an evil, THEN IT IS NO LONGER A LAW.” Leo XIII said this explicitly in his encyclical “Libertas.” In other words, a law which is not for the common good is not a law and consequently, ONE IS NOT OBLIGED TO OBEY IT. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Montreal, Canada, May, 1982).

They are hiding themselves behind a virtuous word (obedience) while viciously acting as cowards.
“A BLIND OBEDIENCE … has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic Faith… One must understand the meaning of obedience and must distinguish between BLIND OBEDIENCE and the VIRTUE OF OBEDIENCE. Indiscriminate obedience is actually A SIN AGAINST THE VIRTUE OF OBEDIENCE.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, USA, July, 1978).

Some other priests use the word "prudence" to disguise their cowardly silence which enables them to continue on, comfortably ‘taken care of,’ but...
“We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues and see that the world is rotten because of silence.” St. Catherine of Siena

Many of them admit [internally] that minimizing Vatican II is wrong. Many of them are against putting the candle under the bushel with regard to condemnations toward Assisi III, for instance. Many of them know now about GREC and the unjust expulsion of Bp. Williamson. Many of them know Religious Liberty is NOT very limited (quite the contrary). Many others know that the agreed upon and signed acceptance of being under the local diocesan bishops is a disgusting betrayal. Many others came to find out Vatican II "enlightens and deepens certain aspects of the doctrine of the Church," and that the New Code of Canon Law is unrestrictedly accepted as well as the legitimacy of the new mass (according to Bp. Fellay and his Doctrinal Declaration). So why are they still silent??

“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend Truth is to suppress it; and indeed, to neglect to confound evil men when we can do it is no less a sin than to encourage them.” Pope Felix III

“He that sees another in error and endeavors not to correct it testifies himself to be in error.” Pope Leo I

“All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.” Pope St. Pius V

“All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics.” Pope St. Pius X

“When they sin, rebuke them in the presence of all that the rest also may have fear.” 1 Timothy 5:20

Many priests of the SSPX do not interiorly condemn the just resistance and efforts of those fighting the good fight in the open field, but is this enough?

“He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, both are abominable before God.” Proverbs 17:15

Some others hope and wait for a better formation of resistance and the greater assurance of a bishop... Is a structure or even a bishop greater than Truth?

"Do not follow the multitude nor rely yourself on what seems to be of a greater number if, by it, you deviate from the truth." St. Athanasius

Now some Faithful wish for these priests to do something and sometimes even criticize them for not doing anything. But what are they themselves doing about it? Would the SSPX clergy be so lethargic if the laity were standing by and/or speaking up for the Truth?

"The greatest obstacle in the apostolate of the Church is the timidity or rather the cowardice of the Faithful." Pope St. Pius X

"To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against Truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind."
Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae

Some yet try to justify their silence in order to avoid any scandal:
"It is better that the Truth be known than that scandal be covered up." St. Augustine
"In hell, the hottest place is reserved for those who have chosen neutrality in times of crisis." Dante Alighieri

What about those afraid of Menzingen's threatening letters and canonical sanctions?

"Human laws cannot be contrary to the Divine Law from which they derive all their force and efficacy, so that a law which prescribes something morally wrong is no law at all and cannot exert any binding force on the conscience. A parent is bound by natural, Divine, and human law to bring up his children properly." (Manual of Moral Theology, Fr. Thomas Slater, Vol. 1, Book 3, ch. 3)
Is there any doubt that many of these well-formed priests KNOW that “They [neo-SSPX] are blind and leaders of the blind.” And “IF THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND, BOTH WILL FALL INTO THE PIT.”

"If the Faith is in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public." St. Thomas Aquinas

“Every Catholic can and must resist anyone in the Church who lays hands on his Faith, the Faith of the Eternal Church, upheld by his childhood catechism. The defense of his Faith is the first duty of every Christian, more especially of every priest and bishop. Wherever an order carries with it the danger of corrupting Faith and morals, “disobedience” becomes a grave duty.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, no. 9, 1975).

Let us heartly take Don Bosco's words when he said:

"I do not fear at all what men can do to me for speaking the truth. I only fear what God would do if I were to lie."

"Have courage in your Faith and convictions. The evil ones are the ones who should fear the good not the other way around. ~ St. John Bosco

"Therefore, In God's name! Let us go bravely!" ~ St. Joan of Arc, 1429

Courtesy
http://stdominic3order.blogspot.com/

Eleison Comments -CCCX (310)

6/22/2013

22 June 2013 HORRIBLE FALL II

“Horror” may seem too strong a word for the change of direction within the Society of St Pius X that at last became clear one year ago. However, if Hell is horrible; if one cannot avoid it without the faith; if the Faith came into grave danger in a Church disabled by Vatican II, but a fortress of the true Faith was miraculously established within that disabled Church; and finally if that fortress is now also being disabled, then “horror” may not be too strong a word. The SSPX has not yet fallen completely, but it has fallen a long way and it may fall all the way. The leadership that has skilfully promoted that fall over the last 15 years is still in power.

<<Previous