The Archbishop’s Mission Betrayed by ServusSpiritusSancti
As a result of the horrendous Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church was handed over to the secular world by the Masonic infiltrators. Similarly, Bishop Fellay nearly handed the SSPX over to the apostates in Rome. Just as the majority of the clergy betrayed Catholic Tradition and Our Lord Jesus Christ during Vatican II, Bishop Fellay has done so as well.
Bishop Fellay has kicked the Society's original mission - formed by the Saintly Archbishop Lefebvre - to the curb, and has formed a new mission that suits his own views. He naturally denies any betrayal of the Archbishop in his interviews, but talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words, and Bishop Fellay's actions have spoken very loud volume.
In the recent "declaration" of the three Bishops of the Neo-SSPX, they kept speaking of how they will remain faithful to the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. But do the actions of the Neo-SSPX indicate this? Certainly not. Let's review the facts.
First of all, as pointed out in my post comparing the Archbishop's statements on various matters to Bishop Fellay's, Bishop Fellay does not share the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre on several key positions. His statements on the Jews, Vatican II, and relations with Rome are at complete odds with what Archbishop Lefebvre said. He has never retracted any of these scandalous remarks, and when a quote from the Archbishop is brought up by the Resistance that contradicts what Bishop Fellay is saying, he conveniently pretends that such a quote doesn't exist, or that it is "taken out of context".
Speaking of quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre, another example of Bishop Fellay's betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre is the fact that, in 2011, Menzingen sued "Editions Saint Remi" for publishing the Archbishop's sermons (Menzingen has a history of resorting to threats of lawsuits to intimidate others). The company had obtained permission from the Archbishop's own brother and sister to distribute his sermons, but Menzingen claimed they owned the rights to his sermons and wouldn't allow anyone else to publish them. As reported by several websites, Menzingen won the case. Editions Saint Remi could have appealed and would have had a good chance at winning the appeal, but they didn't have the funds for lawyers' fees, and so simply let Menzingen win. They were required to pay a $1,500 fee, and could continue to distribute the sermons for a week, but in order to continue doing so after that, they would have had to pay Menzingen $150 per set.
Now, why would Menzingen raise such an objection to someone who had received permission from the Archbishop's own family to publish his sermons, unless they didn't want those sermons to be published at all? Fr. Christian Thouvenot, General Secretary of the Neo-SSPX - the same priest who announced that an expulsion of Bishop Williamson was possible on the DICI website in 2010 - made a threat against another website for distributing the Archbishop's sermons... free of charge!
The Neo-SSPX claims that they own the rights to those sermons, but where is the evidence that Archbishop Lefebvre signed over legal rights to his sermons to the Society's leadership? And even if they do own the rights to them, why are they not publishing them? One is left to believe that they really do not want his sermons published at all, certainly not any sermons that go against what Bishop Fellay is saying or doing.
The other examples of Bishop Fellay's betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre I have already discussed; GREC, Maximilian Krah, the secular PR firm, his attempt to "regularize" with the modernists in Rome against the clear statements of the Society's founder, etc.
It's not just Bishop Fellay, however, who has betrayed the Archbishop and his mission. The priests who have stood by Bishop Fellay are also guilty. One particular example is Fr. Celier, whose liberal book "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists" was published and foreworded by a man named "Jean-Luce Maxence", who had made past criticisms against Archbishop Lefebvre and other Traditionalists and even mocked the Archbishop for his condemnation of Masonry. What's really disgusting is that the Society's US District website used an excerpt from his book as a means of how to "interpret the words of Archbishop Lefebvre". It's rather interesting that the Society would quote a book that was published and foreworded by someone who didn't even like the very man they claim to remain faithful to.
Even Bishop Tissier and Bishop de Galaretta are guilty of betrayal to a certain extent. +Galaretta initially sided with +Williamson and +Tissier, but later changed his mind and took Bishop Fellay's side, and now regrets signing the letter of the three Bishops to Bishop Fellay. Bishop Tissier's problem is that he doesn't have the courage and outspokenness of Bishop Williamson. He still speaks out against a deal with Rome (much to the dismay of the Neo-SSPX), though he wishes to remain within the fold of the Neo-SSPX regardless, and even implied that Bishop Williamson should never have been Consecrated. He needs to be speaking out against Bishop Fellay and what he has been doing, not keeping silent.
It is sad that all of these priests have chosen to side with +Fellay in the name of "obedience" (sort of like what happened at Vatican II, right?), rather than speak the truth and remain faithful to the Archbishop's mission, even if it means persecution or expulsion.
The Neo-SSPX is no longer faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre. They paint a new image of him that never existed, portraying him as someone who was "hostile" to sedevacantism, and who would have been open to further negotiations with modernist Rome. The Archbishop Lefebvre portrayed by Menzingen is not at all the man the real Archbishop was. His quotes are often misinterpreted (or totally ignored or even suppressed) by the Society's leadership today, and his mission has most certainly been betrayed by Bishop Fellay and the other priests who support him. Thankfully, the Resistance has been remaining faithful to the Archbishop's mission. As for Bishop Fellay, he will have to answer to God on Judgment Day for betraying not only the Archbishop, but also Catholic Tradition and, therefore, Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.
God Bless.
ServusSpiritusSancti | July 6, 2013 at 12:17 am | Categories: Traditional Catholic Faith | URL: http://wp.me/p2MjAo-8x
Please subscribe by going to their website
As a result of the horrendous Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church was handed over to the secular world by the Masonic infiltrators. Similarly, Bishop Fellay nearly handed the SSPX over to the apostates in Rome. Just as the majority of the clergy betrayed Catholic Tradition and Our Lord Jesus Christ during Vatican II, Bishop Fellay has done so as well.
Bishop Fellay has kicked the Society's original mission - formed by the Saintly Archbishop Lefebvre - to the curb, and has formed a new mission that suits his own views. He naturally denies any betrayal of the Archbishop in his interviews, but talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words, and Bishop Fellay's actions have spoken very loud volume.
In the recent "declaration" of the three Bishops of the Neo-SSPX, they kept speaking of how they will remain faithful to the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. But do the actions of the Neo-SSPX indicate this? Certainly not. Let's review the facts.
First of all, as pointed out in my post comparing the Archbishop's statements on various matters to Bishop Fellay's, Bishop Fellay does not share the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre on several key positions. His statements on the Jews, Vatican II, and relations with Rome are at complete odds with what Archbishop Lefebvre said. He has never retracted any of these scandalous remarks, and when a quote from the Archbishop is brought up by the Resistance that contradicts what Bishop Fellay is saying, he conveniently pretends that such a quote doesn't exist, or that it is "taken out of context".
Speaking of quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre, another example of Bishop Fellay's betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre is the fact that, in 2011, Menzingen sued "Editions Saint Remi" for publishing the Archbishop's sermons (Menzingen has a history of resorting to threats of lawsuits to intimidate others). The company had obtained permission from the Archbishop's own brother and sister to distribute his sermons, but Menzingen claimed they owned the rights to his sermons and wouldn't allow anyone else to publish them. As reported by several websites, Menzingen won the case. Editions Saint Remi could have appealed and would have had a good chance at winning the appeal, but they didn't have the funds for lawyers' fees, and so simply let Menzingen win. They were required to pay a $1,500 fee, and could continue to distribute the sermons for a week, but in order to continue doing so after that, they would have had to pay Menzingen $150 per set.
Now, why would Menzingen raise such an objection to someone who had received permission from the Archbishop's own family to publish his sermons, unless they didn't want those sermons to be published at all? Fr. Christian Thouvenot, General Secretary of the Neo-SSPX - the same priest who announced that an expulsion of Bishop Williamson was possible on the DICI website in 2010 - made a threat against another website for distributing the Archbishop's sermons... free of charge!
The Neo-SSPX claims that they own the rights to those sermons, but where is the evidence that Archbishop Lefebvre signed over legal rights to his sermons to the Society's leadership? And even if they do own the rights to them, why are they not publishing them? One is left to believe that they really do not want his sermons published at all, certainly not any sermons that go against what Bishop Fellay is saying or doing.
The other examples of Bishop Fellay's betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre I have already discussed; GREC, Maximilian Krah, the secular PR firm, his attempt to "regularize" with the modernists in Rome against the clear statements of the Society's founder, etc.
It's not just Bishop Fellay, however, who has betrayed the Archbishop and his mission. The priests who have stood by Bishop Fellay are also guilty. One particular example is Fr. Celier, whose liberal book "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists" was published and foreworded by a man named "Jean-Luce Maxence", who had made past criticisms against Archbishop Lefebvre and other Traditionalists and even mocked the Archbishop for his condemnation of Masonry. What's really disgusting is that the Society's US District website used an excerpt from his book as a means of how to "interpret the words of Archbishop Lefebvre". It's rather interesting that the Society would quote a book that was published and foreworded by someone who didn't even like the very man they claim to remain faithful to.
Even Bishop Tissier and Bishop de Galaretta are guilty of betrayal to a certain extent. +Galaretta initially sided with +Williamson and +Tissier, but later changed his mind and took Bishop Fellay's side, and now regrets signing the letter of the three Bishops to Bishop Fellay. Bishop Tissier's problem is that he doesn't have the courage and outspokenness of Bishop Williamson. He still speaks out against a deal with Rome (much to the dismay of the Neo-SSPX), though he wishes to remain within the fold of the Neo-SSPX regardless, and even implied that Bishop Williamson should never have been Consecrated. He needs to be speaking out against Bishop Fellay and what he has been doing, not keeping silent.
It is sad that all of these priests have chosen to side with +Fellay in the name of "obedience" (sort of like what happened at Vatican II, right?), rather than speak the truth and remain faithful to the Archbishop's mission, even if it means persecution or expulsion.
The Neo-SSPX is no longer faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre. They paint a new image of him that never existed, portraying him as someone who was "hostile" to sedevacantism, and who would have been open to further negotiations with modernist Rome. The Archbishop Lefebvre portrayed by Menzingen is not at all the man the real Archbishop was. His quotes are often misinterpreted (or totally ignored or even suppressed) by the Society's leadership today, and his mission has most certainly been betrayed by Bishop Fellay and the other priests who support him. Thankfully, the Resistance has been remaining faithful to the Archbishop's mission. As for Bishop Fellay, he will have to answer to God on Judgment Day for betraying not only the Archbishop, but also Catholic Tradition and, therefore, Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.
God Bless.
ServusSpiritusSancti | July 6, 2013 at 12:17 am | Categories: Traditional Catholic Faith | URL: http://wp.me/p2MjAo-8x
Please subscribe by going to their website
