2018 - Election of the General Assistants

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

2018 - Election of the General Assistants Jul 12, 2018 12:34:12 GMT

Post by Admin on Jul 12, 2018 12:34:12 GMT

Election of the General Assistants

Just as the day was coming to an end, the new Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, Father Davide Pagliarani, and the 40 other capitulants have decided to proceed to the election of the two General Assistants.

The 1st Assistant elected is Bishop Alfonso Galarreta, auxiliary bishop of the Society, of Spanish nationality. Aged 61, he was ordained priest in 1980 at Buenos Aires, Argentina, where he lived for a certain time. In the past he has held the roles of Rector of Our Lady Co-Redemptrix Seminary at La Reja, Argentina, and superior of the Autonomous House of Spain and Portugal. He was 2nd Assistant of the Society from 2002 to 2006. Until now, he resided in Geneva, Switzerland.

The 2nd Assistant elected is Father Christian Bouchacourt, of French nationality. Aged 59, he was ordained priest in 1986 by Archbishop Lefebvre. For a long time he was stationed in Paris, especially at Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet, before becoming District Superior of South America and then, in 2014, District Superior of France.

Now that these elections have taken place, the General Chapter will be able to address the numerous questions which have been proposed for discussion, until July 21st 2018.

Ecône, the 11th of July 2018

(Source : SSPX - FSSPX.news - 07/11/2018)

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

2018 - Election of the General Assistants Jul 12, 2018 13:46:34 GMT

Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2018 13:46:34 GMT

This was posted on CI yesterday:

Email sent today by Fr. Girouard to his Aldergrove and Post Falls parishioners

Well, not only has the Chapter chosen a liberal as General Superior (Fr. Pagliarani, who is the one who saved Bishop Fellay from criticism at the 2012 Chapter), but they also chose two arch-liberals as his Assistants: 1-Bishop Galaretta, who in his October 2012 conference at Villepreux defended the 2012 Chapter, and went so far as to say that a 50% + 1 votes would be enough in a future Chapter to endorse an agreement with Rome; 2-Fr. Bouchacourt who, as District Superior of Argentina had Cardinal Bergoglio "recognize" the society in that country, and who, as District Superior of France has continually battled and hammered the Resistance.

Bishop Fellay has prepared the way since 1997, and this new set of Superiors seems to have been chosen to implement a soon-to-be announced "recognition" by Rome.

The Chapter ends up one day before the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and maybe a recognition would be declared, on that day, to be an answer to the Last Rosary Crusade.

One more reason to pray and sacrifice, and to participate in the July 13th day of fast on Bread and Water.

God bless,

Fr. Girouard

Last Edit: Jul 12, 2018 13:47:16 GMT by Deleted

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

2018 - Election of the General Assistants Jul 12, 2018 14:48:42 GMT

Post by Admin on Jul 12, 2018 14:48:42 GMT

What we know of these two Assistants to the Superior General

1st Assistant: Bishop de Galarreta

From the thread: 2018 Archive: The four SSPX Bishops post Arch. Lefebvre?

Where are the four SSPX bishops after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre? That is a battle question if there was one in Tradition. What are they doing? Are they faithful to their SSPX Order Canonically founded and blessed by the Catholic Church and guided by the perennial teaching of its Apostolic mission?

Let's answer the question first, are they faithful to their 1988 consecrations?

The answer is a documented NO!

Neither of the four SSPX bishops have stayed on track to their promises to Archbishop Lefebvre and to the Tradition of the Church in whole. They have succumbed to the same false obedience that dominated the thousands of priests and bishops of the 1970's on; and in specific for Bishop Williamson, he fell worse than the other three, to where Bishop Williamson is actively causing chaos AGAINST the Catholic Church in Her structure and organization.

Below are documented facts showing where these four SSPX bishops are now in 2018.

First some background:

April 7, 2012 leaked letter
from the three SSPX bishops to Bishop Fellay and his general council saying STOP all destructive practical deals with modern rome.

April 14, 2012 leaked letter from Bishop Fellay and his general council replying to the three SSPX bishops scolding them for not having "faith" in them; and to obey! These letters were leaked by Fr. Paul Kimball (SSPX) to warn everyone from the arrogance and obstinance of the General House betraying the Church of Tradition.

April 15, 2012 Official Doctrinal Declaration leaked showing the betrayal and treason of Bishop Fellay's giving this document to pope Benedict XVI for him to accept and sign as a doctrinal deal in the name of the entire SSPX.

The entire world of "Tradition" woke up betrayed!
[...]

Bishop de Galarreta

Bishop de Galarreta provides a different problem for Bishop Fellay and the Pope. He was in the doctrinal talks for two years (2009-2011) defending Archbishop Lefebvre and the rights of the old sspx when Bishop Fellay wanted a new deal; which surfaced immediately after that charade of Bishop Fellay's April 14, 2012 letter to the three SSPX bishops. After that exchange and subsequent altercations, Bishop de Galarreta was demoted from District Superior of Spain to sit on house arrest in a southwest priory in France at the same time Bishop Tissier was placed on house arrest in Chicago usa. However a few short months later, Bishop de Galarreta switched 180 degrees to accept Bishop Fellay's agenda saying "we are irregular" and will accept the decision of the superiors, "right or wrong":

"Bishop de Galarreta declared, on October 13th, 2012, [in his sermon] at Villepreux, the following unbelievable sentence, which we can only listen to, but cannot read, because La Porte Latine [the French SSPX website] deleted it [the sentence] and did not include it in their on-line transcription: "It is almost impossible that the majority of the Superiors of the Society — after frank discussion, and a complete analysis of all the aspects, of all the ‘ins and outs’ — it is unthinkable that this majority would make a mistake in a prudential matter [he refers to the agreement with Rome]. And if, by chance, it happens—well just too bad—we are going to do what the majority thinks"[and go ahead with the agreement with Rome]—in Menzingen, the General Secretary, Fr. Thouvenot, wrote [concerning Bishop de Galarreta’s sermon] that he “explained the events, of June 2012, in a detached and elevated way.” www.therecusant.com/open-letter-37priests

There are an array of other documents showing Bishop de Galarreta's fall and has become the right hand of Bishop Fellay to effect the change.

Later in 2012, Bishop de Galarreta was a part of the charade and punishment of the Dominican and Capuchin withholding of their ordinates. Then both of the communities capitulated and Bishop Fellay told Bishop de Galarreta to ordain them separately from Econe. He did.

July 4, 2013 interview with Bishop de Galarreta given in Poland:

"Of course it would be best that Rome gave up the conciliar errors, return to tradition and only then, on this basis, the Fraternity automatically obtain a canonical status in the Church regularized. However, reality urges us not to depend on an eventual agreement of a self - criticism of Rome, but of an allocation of collateral Rome, such as it is, allow the Fraternity remain as is. "

Sept. 2014, a press release from Menzingen stated that the sspx and the novus ordo bishops will regularly meet throughout the sspx houses... See here:

The decision that was made and disclosed on the Vatican Press release: "...it was decided to proceed gradually and over a reasonable period of time in order to overcome difficulties and with a view to the envisioned full reconciliation."cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/new-press-releases-of-sspx-and-rome-meeting-9-23-14.3433/
This came on the heels of Bishop Fellay describing in a Dici article:

"...according to the decision made during the meeting of Bishop Fellay with Cardinal Gerhard Muller."

cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/bishop-schneider-meets-bishop-fellay-at-winona.2747/#post-4227

Of course modern rome was all too accommodating:
26/02/2016 On the same day that the conference is published Mons. De Galarreta, it discloses an interview with Bishop. GUIDO POZZO , secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. It is also optimistic and states among other things: " the opening made by Francisco on the occasion of the Holy Year is a new step towards canonical recognition ... contacts between the Superiors of the Commission Ecclesia Dei and the Superiors and other representatives of the SSPX have favored the development of a climate of trust and mutual respect, which must be the basis of a process approach ... I think the path undertaken approach has given some fruit, especially for this change in attitude from both sides and worth continue on this line ... the releaser and magnanimous gesture of Pope Francisco in the circumstance of the year of Mercy has undoubtedly contributed to further calm the state of relations with the Fraternity, showing that the Holy See has at its heart the approach and reconciliation, which should also have a canonical coating ".

In Nov. 2013, Bishop de Galarreta was a part of the illegal dividing the Dominican community into a faction. Seen here, SSPX erects neo-Dominican Community for Rome Reconciliation. Here is the Dominicans comment on Fr. Albert and new Dominican community. Of course anything born in revolution does not work, Bishop de Glalarreta dissolved it in Aug. 2017 due to "dissension". Ironic!

On December 2014, Bishop de Galarreta "excommunicated" a religious in France. (sic)

With other Traditional religious communities not accepting the liberal changes coming from the SSPX leadership, Bishop de Galarreta asked Dom Tomas Aquinas to step down as superior of Santa Cruz monastery in Brazil. See here, Bishop Fellay's Jurisdiction and the Abuses of the SSPX

Jan. 17, 2016, Bishop de Galarreta gave a conference saying he is optimistic, states that there is a proposal of a personal prelature by Rome, with favorable conditions, with less requirements in 2012. He adds that although he has reservations, believes that everything will be resolved with a unilateral recognition of pope Francis which it can not be rejected in any way.

Towards a unilateral recognition of the Society:

Bishop de Galarreta admitted that “this de facto recognition would have a good, a beneficial effect: it is a rather extraordinary apostolic opening, and it would have an extraordinary effect.” But he adds that there would then be two risks: that of creating an internal division and that of conditioning our preaching in certain circumstances. And he wondered: “It would take an extraordinary wisdom and prudence, a very great firmness and clarity. Are we capable of this?” “So you are going to tell me: ‘In these cases there is a risk!’ – Yes, of course. You don’t stay [away] because there are risks. (sic) cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/imminent-recognition-by-rome-of-sspx.3678/#post-6111

And, he said in the same conference:
"We do not refuse, you see, in an absolute and theoretical way the possibility of an agreement with Rome." (Bishop de Galarreta)

Menzingen was all to happy to hear this. They published his conference in their medias:
Feb. 26, 2016 Dici.org article, Bishop de Galaretta stated in a conference he believes Pope Francis is going to recognize the SSPX unilaterally, apart from doctrinal and canonical considerations:

"[T]his Pope says to whomever wants to listen that we are Catholics, [he] says and repeats that the Fraternity (SSPX) is Catholic, that we are Catholics, that he will never condemn us, and that it is necessary ‘to regulate our affair’. I think that he has started in this direction, that when he will see that there isn’t an understanding with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I think that he will breeze past every doctrinal, theoretical, and practical condition, whatever it might be…. He will do it on his own, in the sense of a recognition of the Fraternity. He has started, and he will simply continue. I am not talking about what I want; I’m talking about what I foresee. I predict, I think, that the Pope will go in the direction of a unilateral recognition of the Fraternity, and he’ll do this more though the “de facto” route than through the legal, canonical law.“ (Bishop de Galaretta, conference in Bailly, near Versailles, on January 17, 2016)

cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/sspx-bp-de-galaretta-pope-francis-will-unilaterally-recognize-the-sspx.4928/#post-8976

Here is more on this, Bishop de Galarreta contradicts himself about agreement with Rome

Isn't that what we are seeing today?

July 2, 2016, the sspx admitted they needed the consent of rome to do their ordinations revealed by Bishop de Galarreta:

On the occasion of the priestly ordination of Fr. Daniel Sabur on July 2, 2016, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta revealed that a letter from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith had been sent to Bishop Fellay. In it, it was stated that the SSPX could proceed in its priestly ordinations without the authorization from the local bishop, should communicate the names of the ordained priests.

Excerpt:

"So the Babylonian Patriarchy, which is Chaldean, says that we are schismatics. And the Ordinary in France for the Oriental Churches says that we are illegal. And yet the Pope himself says that the Society, that we, are Catholics. So are we Catholics or are we schismatics? I have with me the letter given by His Excellency Bishop Fellay where the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith tells us, the Bishop says, that we can proceed with the ordinations without asking the permission of the local bishops; it is sufficient to give them the names of the ordinands, something which we will do of course, at the right opportunity. So we're neither schismatic nor illegal."

laportelatine.org/mediatheque/sermonsecrits/galarreta_160702_st_nicolas_sabur/galarreta_160702_st_nicolas_sabur.php

In subsequent, see here, Winona Ordination List incorporates local Dioceses

Buried in another sspx media article, they depicted a June 29, 2017 sermon of Bishop de Galarreta describing we need to "rejoice and encourage" the open doors rome is giving them".

"There is a good that did not use to exist, but that is starting to come. It is a good reaction from valuable laymen, priests, bishops, and cardinals…Yes, it is a minority, and sometimes the reactions are a little timid, or only go halfway. But still, they are real and healthy reactions, that go along the lines of the Faith, of Tradition, of the restoration of the Faith, the defense of the Church and of the priesthood of Our Lord. And at this, which is a sign of Our Lord’s assistance to His Church, we cannot but rejoice; we cannot but encourage it. The Society’s goal is the sanctification not only of its members, but the sanctification of priests in general. And this is an immense field for apostolate. So we have to take advantage – prudently of course, that is obvious – of these apostolic openings. And they should encourage us, too”. (Bishop de Galarreta, sermon, June 29, 2017)

sspx.org/en/news-events/news/concerning-archbishop-lefebvre-council-and-bishop-schneider-31410

It's clear Bishop de Galarreta is on a role defending the agenda of Menzingen trying to update the SSPX into conciliarism. He was also allowed to be the 2017 presiding personality for their June 2017 Pentecost Pilgrimage held in France. Nice trophy?!

Yet, Bishop de Galarreta was very clear in 2009 this is a trap:

"Benedict XVI “is theologically identified with the Second Vatican Council. His teaching and government are based upon the spirit of the Council. He wants to incorporate us into an ecumenical conception of the official Church; he is practicing ecumenism with us”. (The Angelus, May 2, 2009.).And the issuing of Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, in which the Holy Mass of all times was humiliated, and, the lifting of the invalid excommunication was also attributed to the Mother of God, Bishop de Galarreta has said it “corresponds neither to truth nor justice." (The Angelus, May 2, 2009.)

What changed?

He is now 100% with Bishop Fellay for updating. He said so.

+++

2nd Assistant: Father Christian Bouchacourt

Tremors felt in Menzingen…

French SSPX in Disarray as District Superior tries to defend Removal of seven “Rebellious” Priests,

Commotion at St. Nicolas in Paris

[...] seven deans of the Lefebvrian Society of St. Pius X’s French district were removed from their positions by the district superior, Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, after disseminating and reading from the pulpit a public letter explaining their rejection of the Vatican’s recent overtures on the celebration of SSPX marriages. The open letter, which was condemned by Fr. Bouchacourt the very same day, also made clear that the seven recalcitrant SSPX priests in question are not willing to go along with any reconciliation with Modernist Rome which the Superior General, Bp. Bernard Fellay, is currently preparing together with the Vatican authorities.

Since then, there have been a number of additional developments.

The web site Contre-Info.com relates that the Sunday following the seven deans’ removal, i.e. on May 14, Fr. Bouchacourt visited St. Nicolas du Chardonnet church and in a statement read to the parishioners before the sermon, explained to them why their pastor, Fr. Patrick de la Rocque (one of the seven), had been removed, and why this demotion needed to be accepted “with a supernatural spirit”. (Fr. Denis Puga has since been appointed as the interim pastor.) As the French district superior was still speaking, up to half of the people (approx. 100) got up and temporarily left the church to show their disapproval, while approximately 15 others prayed out loud a decade of the Holy Rosary right beneath the pulpit where Fr. Bouchacourt was speaking, according to Contre-Info.

Here is an English translation of the full report:

Crisis in the SSPX: Rebellion of the Faithful at Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet

The removal of 7 French “doyens” (regional deans) of the SSPX – that is to say, most of them – from their duties immediately after having published a letter regarding marriages in Tradition [i.e. SSPX marriages] and the danger of the ongoing rapprochement with Rome, has sent shockwaves through the congregation of the Parisian Church of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet – the “Beacon of Tradition” for the last 40 years.

The parish priest, Abbé Patrick de La Rocque, is one of those sanctioned, and was given a few days to leave the church. The brutal departure of this priest, who has carried out a dynamic apostolate for several years, has of course shocked the faithful of the parish, and many of them are visibly scandalised by the sanction with which he has been hit.

This [past] Sunday, the superior of the SSPX for France, Abbé Christian Bouchacourt (who instigated the sanctions) visited Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet and, just before the homily, read a communiqué relating his view of the events and explaining why it was necessary to accept these sanctions “with a supernatural spirit”. The signatories of the letter, including the expelled priest, are accused of “subversive” maneuvering carried out in secret (which has been denied), and of sowing division among both priests and the congregation – accusations that some of the faithful throw back at the Society.

During High Mass, Abbé Bouchacourt had hardly begun to speak when a large number of the congregation (between one-third and half according to various sources) stood up and temporarily left the church in protest. Others (around 15) recited a decade of the Rosary under the pulpit and at the back of the church while the priest was speaking, which provoked a confrontation, happily not of serious consequence.

If one thing is clear from this, it is that the gulf between the administration of the SSPX and its French clergy (who are for the most part hostile to an essentially practical – and non-doctrinal – rapprochement with Rome) appears to be as wide as ever.

(“Crise dans la Fraternité Saint Pie X: rébellion de fidèles à saint Nicolas du Chardonnet”, Contre-Info.com, May 14, 2017; our translation.)

On May 15, the French daily Présent published an interview with Fr. Bouchacourt regarding the controversial move. We are pleased to be able to make the text of this interview available in English here:

[Interviewer, Anne Le Pape:] Father, how would you summarize what happened within the Society of St. Pius X these past days?

[SSPX District Superior, Fr. Christian Bouchacourt:] First came a letter from Cardinal Muller which allows [Novus Ordo] bishops to give SSPX priests jurisdiction for marriages. As a reaction, an “open letter” was written by some SSPX priests, prepared in secret – and this is what is unacceptable – without showing me the contents [beforehand]. This commentary was intended to be a warning to the [SSPX] General House which, according to the signatories, intends to sign an agreement of recognition with Rome very soon. However, nothing justifies this procedure.

Father [Patrick] de La Rocque came to see me Friday, May 5, in the evening with this text, but Le Chardonnet [=St. Nicolas parish bulletin in which the open letter appeared] had already been printed, and the text was spreading to other priests and religious communities. I hoped all day Saturday that these priests would not give a public reading of this text. Unfortunately, I failed to settle this matter internally. On Sunday morning, this news was already spreading very rapidly throughout parishes and on social media. I had to react publicly. Therefore, on Sunday evening I wrote a letter condemning what had happened.

[Le Pape:] May 13, the 100th anniversary of the first apparition of our Lady at Fatima, had been mentioned as a possible date for a declaration of the Pope regarding a personal prelature to the SSPX. Did this not play a role in getting everybody all stirred up?

[Bouchacourt:] This date was pure fantasy. No one had received any confirmation. Indeed, the Pope on his way back [from Fatima] on Saturday [May 13] answered a question on the SSPX, saying that he was still in contact with Bp. Fellay, and he added: “Walk, walk…”

[Le Pape:] With regard to the agreements, do you trust Bp. Fellay?

[Bouchacourt:] Absolutely. He is the one who has to deal with that. Everyone must stay at his place, pray, and do penance. Providence will continue to protect us from dangers.

[Le Pape:] Isn’t there in the SSPX some other way of expressing oneself than [by means of] these revolutionary methods (which, in this case, are used by people who promote the counter-revolution, incidentally)?

[Bouchacourt:] Of course! If this text had been given to me personally, it would have been transferred to the General House. Its strengths and weaknesses (because it has some) would then have been studied. But since it was published urbi et orbi [to the church and to the world, i.e. to everyone] against the will of the superiors, I couldn’t consider the text outside the circumstances of its publication.

[Le Pape:] What were the reactions of Bp. Fellay to all these events?

[Bouchacourt:] Bp. Fellay is very distressed. France is the spearhead of Tradition but can sometimes be an enfant terrible. Catholic France in our circles really wants to preserve Tradition, sometimes in a quarrelsome spirit. That is our richness too, for sure, but it needs to be regulated.

[Le Pape:] You spent all of Sunday at St. Nicolas, the heart of the crisis. What is your impression?

[Bouchacourt:] I am really hurt to see this division, which only serves the plans of the prince of division, that is Satan. Good priests are disturbed, and even more faithful; division takes place in certain priories; the fruits show that this action is not good. But do not forget: From the Cross there always come graces. I really hope that this heavy cross will allow the parish of St. Nicolas and our Society to become stronger, to fortify souls for the good fight of the faith and charity.

(Anne Le Pape, “Le combat de la foi et de la charité – Entretien avec l’abbé Christian Bouchacourt”, Présent, May 15, 2017; our translation.)

[...]

In its May 18 edition, the French weekly periodical Rivarol contributed an explosive article of its own on the SSPX French-District crisis:

Crise au sein du district de France de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X (French)

Among other things, the write-up claims that Fr. Bouchacourt is “known for his unconditional obedience to Bishop Fellay” and was appointed to his post of district superior for that very reason; that the original plan had been for the seven deans to go to Fr. Bouchacourt with their concerns but decided instead to make it public outright due to Fr. Bouchacourt’s alleged “inertia”...

Source

As the events of the General Chapter unfold, it appears all is in order to promote the liberal Catholic SSPX [of Bishop Fellay] and not the traditional Catholic SSPX [of Archbishop Lefebvre]. All the important positions for the next twelve years have been filled by those liberal priests and bishops who were rewarded in the past by Bishop Fellay for their loyalty to the cause of a reconciliation with Rome, at apparently any cost.

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

2018 - Election of the General Assistants Jul 12, 2018 15:10:21 GMT

Post by Admin on Jul 12, 2018 15:10:21 GMT

More on Fr. Bouchacourt's well-known liberalism:

As the SSPX has increasingly pursued the path of conciliar liberalism, Fr. Christian Bouchacourt has been one of the SSPX rising stars. He praised the holiness of conciliar popes, denied Catholic teaching that the Jews committed Deicide, and betrayed the Catholic truth in many other ways. (For more information, please see our writeup from earlier this year.)

Fr. Bouchacourt’s prominent liberalism made his SSPX promotion inevitable (or at least, likely). Id. In August 2014, he was promoted to become District Superior of France, one of the two most prestigious districts and the one with the largest number of SSPX priests. Id.

This is an ongoing trend: Menzingen purges the less liberal superiors and promotes the more liberal leaders. Three prominent examples of purged conservatives, are:

Fr. de Cacqueray, former District Superior of France;
Fr. Peter Scott, former District Superior of the U.S. and former rector of Holy Cross Seminary (Australia); and
Fr. Black, former District Superior of Australia.

Source

Open Letter to Fr. Christian Bouchacourt

From: The Catholics at Father.Themann.Answered@gmail.com

Feast of Pope St. Pius I
July 13, 2015

Re: Responding to Your Condemnation of the Avrillé Dominicans, in your July 1, 2015 communiqué

Dear Father Bouchacourt,

We have carefully read your July 1, 2015 communiqué about the Avrillé Dominicans. We are responding for these good Dominicans, attempting to mitigate the confusion your communiqué has caused.

You state that your "communiqué intends to reestablish the truth so as to defend the honor of our superiors". Let us see what evidence you offer (as opposed to mere assertions).

Who has the Burden of Proof?

You accuse the Dominicans of "spreading and supporting defiance against the authorities" in the SSPX. When a person reads your communiqué, should he hold that they are innocent until proven guilty? Or do you expect your reader to consider them reprobates merely because you say they are?

When assessing how you condemn them, should we take into account your self-interest in opposing the Dominicans because they warn the faithful about your liberalism?

On a related question: when the Vatican warned us (in the 1970s and afterwards) that Archbishop Lefebvre was disobedient and caused disunity, should we have simply accepted the Vatican’s word that we should avoid him? Or should people (back then) have examined the evidence Archbishop Lefebvre offered, proving that Rome was becoming increasingly liberal?

Are you glad that some Catholics (in the 1970s and afterwards), examined the evidence Archbishop Lefebvre presented? Does the SSPX now form priests and the faithful in this same spirit, viz., to emphasize the anti-liberal Faith and disregard the accusations made by liberal leaders who base their attacks on “disunity” and “disobedience”?

You accuse the Dominicans of causing discord by warning the faithful that the SSPX has given up the good fight and seeks a deal with Rome, but you make no attempt to dispute the continual stream of evidence1 the Dominicans present to the world.

You state that, during various meetings with them, they disagreed with you and stuck to the evidence that contradicted your denials that you are becoming liberal. But you make no effort to tell the faithful why they should ignore the Dominicans’ evidence and listen to your denials.

It is true you list their “Address to the Faithful” as something opposing the SSPX leadership. But you offer no shred of evidence to prove that the Dominicans are incorrect about anything in this document. Further, four of the five “outstanding acts” your communiqué lists, occurred 12-18 months ago. Is that what you call the Dominicans’ “increasing” opposition?

You declare that the Dominicans’ attitude is "imperiling the unity of Tradition by sowing doubt and division". Do you hold that the anti-liberal Catholic Faith is more important than unity? Why don’t you give even one example where the Dominicans’ evidence is wrong regarding the SSPX becoming weaker in the Faith?

You use the Tactics the Conciliar Hierarchy used against your Founder

You say the Dominicans are "under a delusion" because Archbishop Lefebvre fought for the Faith "in order, in unity and in peace, in the spirit of obedience." It reveals much about you, that you resort to the exact accusations thrown at Archbishop Lefebvre by the liberal hierarchy.2 Just like them against Archbishop Lefebvre, you accuse the Dominicans of disunity but do not address the substance of their doctrinal objections. Id.

You say that the Dominicans are not peaceful and orderly because they object that Bishop Fellay is becoming liberal. But you make no effort to address the Dominicans’ ample evidence that he is becoming liberal. Wouldn’t even you grant hypothetically, that if Bishop Fellay was becoming liberal, then the Dominicans should loudly warn the faithful and SSPX priests? If so, then aren’t the Dominicans fulfilling their duty before God, if they are correct in the evidence they put forth, and which you don’t address?

Don’t you agree that, hypothetically, if Bishop Fellay was becoming liberal, then warning those SSPX priests who are willing to see the truth, would unavoidably "create a dialectic [as you say] between the members of the Society and their superiors, setting even the priests one against another"? But, since the Faith is more important than unity, wouldn’t the Dominicans be doing their duty, if they are correct in the ample evidence they present, and which you don’t address?

Your False Notion of SSPX Authority

You add that "to detach oneself [lawfully] from an authority, it is necessary for the latter actually to urge the subjects to sin against faith or morals." You add that Bishop Faure’s Episcopal Consecration "aggravates this spirit of independence". Are you saying that Bishop Fellay is the Dominicans’ superior?

Archbishop Lefebvre ably rejects your error:

t must be borne in mind that an authority which is supplied does not have the same characteristics as authority which exists ordinarily in the Church. It is exercised case-by-case, and is thus not habitual: in other words the people who benefit from it can always withdraw from it, and the supplied authority has no power to make them return. It is dependent on the need of the faithful, given the state of crisis. To the extent that the faithful need these bishops or priests for the salvation of their souls, the Church creates this link of authority between them.³

Bishop Tissier echoes his founder and refutes you and the SSPX’s new idea4 of authority, in a 1991 article available on sspx.org, with a forward written by Fr. Peter Scott.

In any event, your assertion is irrelevant because even you recognize that the Dominicans are claiming that their evidence proves that Bishop Fellay is an increasing danger to the Faith because of his increasing liberalism. And you do nothing to address their evidence of Bishop Fellay’s liberalism.

You Still Have a chance to begin addressing the Dominicans’ Evidence

But you have not lost your chance to begin addressing the evidence of the liberal shift in the SSPX leadership. This evidence continually fills the publications and websites of the Dominicans, Catholic Candle, The Recusant, nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot, and so many other publications.

But it is understandable that you stay on the level of vague accusations about “disunity”, since you are so liberal yourself. We limit ourselves to two (of countless) examples of your own liberalism. One pertains to your adopting conciliar teaching. The other pertains to your praising conciliar leaders.

Example 1: You Adopt the Politically-Correct, Conciliar Teaching about Jewish Culpability

You please the world and adopt conciliar teaching, when you stated publicly: "The Jewish people did not commit deicide."

Your statement is a conciliar error which contradicts infallible Apostolic Tradition and the continual teaching of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and other sacred writers. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas taught: "The Jews therefore sinned, as crucifiers not only of the Man-Christ, but also as of God." Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.47, a.5, ad 3 (et ideo Judaei peccaverunt, non solum hominis Christi, sed tamquam Dei crucifixores).

Your statement is plainly false for the same reason that Our Lady is the Mother of God, viz., she is the Mother of God because she is the mother (in His humanity) of a Person Who is God. The Jews committed deicide because they killed (in His humanity) a Person Who is God. Thus, the truth you deny, is that the Jews are God-killers—i.e., they committed deicide, as the Church has always taught.

Example 2: You Assert the Supposed Holiness of Conciliar Popes

You wrote that it "is quite probable … that the personal lives of John XXIII and John Paul II were exemplary."

The truth is that it is completely impossible for any Catholic to lead an “exemplary” personal life, when he does what these popes did, even aside from those popes’ greater responsibility for the whole Church. So, e.g., aside from Pope John Paul II’s incalculable responsibility for the 1986 Assisi meeting because he was pope, he could never have led an “exemplary” personal life even if he were a private man who attended the Assisi meeting in a merely personal capacity. The same is true of countless other events in the pope’s life: e.g., kissing the Koran.

Are you Really concerned about Error Taught in your District? Then Speak up against Bishop Fellay’s Proposal of Sacrilege!

Lastly, you say that you cannot remain silent regarding error taught in your District. See, Communiqué §6. Where is your reaction to the scandalous liberalism of Bishop Fellay, who promoted a sacrilegious hybrid mass a few days ago, during an interview in your District? (Here is an analysis of Bishop Fellay’s sacrilegious proposal.)

In Him Who Is Truth and hates liberalism,
The Catholics at Father.Themann.Answered@gmail.com