Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

#11: Contradiction (What is the conciliar church?):

In an Open Letter to Fr. Thouvenot (Secretary General of the SSPX), Fr. Matthew Clifton (SSPX - England) spoke of Menzingen "privileging a small group of trusted supports of the new policy towards Rome." www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/collection-of-sspx-resistance-writings/

One of those "privileged" accordist apologists was Fr. Francois Laisney (former District Superior, USA).

In a 12/21/12 article titled "Various Churches?" intended to rebut Bishop Williamson's notion of "Church," Fr. Laisney considers the meaning of the term "conciliar church" as used by Archbishop Lefebvre:

However, Archbishop Lefebvre said the opposite of Fr. Laisney:

True, the conciliar church is not 100% distinct from the Catholic Church, but that they are two different churches with different institutions was, at least to Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and the old SSPX, clear and indisputable.



In 2003, Fr. Aulagnier was expelled from the SSPX for advocating for a practical accord.

The reasons adduced in favor of reaching a practical agreement with unconverted Rome by Fr. Aulagnier in 2003 are nearly identical to Bishop Fellay's reasons for reaching a practical accord with Rome since 2012:

1) The danger of schism

2) Friendship with the betrayers of Tradition (Campos)

3) An alleged "new attitude in Rome"

4) The conflict may last for ages

The similarities are striking, and cause the reader to wonder:

-If Fr. Aulagnier was expelled for advocating for a practical accord along these lines, by what right does Bishop Fellay retain his membership in the SSPX?

In the article below, Fr. Violette (then District Superior of Canada) is sounding very much like Archbishop Lefebvre and the Resistance, while the rationale he is condemning in Fr. Aulagnier is sounding very much like Bishop Fellay and the neo-SSPX!

I encourage you to read the entire article, but here are some selections related to the points above:


This is not merely a change in the SSPX.

It is hypocrisy.

Yet we are to believe the Resistance are the rebels, and the Fellayistas are the loyal sons of Archbishop Lefebvre??


Formerly, the SSPX used to oppose a practical accord with unconverted Rome because, among other reasons, it wanted Rome to convert back to the faith, for the good of the whole Church, and therefore refused to become just one more "stripe" of Catholicism among the pantheon of modernist flavors.

In late 2003, Fr. Violette (District Superior - Canada) commented upon the reasons for the expulsion of Fr. Aulagnier for his pro-agreement agitation:

And a year earlier, speaking of the modernist Romans, Bishop Fellay declared:

But today, doctrinal pluralism not only seems not objectionable, but, according to this November/2016 interview of Bishop Fellay by conciliar priest, Fr. Kevin Cusick, desirable:




#14: Contradiction (More Doctrinal Pluralism):

Bishop Fellay in 2003:


Bishop Fellay in 2016:




#15: Contradiction (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais vs Himself):

In 2012, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was quite relieved a merely practical accord with modernist Rome had been narrowly averted, even citing the intervention of the Blessed Virgin to save the SSPX from disaster:

But by 2016, Bishop Tissier had quite a change of heart:




#16: Contradiction (Bishop Tissier vs Archbishop Lefebvre):

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in 2016:

Archbishop Lefebvre, on the contrary, said (just weeks before his death):




#17: Contradiction (Still More Acceptance of Doctrinal Pluralism from Bishop Fellay):

As we saw earlier, this was Bishop Fellay's public (but not private) position regarding a doctrinally pluralistic agreement with unconverted Rome in 2003:

But after Rome refused Bishop Fellay's signature of the April 15, 2012 "Doctrinal Declaration," Bishop Fellay wrote to Pope Benedict XVI, and stated his willingness to set doctrinal considerations aside:




The GREC is a group of diocesan, SSPX, and indultarian clergy and laymen who have been working "discreetly but not secretly" for a practical accord between the SSPX and modernist Rome since the mid-1990's.

One of the key strategies in the GREC quest for a practical accord between the SSPX and modernist Rome was for the Society to cease attacking the Roman modernists for their continual scandals.

As an excellent article by a Dominican of Avrille titled "The G.R.E.C.(Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques or: Group for Reflection Among Catholics): A once hidden story, now revealed" explains:


Was Bishop Fellay receptive to these pleas of the modernists for the SSPX to drop their aggressive polemics?

It would seem so, in light of the following developments:

1) Fr. Wegner announces he has contracted with a branding campaign which has advised him to drop the attacks against modernist Rome:

2) Fr. Wegner's Angelus announcement regarding the new "positive message" and style, "bare of any aggressive or imposing element" (Scroll down and click on pic to enlarge and read Fr. Wegner's announcement): www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B999_M065_SSPX.html

3) The 2012 Letter of Archbishop di Noia to Bishop Fellay (and subsequently forwarded by Bishop Fellay to all SSPX priests) asking them not to preach against modernist Rome:  rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/01/di-noias-letter-full-text-in-french.html




Archbishop Lefebvre considered collaboration with the rallied/approved once-traditional groups like the FSSP or IBP impossible:

Consequently "tradcumenical" collaboration, or gestures implying same, has become commonplace in Europe and America:
For example:

-In 2013 the SSPX Polish District website mentioned indult priestly ordinations in the same breath as SSPX ordinations: The mask had momemtarily slipped, and in the wake of intense and immediate scandal, the Polish District moved quickly to scrub the website, and eliminated reference to the indult communities: www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/all-one-happy-family-on-sspx-polish-website/

-But by 2015, there was no more need for masks, and the SSPX was openly collaborating in joint SSPX-diocesan-Ecclesia Dei ventures, such as the so-called "Catholic Identity Conference, where pics show SSPX and indult priests standing side by side: remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2032-catholic-identity-conference-makes-history

-Or, in 2018: catholicidentityconference.org/index.php/speakers

#31: Contradiction (Fudging the Truth?):

In April, 2013 Fr. Daniel Themann gave a notorious conference titled "Resistance to What?" in St. Mary's, KS, which was designed to run damage control against a mounting pile of evidence adduced by the Resistance, all of which tended to demonstrate that the SSPX was compromising on many issues in pursuit of a practical accord with unconverted Rome.

At a certain point, Fr. Themann addressed the matter of avoiding speaking against Roman modernism, or anything running contrary to the branding campaign, stating:

"Have there been any official edicts from the Superior General for the Society not to talk about certain sensitive types of matters? People have actually asked me that, and the answer is no, of course not.” www.stmaryskssspxmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/The_Recusant_Issue_11_Nov_Dec_2013.pdf (See p. 33)

Yet only a few months prior, in December/2012, Bishop Fellay forwarded to all the priests of the SSPX a letter from Archbishop di Noia, in which the latter implored priests to drop the combat against modernism (and having been forwarded to them by their Superior General, the message was clear: These are marching orders):
What was this but exactly that which Fr. Themann denied:

An official mandate directly from the Superior General not to preach polemics against Vatican II and the Roman modernists (Not in the form of a personally written order, it is true, but all understood the Superior General does not take the unprecedented step of forwarding to every priest of the SSPX a letter in this matter only so they can disregard it!).

And what of the screen shot of the email of 6/7/12 which appeared in The Recusant #11 from Fr. Arnaud Rostand's (i.e., Fr. Themann's own District Superior) email to the priors of the US District, advising priests that:
From the Superior General, to the District Superiors, to the Priors, to the priests, the orders clearly affirm exactly that which Fr. Themann denied:

An edict from the Superior General -via the implicit endorsement of the position of Archbishop di Noia- to avoid polemics regarding the situation in the Church and Rome.


In the summer of 2013, the French Resistance website Avec l'Immaculee ("With the Immaculate") broke the story regarding a new SSPX periodical being circulated in India. It was called (bizarrely) "The Flying Squirrel," and read like any mainstream conciliar parish newsletter:

Articles featured a deranged sermon by Pope Francis, a panegyric regarding the communist Jesuit destroyer, Fr. Arrupe, a glowing review of World Youth Day, a blurb about the Jesuit Center for Human Rights, a sentimental story about a Pentecostal minister arrested for his Pentecostalism, a new radio station launched by the Bishop of Cochin, something about "our passion for football" by the Opus Dei founder, an article on new age "centering prayer," and on and on.

You can see it all for yourself right here: aveclimmaculee.blogspot.com/2013/11/un-journal-accordiste-et-liberal-de-la.html

Well, as usual, they don't respond at all until these things hit the internet, and in this case, it was Fr. Brucciani who made the response:
A very interesting statement from Fr. Brucciani about Fr. Beaublat not being a liberal, since less than two years later, Fr. Beaublat left the SSPX for the conciliar church!

In other words, we have, for all intents and purposes, a conciliar SSPX priest spewing rank liberalism into an SSPX periodical being defended by the future District Superior of England.

The company always comes first.

Had Fr. Brucciani rejected, rather than defended, the actions of Fr. Beaublat, I would not here be writing about the matter.


In post #28, we saw that at the 2012 General Chapter, the SSPX had overturned its previous policy of not considering an accord with Rome before the doctrinal issues were resolved, and instead declared there to be 3 sine qua non (i.e., absolutely essential) conditions to be met before the SSPX could consider a canonical "regularization."

We saw that the second of these allegedly "absolutely essential" conditions was the right to continue their then-current sacramental practice, not only as regards the liturgy, but also the other sacraments (including marriage).

And then less than five years later, we observed with dropped jaws the SSPX gleefully surrender this allegedly sine qua non condition, thereby altering its sacramental practice to bring it into line with Cardinal Mueller's "pastoral guidelines" for SSPX marriages.

But a couple months before accepting those March 27, 2017 "pastoral guidelines," the SSPX itself had already contradicted its three allegedly "sine qua non" conditions, and whittled them down to one:
In all likelihood, Bishop Fellay was aware of the forthcoming promulgation of the pastoral guidelines which would change SSPX sacramental practice, and in order to avoid highlighting the blatant violation of its own previously declared condition, pre-empted focus on that violation by shifting the goalposts, and redefining what was "essential:"

From three sine qua non conditions in 2012, to one sine qua non condition in 2017.

As regards this new allegedly sine qua non condition of Rome "accepting us as we are," this thread more than suffices to demonstrate that this condition has also been repeatedly violated and disregarded by Menzingen.

It is no longer a case of Rome agreeing to accept the SSPX as they are, but as they have become.



But that was the SSPX before the ralliement (or rather, before the ralliement was made public!).

Now days, the SSPX has swept these teachings under the rug, and what could serve as a better example to illustrate the repudiation of these teachings than the scandalous example of SSPX priests attending the first Mass of a newly ordained priest of the Institute of Christ the King in Belgium.

"On Saturday, September 12, 2015, Canon Pierre Dumain celebrated his first Mass in the Basilica of Saint Joan of Arc du Bois Chenu in Domremy. The young priest's family is based in Liffol-le-Petit. Ordained a priest on July 2 in Florence, Italy, by Cardinal Raymond Burke for the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, he celebrated the Holy Sacrifice according to the extraordinary rite of the Catholic Church in the presence of his family, friends and many faithful. Several canons attended the Mass as well as priests from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, Father Fourgerolle, the Diocese of Langres, and the Rector of the Basilica Father Lambert, the parish priest of Domremy. The homily was given by Bishop Gilles Wach, founder of the Institute of the Sovereign King Christ Priest, a canonical apostolic life society of pontifical right founded in 1990." histoirepatrimoinebleurvillois.hautetfort.com/archive/2015/09/13/premiere-messe-du-chanoine-pierre-dumain-en-la-basilique-de-5684030.html

Could there be a greater example depicting the extent of the metamorphosis of the Fellay-led SSPX away from the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre (who, as we showed in post #19, viewed the indult groups as betrayers, shaking hands with the enemy, and doing the devil's work)?

Can you imagine Archbishop Lefebvre sitting down to a sermon by (pseudo) Monsignor Wach?





#35: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay: If only Archbishop Lefebvre had seen this Novus Ordo...):

In January/2013, Cardinal Antonio Canizares (Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship) told the Catholic News Agency the following story:
Had Bishop Fellay simply been misunderstood?

Did the Cardinal not really understand what Bishop Fellay was trying to tell him?

The SSPX immediately responded with a "clarification:"
Possibly, but it is difficult to imagine a cardinal (aware of the significance of what he was about to tell the world) would make such a statement unless he was sure of his understanding of what had been said.

As for those who might be wondering why Bishop Fellay was attending a new Mass in the first place, the SSPX noted in the same apologia:
Very true, Your Excellency. But this was 2013, not 1972!



In April of 1991, it was Fr. Franz Schmidberger (Superior General) who delivered Archbishop Lefebvre's funeral sermon, and in a wonderful statement of fidelity to the founder declared his continuity and fidelity to him:
By 2016, "the spirit of destruction" was "blowing in the bishoprics and the Roman dicasteries" as never before, under the worst pope in the 2,000 year history of the Church.

Obviously, talk of an agreement with ultra-modernist Rome would be even more preposterous than it was in 1991, right?

Wrong!

In a scandalous internal letter (originally composed in German, but leaked and translated into French, and eventually translated into English with the translation receiving the authorization of Fr. Schmidberger himself), he opined thusly:

"So it seems that the moment has come to normalize the situation of the Society for various reasons" rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/considerations-schmidberger-letter.html

It was a perfect contradiction:

An agreement, according to the new Fr. Schmidberger, was no longer impossible with ultra-modernist Rome.




Not only is this priest wearing the conciliar chasuble (without maniple; amice uncertain), but he is also wearing red (the proper liturgical color for the conciliar calendar, but not for the votive Mass of the BVM he celebrated in the traditional rite, which should have been white).

And of course, the women in the background are not veiled.

The altar boys are late on the scene.

There are no altar cards on the altar.

Etc.

According to Rorate Coeli, Fr. de Sivry had received permission to say Mass from the Basilica, but reading some of the comments following this report, I would say that claim is capable of question: southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2014/08/bombshell-sspx-priest-and-congregation.html

Highly capable.

Rather, it all adds up to Fr. de Sivry pulling a fast one with the sacristan (as several of the comments noticed) for the sake of saying Mass at St. Pius X's altar.

Sloppy and inappropriate, but signs of the times.

Video of the Mass is available from the French District website here:
#38: Compromise (The Story Surrounding the Suppression of Fr. Pivert's Book):

In 2013, Fr. Francois Pivert (then SSPX - France) amassed a remarkable compilation of Archbishop Lefebvre's writings, conferences, sermons, and interviews, and assembled them into a book called "Son Excellence Mgr. Lefebvre: Nos rapports avec Rome" ("His Excellency Monsignor Lefebvre: Our relations with Rome"). As Fr. Pivert explains, "The book that you have in your hands is composed essentially of texts of Monsignor Lefebvre."

350 pages of them, all of which tended to reject the possibility of ralliement with unconverted Rome, and by implication painted Bishop Fellay (and his supporters) in a very bad light.

In response, on December 20, 2013 the General House, via Fr. Christian Thouvenot (Secretary General - SSPX) issued an internal letter to Bishops, superiors, and the priests of the French District, stating:
Very well. What is in this study which "substantially corroborates" Bishop Fellay's own judgment?

Well, were it not for the courageous leak of Fr. Matthieu Salenave (then SSPX - France), who desired to expose the lies of Menzingen in pursuit of an accord which flagrantly violated the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, we might never have known!

For his courageous fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre, and disseminating this document, Fr. Salenave was expelled from the SSPX.

Why?

What was revealed in it that so infuriated Bishop Fellay and the accordists?

Here are a couple pertinent samples:

1. The study objects to Fr. Pivert's contention that all the talks Archbishop Lefebvre had with Rome were geared toward bring them back to Tradition:
Yet to the bishops-elect in 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre said:
And in fidelity to this purpose of Archbishop Lefebvre's position, the 2006 SSPX General Chapter Declaration said:
Already, we can see it is Fr. Pivert, and not Bishop Fellay, who has the better grasp on Archbishop Lefebvre. No wonder Bishop Fellay wanted to overturn the General Chapter Declaration!

Or this one:

2. Though we earlier quoted Archbishop Lefebvre as describing the Ecclesia Dei communities as betrayers of tradition, and doing the devil's work (See post #19 of this thread), Bishop Fellay has quite another idea:
These two examples suffice to show the great divergence in the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay, both as regards the purpose of contacts with Rome, as as regards their thinking about the Ecclesia Dei communities (and consequently, why Fr. Salenave was expelled for revealing the contents of Bishop Fellay's thinking to an SSPX clergy and faithful to whom Bishop Fellay wanted hold out the illusion of continuity with the founder).




The hard part about being a diplomat, is that such persons find it very difficult -wanting to be pleasing to both sides- to maintain a principled position.

This was no more evident than in a sermon given by Bishop Bernard Fellay during the solemn Pontifical Mass given on Sunday, October 13, 2013 at St. Vincent de Paul’s Church in Kansas City, Missouri for the Angelus Press Conference. Commenting on a scandalous statement by Pope Francis, Bishop Fellay explained:
Well, shortly thereafter Rome came calling, and the faithful were treated to yet another Bishop Fellay "clarification" (demonstrating that he was he not able to follow his own advice and "stand up" to Roman modernism). This clarification was quickly posted on the SSPX website, and almost as quickly deleted, after being caught in an embarrassing attempt to explain away the contradiction, thereby highlighting Bishop Fellay's diplomatic weakness: sspx.org/en/bishop-fellay-pope-francis

But Novus Ordo Watch quoted his reversal (er, "clarification"):
Oh?

The same website rightly observes, "Bp. Fellay seems to be contradicting his earlier accusation against Francis here, because he called Bergoglio a “genuine Modernist” precisely in the context of false teaching – not action."

And the NCR also recognized this latest Bishop Fellay "clarification" as a reversal of his previous statements (as does any sane man with reading comprehension) when it states:
This is the weakness, ambivalence, and equivocation which has so often characterized the SSPX since the ralliement shifted into high gear in 2000 (and especially since 2012).




On October 24, 2012 the SSPX General House in Menzingen announced that it had been decided on October 4 to expel Bishop Richard Williamson from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X:

"Bishop Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the management and the government of the SSPX for several years, and refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors, was declared excluded from the SSPX by decision of the Superior General and its Council, on October 4th, 2012." fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/communiqu%C3%A9-general-house-society-saint-pius-x-october-24-2012-22586

Having been excluded from the meeting of major superiors in Albano, Italy the previous year (gathered to consider the Doctrinal Preamble submitted by Rome), and then excluded again from participating in the General Chapter in June, 2012, it seemed Bishop Fellay had determined to have no more opposition to his reorientation and sellout of the SSPX to modernist Rome.

The two reasons usually adduced as examples of "disobedience" were:

1) The refusal to close his weekly Eleison Comments, which regularly warned the faithful and clergy of the sellout underway;

2) The "unauthorized" apostolic visit to Brazil to confer the sacrament of confession [?Confirmation] to Dom Tomas Aquinas' faithful at the Holy Cross Monastery.

Regarding this latter excuse, we shall have more to say in our next post.

For the present purpose, it suffices to cite the fact of Bishop Williamson's expulsion, noting that the primary purpose of it was to remove an obstacle to the ralliement and facilitate the talks regarding same with Rome (per SSPX German District spokesman, Fr. Andreas Steiner):

#51: Contradiction ("Saint" Faustina and the Divine Mercy Devotion):

It used to be that the SSPX uniformly rejected the practice of inculcating and/or promoting novel and questionable conciliar devotions attributed to dubiously "canonized" saints, and the "Divine Mercy" devotion of Sr. Faustina Kawalski was no exception.

In an excellent 2010 article, Fr. Peter Scott (former US District Superior) took aim at the Divine Mercy devotion, noting that it was:
It was not until the Polish Pope lifted the censure upon the works of Sr. Faustina in 1978 that this devotion was "rehabilitated" in and for the conciliar church.

That fact, along with the pride and presumption Fr. Scott notes in Sr. Faustina's Diary, sufficed for SSPXers (clergy and lay) to steer clear of this new devotion.

How surprising it was, then, to see this devotion creeping into the SSPX during the post-2012 years of SSPX ralliement (or, perhaps not).

On 6/26/15, the Spanish language resistance blog (Non Possumus) published an article titled "The Neo-FSSPX and its Double Face II," from which the material below is excerpted: nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2015/06/la-neo-fsspx-y-su-doble-cara-ii.html


"Did you know that the neo-FSSPX, in some of its official sites, promotes devotion to Faustina Kowalska:











These few examples, taken from official SSPX websites, publishing houses, and newsletters suffice to illustrate a disturbing new openness to conciliar "saints" and devotions which stands in sharp contrast to the prudent spirit which animated Fr. Scott's article.

But if you are going to join the conciliar church, you must not reject its "saints" and devotions.


In post #50, we referenced a (since deleted) article from SSPX.org denouncing what it termed Pope Benedict XVI's "sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ in his new book, the second volume of Jesus of Nazareth."

Yet, quite incoherently, here was that same book (Jesus of Nazareth) being promoted by the SSPX German District's "Editorial Sarto," in addition to several other modernist works and authors (even one by arch-modernist, Hans Urs von Balthasar):
nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2015/06/la-neo-fsspx-y-su-doble-cara-ii.html










#53: Contradiction (Modesty in Dress):

On 6/21/15, SSPX.org published a great article in "The Pastor's Corner" titled "How Catholics Ought to Dress," which included among many other timely reminders, this statement:


sspx.org/en/news-events/news/another-look-inside-operations-regina-coeli-house-assistant-priests-staff-45732

With every single female employee unanimously flaunting the Church’s (and SSPX's) own moral norms for modesty in dress (i.e., they are all wearing pants), the message sent is unmistakable:

Either the SSPX no longer endorses traditional norms for modesty, or, they have no wish to be taken seriously when they do.

MODERATOR POSTSCRIPT 3/13/19:


On October 24, 2012 the General House of the SSPX issued a communique announcing not merely the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, but also stating the reason for the expulsion:

"Bishop Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the management and the government of the SSPX for several years, and refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors, was declared excluded from the SSPX by decision of the Superior General and its Council, on October 4th, 2012. A final deadline had been granted to him to declare his submission, after which he announced the publication of an “open letter” asking the Superior General to resign." rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/10/sspx-williamson-removed.html

We covered this in post #40, so why is it getting mention again?

Because on March 19, 2015 (i.e., the day of the episcopal consecration of Bishop Jean Michel Faure by Bishop Williamson), Menzingen issued another communique designed to please its Roman handlers in which it gave a completely different reason for the expulsion of Bishop Williamson (and we might add, that which is most likely the true reason):
It doesn't matter for our present purposes that this latter/true reason for the expulsion of Bishop Williamson is a caricature of Bishop Williamson's posture vis-a-vis Rome (i.e., He opposed relations aimed at obtaining a practical accord with unconverted Rome, but not as regards a willingness to help them convert back to Tradition, should they ever want to do so). What does matter, is that it corroborates the indiscreet admission of SSPX German District spokesman, Fr. Andreas Steiner, that, "The decision [to expel Bishop Williamson] will certainly facilitate the talks [with Rome]."
religion.orf.at/stories/2555877/

The minions of Menzingen had insisted for three years that the expulsion of Bishop Williamson had nothing to do with the elimination of an obstacle standing in the way of a practical accord, but was instead (as the 10/24/12 communique stated) purely and simply a matter of disobedience.

But anxious to show their Roman handlers how "different" they had become from the old SSPX "Williamsonites," particularly as regards their newfound respect for authority, the Society issued that strident denunciation, and in the course of doing so, unwittingly showed their true motivations.



On March 19, 2015 Bishop Williamson consecrated Jean Michel Faure bishop at the Holy Cross Monastery in New Fribourg, Brazil.

That same day, the SSPX media machine went into high gear trying to distinguish between Bishop Faure's episcopal consecration and those of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.

Surely they were troubled by the thought of the parallels so evident to the clergy and faithful of the SSPX and Resistance, and in an attempt to limit the damage, published articles trying to distinguish between the two.
The first one was a communique of the General House on 3/19/15, in which it was alleged that:
But informed readers must have been quite perplexed to see this fact alleged as a distinction between the 1988 and 2015 consecrations, since in the reading of the Mandatum Apostolicum, Bishop Williamson clearly stated that:
In fact, if one compares the Mandatum Apostolicum of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 with that of Bishop Williamson in 2015, he will note that the first couple paragraphs are nearly identical. The only real difference is the addition of a 3rd paragraph by Bishop Williamson explaining that the liberalized SSPX will not be an option to obtain a bishop for Tradition.  (See Archbishop Lefebvre's mandate here: www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-06-30B.htm)

The SSPX article continued:
But in arguing along these lines, the SSPX makes a twofold self-condemnation:

Which is all another way of saying that in 1988, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, he hoped until the last minute that there might be a bit of loyalty shown by Rome, but to no avail. By 1991 at the time of the Bishop Rangel consecration, there was no point in asking permission any longer, since there was no doubt as to Rome's refusal (a refusal which nevertheless, was powerless to relieve the bishops of their grave duty to souls trapped in necessity). Therefore, it would be impertinent to ask permission for what must be done in any case.

Now, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander:"

If the passages above justified the SSPX in 1991, then it is incomprehensible how they do not justify Bishop Williamson in 2015.

For the SSPX to condemn the consecration of Bishop Faure, then, is to serve as a self-indictment.

And if the example of the 1991 consecration of Bishop Rangel must be admitted as a righteous deed (and it was), then this nugatory difference between the 1988 and 1991/2015 consecrations must be dismissed as lacking substance, which in turn leaves the 1988 and 2015 episcopal consecrations practically identical:

-They both featured practically the same Apostolic Mandate;

-They both based themselves on the state of necessity;

-They both explicitly announced the withholding of any apostolic mission (i.e., jurisdiction);

#56: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay Regarding a Deal With Pope Francis):

From the Avrillé Dominicans, Letter n° 87 (May 13, 2014):
But...




#57: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay Saying Everything and its Opposite Regarding a Deal with Rome):

In 2001, Cardinal Hoyos informs us that Bishop Fellay was open, already at that time, to the possibility of a practical accord for the SSPX, noting only that doing so might cause some internal problems, but not opposing such a solution in principle:
But confronted with the intervention of Bishop Williamson and the Dominicans of Avrille, Bishop Fellay hit the brakes, and by 2003, while secretly considering how to avert those obstacles (as his prior sponsorship of SSPX participation in the GREC unequivocally demonstrates), was saying the opposite in Letter #63 while he bided his time:
But then the alleged fulfillment of the two preconditions for doctrinal discussions was supposed to have evinced a new desire for Tradition in Rome, and consequently, by March - 2012, Bishop Fellay wanted you to believe that the SSPX must rethink its former resistance to a merely practical accord. After all, the SSPX needed to help Rome convert the Church back to Tradition:
But this announced willingness to overturn the position of the 2006 General Chapter, thereby departing from Archbishop Lefebvre's post-consecratory posture vis-a-vis unconverted Rome, had ignited the furor which spawned the Resistance, and faced with growing opposition, Bishop Fellay had to retreat, declaring only one year later:
But viewed historically, one sees clearly all these contradictions were really nothing other than taking "two steps forward, and one step back:"

When necessary, Bishop Fellay would assume a traditional posture ad infra to reassure the clergy and faithful, while retaining his reconciliationist policy toward Rome ad extra as he marched steadily and relentlessly toward a recognition by unconverted Rome.



In October/2010, DICI staged a brief interview with former First Assistance to the Superior General, Fr. Niclaus Pfluger on the subject of possible SSPX compromises in its relations with conciliar Rome. In response to the question, "Some have accused the SSPX of working towards a compromise. Do you see reasons for such fears?" Fr. Pfluger responded:
Compare that statement with information contained in GREC kingpin Fr. Michel LeLong's 2011 book "The Necessary Reconciliation," which documents not only the history, goals, and progress of the GREC, but also the SSPX's part in it.

As described in the review by Dom Curzio Nitoglia:
And:
And:
Finally:
Note that Fr. LeLong is persistent in distinguishing between "secret" and "discrete."

In this context, the distinction is largely illusory: If I tell you to "keep the meeting secret" vs telling you to "be discrete about who you tell," the effect of either is the same: Do not publicize these meetings; keep them hidden from the public view. And unless you were one of the liberal insiders working for a practical accord (all the while paying lip service about there being no practical accord before the doctrinal issues are resolved), you knew nothing about the existence of the GREC, its aims, players, or status of their machinations.

It was S-E-C-R-E-T, and Fr. LeLong's insistence upon classifying these dialogues as "discrete but not secret" is most likely made with a view toward gaining history's favorable perception regarding these initially back-door meetings (i.e., "secret" is negative and masonic; "discrete" is "prudent" and "Catholic").

Who can forget the sermon of Fr. Jean de Morgon, which broke the news of the existence of the GREC to the world, and who was so shook up by his discovery that he felt his own life might be endangered for having revealed the plot:
Let us now return to the quote by Fr. Pfluger:

"The SSPX does not compromise; Bishop Fellay has no secret plan, strategy, or policy regarding the Faith in dealing with Rome."

We leave it to the reader to judge of the veracity of such a statement.



In October-2012, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger gave an interview to Kirchliche Umschau regarding the situation of the SSPX, in which he made the following comment:
The idea that there was anything "abnormal" about Catholics who had remained faithful to Tradition was certainly a subversive idea, because as the Avrille Dominicans explained (verbally), "Naturally, if you convince the clergy and faithful that they are in an abnormal situation, they will try to normalize it."

In any case, a couple years after Fr. Pfluger's statement (which had been making the rounds from SSPX pulpits, conferences, apologetics, and internal letters for years), the old Bishop Tissier briefly reemerged, and in a blistering indictment of those he called "false friends" who suggested the SSPX needed to cure its "abnormal situation," responded:

What a breath of fresh air!

But as quickly as he had emerged, Bishop Tissier's voice vanished.

Nevertheless, a brief moment of courage sufficed to render a lasting and memorable reminder of the SSPX under Archbishop Lefebvre, and which of us (we traditionalists, or Roman modernists) were stuck in an "abnormal situation."

[Obitur Dictum: The entire sermon is well worth listening to in the audio link provided. I have no idea why there is a picture of Bishop Fellay on the Bishop Tissier audio link.]



In this 2012 interview with Rivarol, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais once again rejects the notion that the SSPX is in any real kind of "irregular situation:"
But by 2016, Fr. Franz Schmidberger (like Fr. Pfluger before him) was also keen to overcome what he felt was an "abnormal situation," and in a subversive internal letter which was later leaked to the internet, stated:
It was the same "scare tactic" Fr. Simoulin had been inculcating in SSPXers for the previous two years (Since his letter "Avoiding a False Spirit of Resistance") in which he, like Fr. Schmidberger, wanted you to worry about becoming schismatics if we didn't "regularize" our "abnormal situation."

Obviously, Bishop Tissier didn't see it that way, much less the post-1988 Archbishop Lefebvre (who, again, spoke of a "strict duty to separate from the conciliar church").

[Obitur Dictum: The Avrille Dominicans refuted this concern here:

#71: Compromise ("Unequivocal" Signs: The Mass):

In Bishop Fellay's Letter to Friends and Benefactors #73 of 10/23/08, Bishop Fellay restated the purpose of the SSPX's two preconditions for entering into doctrinal discussions with modernist Rome:
And according to SSPX mythology, these two preconditions for sitting down to doctrinal discussions were fulfilled, in the 2007 promulgation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, and the 2009 decree of the Congregation for Bishops remitting the "excommunication" of the four bishops.

But was it really true? Had the SSPX received an "unequivocal" satisfaction of its requests?


A. What was requested regarding the Traditional Latin Mass?

With regard to the Traditional Latin Mass, the request was made by Bishop Fellay directly to Pope Benedict XVI, during a personal audience of 8/29/05:



B. What was granted regarding the Traditional Latin Mass?

Summorum Pontificum places several conditions upon priests saying the traditional Mass:

C. Appraisal:

Obviously, that which was granted does not correspond to that which was requested.

Nobody, therefore, could objectively conclude that the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum represents an "unequivocal" action in favor of Tradition.

On the contrary, Summorum Pontificum is a classic example of equivocation.

The reality is that after declaring the TLM had never been abrogated, Summorum Pontificum effectively abrogated it, not merely by these restrictive conditions, but by declaring that the Novus Ordo is the "ordinary" rite of the Roman Church, and the TLM an "extraordinary" form of the Roman Mass:

That which Rome says was free is now demoted and restricted!

How is that an unequivocal action in favor of Tradition?




Unlike the case of the first precondition (i.e., "the traditional Mass for all priests"), where the equivocation was discovered by comparing the incongruity between that which was requested and that which was granted, in the case of the second precondition (i.e., "the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication"), the equivocation is contained within the request itself:"From the beginning when Rome approached us and proposed some solutions, that is, at the beginning of 2001, we clearly stated that the manner in which Church authorities were treating the problems raised by those who desired to attempt the experience of Tradition with Rome did not inspire confidence in us. Logically we had to expect to be treated in like manner once the issue of our relationship with Rome would have been settled. Since that time, and in order to protect ourselves, we have been asking for concrete actions which would unequivocally show Rome’s intentions towards us: the traditional Mass for all priests, and the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication." archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/sup_gen_ltr_73.pdf
But the SSPX has always maintained that the "excommunications" were invalid, and therefore non-existent. Consequently, what should have been requested was not a "withdrawal" of the "excommunications," but a declaration of nullity (since Rome cannot "withdraw" something which does not exist).

Conversely, to request to "withdraw" something, is to acknowledge its existence.

A "withdrawal" (or "lifting") by Rome, therefore, logically represents a reaffirmation of the juridical validity of the excommunications: That which was declared in 1988 was right and just, but from an (alleged) sense of mercy, we are "remitting" the penalties (i.e., rescinding a just and valid penalty).

A "declaration of nullity," on the other hand, expresses a very different reality.

It would represent an implicit acknowledgement of fault and injustice on the part of Rome, and simultaneously, an acknowledgement of that which the SSPX had always maintained: That the "excommunications" were never valid in the first place.

Consequently, Rome's acceding to the SSPX's request to "withdraw" the "excommunications" is certainly not an "unequivocal" sign of Rome's goodwill toward the Society (and the proof of Rome's ill will are the lingering "excommunications" of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer).

If one reads the official declaration "remitting" the "excommunications" from the Congregation for Bishops, the entire context of the decree is one of an extension of mercy to the SSPX: "You were legitimately excommunicated, but in order to get you to sign an accord, we will 'remit' the penalty."

It practically says so in as many words:
Menzingen would have you believe a "withdrawal" of the excommunications can only be interpreted as a per se sign of Rome's good will.

But for Rome, this is but a means to an end: A "regularized" SSPX is one subject to conciliar authority (Personal Prelature notwithstanding), and therefore it will be able to exert a much more direct and deleterious influence upon Tradition:


The presumption underlying the two preconditions to sitting down to doctrinal discussions all along (ad extra), was that only a Rome actively working to return to Tradition could unequivocally concede perfect freedom to the true Mass, and declare the excommunications null. But as we discussed in the previous two posts, that is not what transpired. Instead, Rome was able to formulate declarations which constrained and demoted the true Mass, and reaffirmed the legitimacy of the 1988 "excommunications" (even as it "remitted" them). Consequently, an SSPX which was seeking unequivocal proofs of Rome's willingness and desire to return to Tradition ought to have declared those preconditions unsatisfied, and refused to proceed to doctrinal discussions.

In such measure as Rome's equivocal declarations implied a refusal to render the signs of goodwill the SSPX was looking for, doctrinal discussions would seem, on the surface, to be a "dialogue of the deaf," with each side still committed to its prior positions, as Bishop Williamson explained:
Rome surely understood this, but from their perspective, there was still a chance the SSPX would decide 2+2 could equal 4.5.

But that didn't really matter: Rome was going through the motions toward a pre-ordained end. After pretending it had conceded the SSPX's two preconditions, and then entertained two years of doctrinal discussions (the results of which it considered mostly unimportant, except insofar as it strengthened the bonds between the Romans and SSPX), it was ready for the SSPX to consider an offer.

Only a few months after the conclusion of the discussions (of which Bishop de Galarreta told us the Romans would hear nothing of the SSPX's arguments), Bishop Fellay announced that the SSPX had received a (secret) "doctrinal preamble" which was an offer for regularization, and a few months after that, convened a gathering of all the major superiors in Albano, Italy to consider the offer.

Six months after that Albano convocation, Bishop Fellay signed the preamble (more commonly known as the "April 15 Doctrinal Declaration") the day after being implored by the three other bishops not to.

Now look what just happened here:

Somehow, Bishop Fellay and the SSPX went from discussions to negotiations!

And how did that happen?

By agreeing to sit down with the enemy to "dialogue" in the first place, despite the unfulfilled preconditions (the mere fact of which demonstrated Rome was still the enemy).

Recall Mr. Paul Chaussee's observation in the introductory comments to this entry:
And:
But remember, this rapprochement with apostate Rome is all part of what Archbishop Lefebvre called "Operation Suicide," whereas the SSPX is only mortally wounded.

It needs to finish the job.

Consequently, Fr. Pagliarani has chased down the modernists to resume negotiations:
Fr. Pagliarani is telling Rome he wants to negotiate another doctrinal declaration, and he is content to enter into pluralism.

I have no doubt he will receive one (and it won't really matter what it says): Once the pen hits paper, the coup d'grace (decapitation) will be simultaneous, and the body will no longer tremble.

There will be Te deum's sung all over the world, but they will only be celebrating the final annihilation of Tradition and the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre



In June/2012, Bishop Fellay gave an interview to DICI in which he explained his priorities regarding relations with Rome:
For the Superior General of Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX, doctrine was a "secondary problem!"

Obviously, this is in stark contrast to Archbishop Lefebvre's post-consecratory position:
Note that in the interview of Bishop Fellay, he is responding to the contradiction between his position and that of Lefebvre's, and attempting to justify that contradiction on the alleged "change in Rome."

We have already rebutted that notion in posts #5, 23, 57, and elsewhere.




On May 11, 2001 Bishop Fellay gave an interview to the Swiss newspaper La Liberté, in which the following exchange transpired:
Fortunately, it is still available on Cathinfo, in both French and English, here: www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/bp-fellays-2001-interview-by-la-liberte/

Was this the position of Archbishop Lefebvre? Did he believe there were only a few problems with Vatican II, which were in any case limited more to a spirit of the Council, rather than the Council documents?

To advance that notion would be completely ridiculous, in the face of a veritable litany of sermons and interviews, of which the following would be representative of Lefebvre's thought on Vatican II (and which runs directly contrary to Bishop Fellay's statement above):
[Obitur Dictum: For an interesting letter to Bishop Fellay regarding his 95% comment, see here for the response of Fr. Basilio Meramo to Bishop Fellay upon his expulsion: www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f032ht_ExpulsionReply.htm]



In the summer of 2009, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais had just completed writing a 140 page masterpiece, analyzing the mind and thinking of Pope Benedict XVI titled Faith Imperiled by Reason (of which the entire document is attached here: Faith-Imperiled-by-Reason.pdf (623.29 KB)), which roundly exposed the Hegelian philosophical errors that had infected Benedict since his early days as a priest, and consequently how the "thesis + antithesis = synthesis" accounted for liberalism in theology.

Perhaps the clearest example of this Hegelial "synthesizing" in action are Benedict XVI's plans for the Roman Missal. Already in 2003, he had implied a future synthesis of the two rites in a letter to a German college professor:
By 2007, this mangled mind had already evolved, and begun synthesizing, as is clear in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, in which Benedict no longer perceives two distinct rites as he did in 2003, but rather, one right with two usages: An "ordinary" and an "extraordinary." w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html

Moreover, in the letter which accompanied Summorum Pontificum, the "synthesizing" continued, with Benedict XVI announcing he would like to see elements of the old usage "enriched" with elements of the new:
It was necessary to provide this digression, in order that the reader clearly perceive the destructive force of "the traditional" Benedict XVI's corrupted intellect, because in what has become known as the "hermeneutic of continuity," Benedict XVI had proposed to apply this Hegelian hermeneutic of reconciling opposites to the entire conciliar and post-conciliar reform, which would effectively hide or mask the doctrinal deviations of the past 55-60 years, and through synthesis, demonstrate a perverted and false "continuity."

Consequently, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais's book was a tremendous service to the Church, and a bulwark against the progression of conciliar corruption. That being the case, one would have expected the SSPX to give it worldwide publicity, publish it in multiple languages, and shout its contents from the rooftops.

But alas, this was 2009, in the era of ralliement, and that kind of publicity was reserved for books tending in the opposite direction (e.g., The book tours organized for Fr. Celier's "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists" by the French District recounted in post #69). With Benedict showing so much "tradition," how could the SSPX publish a book irrefutable demonstrating, exposing, and refuting his rank liberalism? What would be the consequences for the ralliement? Why, Pope Benedict might be led to believe that there was resistance within the SSPX to being "synthesized" into conciliar "conservatives!

The result was death by silence. So far as I am aware, the book was not actively suppressed, as in the case of Fr. Pivert's book (discussed in post #38 of this thread). But with the savaging of Bishop Williamson in full swing at the time of its publication, taking action against yet another SSPX bishop may have seemed perhaps too vulgar and risky a display of power. And what would happen if it induced Bishop Tissier to "team up" with Bishop Williamson? That could set the ralliement back decades! Best to just let Bishop Tissier do his writing, but give it no fanfare. It was, after all, an intellectual work. Few would read it. There were no pictures. Soon enough, it would fade from memory in all but a few staunch Lefebvrists, whom the Society desired to purge from its ranks and pews anyway.

But it was less than three years later, after the failed (?) doctrinal discussions of 2009-2011, the SSPX had received a secret "doctrinal preamble" which, among several other odious provisions, asked the SSPX to consent to what was essentially the very same "hermeneutic of continuity" rejected by Bishop Tissier, and the SSPX as a whole in former times (For example, see this pre-2012 memory-holed article titled "Hermeneutic of the Hermeneutic of Continuity", originally available here: www.sspxseminary.org/component/content/article/6/502.html, but fortunately retained here: tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/08/hermeneutic-of-hermeneutic-of.html, which is well worth taking the time to read).

That preamble (more commonly known as the April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration) contained these provision:

"The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated.

And with a stroke of the pen, Bishop Fellay had accepted Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity."

Subsequent protestations to the contrary are devoid of value, because actions speak louder than words.

Neither does it matter that, upon seeing the ensuing furor and division which had arisen within the ranks of the SSPX, Benedict rejected Bishop Fellay's signature, and presented him a counter-offer he knew the bishop must reject (i.e., so as to give Bishop Fellay the appearance of being the one doing the rejecting, and therefore still traditional, ,in order to preserve his authority: Rome did not want to lose its man at the forthcoming General Chapter a few months down the road, and endanger the planned ralliement).

What matters is not that, by Rome's rejection, this Doctrinal Declaration and its "hermeneutic of continuity" failed to become official SSPX policy, but that as Fr. Cottier wrote upon the fall of Campos,
Bishop Fellays signature showed incontrovertibly that indeed, there had been a "maturation," and that there was no longer any "rejection."

100 articles to the contrary will not be able to hide the act of his signature to the Doctrinal Declaration, because once again, actions speak louder than words.

Obitur Dictum: Shortly after the 2009 publication of Bishop Tissier's Faith Imperiled by Reason, he published another slightly larger work on the same subject, but more focused on the Pope's theology, called The Strange Theology of Benedict XVI. That book has not been translated into English, but a summary of it by Don Curzio Nitoglia can be machine translated here: www.doncurzionitoglia.com/monstissier_falsa_teologia_bxvi.htm



In April/2014, Fr. Michel Simoulin wrote an article titled Avoiding a False Spirit of Resistance. It was more or less a collection of justifications for chasing after a practical accord, regardless of the state of modernist Rome. One of the arguments adduced by Fr. Simoulin was an alleged danger of schism:
But Archbishop Lefebvre never expressed such worries. Quite the opposite, in fact. In an interview with Fideliter one year after the consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre responded to a question on this very point:
Thus, for Fr. Simoulin, resistance can only continue for so long before becoming schismatic.

Fortunately for us, St. Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre did not agree.




In post #28, we saw that the SSPX 2012 General Chapter has produced a list of three allegedly absolutely essential conditions (and three merely "desirable" conditions, which means they were no conditions at all), to be fulfilled before executing a canonical agreement with unconverted Rome. We saw that already by 2017, with the acceptance of the new "pastoral guidelines" regulating SSPX marriages, the second of the three "absolutely essential" conditions (i.e., Retaining current sacramental practice, including marriage) had been voluntarily sacrificed. Subsequently, we saw in post #33 that the two remaining (allegedly) absolutely essential conditions had been replaced by a single new absolutely essential condition: To survive "as we are."

So in the space of just a few short years, the Society had gone from complete freedom for integral Tradition, to a state of bartering for it on the basis of 6 conditions, which were really only three conditions, one of which was soon jettisoned to reduce the operative conditions to two, and which was eventually further whittled down to a solitary purely defensive condition to survive "as we are."

The reader of this thread can decide for himself whether the SSPX has also surrendered this lone remaining condition as well.

But returning to the original three 2012 "absolutely essential" conditions, it is disturbing to see the diplomatic weakness evident in what the SSPX was willing to concede in condition three:

"3. The guarantee of at least one bishop."
[Not surprisingly, the SSPX has also memory-holed yet another piece of evidence of compromise, as this page is no longer up: sspx.org/en/SSPX_FAQs/sspx_2012_general_chapter.htm However, the conditions are preserved here: www.therecusant.com/2012chapter-six-conditions]

Stephen Fox, in his e-book "Is this Operation Suicide" comments on this concession:
In defense of this foolish condition/concession, the SSPX championed an article by Brian Mershon, in which he gives the SSPX rationale for this condition:
There are a number of problems with Mr. Mershon's defense, the biggest of which seems to be a loss of historical context surrounding the episcopal consecrations: Why does he think that after originally requesting a single bishop from Rome, the Archbishop ended up consecrating four? The answer is because what caused him to consecrate against the Pope's "no" was because Rome's stalling tactics caused him to discern that Rome was not acting in good faith.

In other words, so long as the benefit of the doubt regarding Rome's intentions toward Tradition and the SSPX could be plausibly defended, the Archbishop could be satisfied with just one bishop: A Rome well-disposed toward Tradition could always give them another when needed. But a Rome ill-disposed toward Tradition, which was simply waiting for him to die (and Tradition with it), called for another strategy altogether. It called for "Operation Survival," whereby multiple consecrations would preserve the principle of continuity and perpetuity of Tradition.

So historical context provides the explanation (and necessity) of Archbishop Lefebvre's change in strategy, and the number of bishops he deemed necessary to preserve Tradition and the SSPX.

Consequently, it stands to reason that, if Rome is still ill-disposed toward Tradition (as Bishop Fellay sometimes admits, in order to appear appease the troops and faithful: "Here we are then, at Easter 2013, and the situation in the Church remains almost unchanged." sspx.org/en/publications/letters/april-2013-superior-generals-letter-80-1856), then voluntarily consenting to be reduced to a single bishop on the basis of a pre-1988 Lefebvre who at the time of the 1987 Protocol was still willing to allow for the possibility of goodwill in Rome ("I hoped until the last minute that in Rome we would witness a little bit of loyalty." www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/archbishop-lefebvre-said-what-separated-sspx-from-rome-in-1991/), is completely inadmissible.


Obitur Dictum: I can no longer find the Fideliter #79 (January - February 1991) on SSPX.org. Can you?




On February 24, 2014 Bishop Peter Elliott (Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Melbourne Australia) wrote of the following interesting "dialogue" with Bishop Fellay and some priests of the SSPX:
Well, we know that Bishop Fellay was quite pleased with Summorum Pontificum, and that in both the letter to the bishops which accompanied the promulgation of the motu proprio, as well as in a later 2011 letter on the application of the motu proprio authorized by Benedict XVI, it is stated:
What could be clearer?

The apprehension anti-conciliarists entertain about a forthcoming hybrid Mass is anything BUT irrational conspiracy theory.

It is a stated fact by the Holy Father!

Now, if Bishop Fellay does not oppose such innovations as a vernacular TLM, then what is to impede Rome from implementing these foreseen norms and applying them to the SSPX?

All that is really necessary on Bishop Fellay's part is to be patient enough to condition minds to accept it, and those measures have been underway for quite some time:

The inclusion of hymnal books in the pews and sermons encouraging congregational singing; the proliferation of dialogue Masses throughout the SSPX school systems; modifications regarding the postures of the faithful concordant with congregational singing; and even various experimental measures in the most liberal parishes (e.g., Sanford, FL), where the choir leader is positioned at the communion rail versus populum (thereby converting the entire congregation into a choir); the reading of the epistle and Gospel in the vernacular only in various parts of France; etc.

All these emphases tend to reinforce a conciliar notion of "active participation," and once that attitude is inculcated, why, the vernacular is only natural. After all, the people are not Latinists!

All signs point toward a meeting of the minds of Benedict XVI/Francis and Bishop Fellay on this subject, which makes the advent of the hybrid as predictable as it is inevitable.



Shortly after the Letter of the Three Bishops and subsequently, the Response of the General Council were leaked to the internet, former US District Superior, Fr. Arnaud Rostand, went on the attack to denounce the immorality of airing private correspondences:
As regards the sinfulness of leaking private correspondences is concerned, Fr. Rostand's denunciation implicitly acknowledges a superior's decisions must be made in view of the common good. But we know from the Response of the General Council itself that Bishop Fellay explicitly acknowledged that in pursuing a practical accord, he was consciously acting against the common good of the SSPX:
But surely Fr. Rostand is aware that nearly all approved moralists adduce as reasonable cause for the revelation of secrets (i.e., confidential information) "the urgent necessity of either the public or private good." (Prummer, Fr. Dominic. Handbook of Moral Theology, #295). With Bishop Fellay announcing his intention to make a decision against the common good of the public good of the SSPX, there can be no doubt that this criterion was satisfied.

Moreover, as regards reading private letters in particular, Prummer states that,
Obviously, the common good meets the "just cause" threshold.

However, not long after Fr. Rostand's denunciation, Fr. Wailliez (Belgian District Superior) was hacking into the email account of Fr. Olivier Rioult, and having successfully accomplished his task, pretended to be Fr. Nicklaus Pinaud, in order to gain information by which to thwart the budding French speaking Resistance. That whole story can be read here: www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/incredible!-the-neo-sspx-from-persecution-to-identity-theft/

Can Fr. Walliez avail himself of the same cause excusing from sin as whomever leaked the Letter of the Three Bishops and the Response of the General Council (i.e., Can they lay claim to the common good of the SSPX)?

Obviously not: Bishop Fellay acknowledged his decision to sign an accord with unconverted Rome was a decision against the common good of the SSPX. Fr. Wailliez's actions of theft and deceit were taken in the support and furtherance of Bishop Fellay's desire to pursue a canonical "regularization" with unconverted Rome, and his activities had the effect of diminishing the effectiveness of those priests who were still fighting for the common good of the SSPX against the revolutionary new direction of its major superiors.

And even if, somehow, one wanted to argue that point, they will not be able to defend the manifest sinfulness of the lies represented by holding yourself out as another priest in order to obtain information.

It would seem that for the SSPX in pursuit of an accord, the ends justify the means: A virtuous and moral act is denounced as sinful, but on the other hand, a manifestly sinful act aroused no ire ad infra.

Obitur Dictum: Detraction is the sin of revealing the secret sins of another. The sins of Fr. Wailliez do not fall within the domain of "secret," insofar as they have been public for 6 years, and published by others all over the world, and particularly to SSPX and Resistance audiences.

#91: Change (Anti-Feminist Articles Hit the Memory Hole):

On March 28, 2014 the SSPX published an article titled "Defeminization of women continues," published here:

sspx.org/en/news-events/news/defeminization-women-continues-3687

Unfortunately, if you click on that link, you will receive an "Access Denied" message, as the article has been withdrawn from the website.

What was in the article that the SSPX thought twice about publishing?

A caption underneath a picture of a feminist march reveals the PR problem in Rome the SSPX wished to avoid:
In other words, per the branding campaign which rejects criticism of Roman modernism or attacks on Vatican II, this article might have been poorly received in Rome, insofar as it lays the blame for invasive feminism, the collapse of traditional gender roles, and calls it a betrayal of woman's true dignity.

Not the kind of thing you want to say to those you are trying to convince that you have changed!

Curiously, as is the case with many SSPX articles, at bottom there is a list directing the reader to similar content. One of those articles is titled "Is Feminism a Harmful Movement?" That article was once available here: sspx.org/en/feminism-harmful-movement

However, if you click on that link, you once again get an "Access Denied" message.

What was the problem with this article?

Well, with the previous article, the SSPX appeared to be fearful of offending modernist Rome by assigning the blame for feminism to Vatican II. In this latter article, however, there is not a word about Rome or Vatican II. Neither is there any doctrinal error (in fact, the article is classic 1980's SSPX Catholicism from start to finish).

The only plausible reason I can think of to remove the article from circulation is that it contradicts the new open, branded social norms invading the worldly, modern SSPX enclaves, and presents much too stark a contrast between the old and new SSPX:

This old article by Fr. Leo Boyle would be extremely condemnatory toward, say, 100% of the women in the US District office wearing manly attire, or career women bringing you the news on the SSPX YouTube channel (and wearing a business suit to do it), etc.

Consequently, a beautiful article had to hit the memory hole to prevent such comparisons, because remember:
"Rome is taking us as we are!" and "We won't quit preaching the truth in season and out of season!"

But there is an undeniable patters here of suppressing traditional content in favor of projecting a more modern image.

Matthew will be attaching both articles, which his wizardry has been able to salvage from the archives.

Bishop Fellay is a man who learned well from Cromwell the need to move incrementally, and at times, to even declare a setback if necessary to calm nerves and tensions arising from a too hasty entrance into conciliar pluralism. Toward this end, he has frequently declared that "We are back to square one" (or similar words to that effect) in order to mask the concessions and compromises made and received, as if to imply that the SSPX was back to where it was before the ralliement.

However, the more perceptive clergy and faithful noticed that whatever Bishop Fellay may have said about being "back to square one" (or equivalent statements), the situation did not return to the previous status quo: Both Bishop Fellay and modernist Rome retained what they had agreed upon over the years. They simply paused temporarily to recover some little stability before moving forward again.

Note carefully also that Bishop Fellay's frequent claims to being "back to square one" have transpired at critical times for the ralliement process, when opposition has been particularly intense, thereby showing the true purpose for making this demonstrably false claim, once again to calm tensions and create the illusion of returning to s state of pre-ralliement normalcy in the SSPX.

Here are some examples of this technique in action:

1) The leak of the Letter of the Three Bishops: This letter threatened to split the SSPX wide open, clearly demonstrating the internal gulf separating Bishop Fellay from the other three bishops on the subject of "reconciling" with modernist Rome, who, getting cold feet at the 11th hour and fearing the SSPX might depose Bishop Fellay at the upcoming General Chapter a few months later, rejected Bishop Fellay's April 15, 2012 General Chapter Declaration, and proposed a counter-offer it knew the bishop must reject. This Roman ploy created the illusion of Bishop Fellay cancelling the practical accord with Rome, on the false implication that he was standing hard on Tradition. Consequently, at the ordination sermon in Econe on 6/29/2012, Bishop Fellay stated:
But there was no rejection of a merely practical accord; no rejection of the six conditions which paved the way for it; no withdrawal on the part of Rome of canonical jurisdiction to try its own priests; no return to the pre-2012 status quo.


2) The pastoral guidelines for diocesan authority over SSPX marriages: Many more compromises transpired between Rome and the SSPX between 2012 and the March/2017 guidelines: The granting of jurisdiction to hear confessions and tacit approval to ordain priests being the two biggest maneuvers by Rome. So when the pastoral guidelines were announced, it was too blatant a subjection and entanglement in the modernist/conciliar church to disguise, and a revolt ensued. What was left but to sign on the dotted lone?

A couple months later, once again in Econe at a luncheon after the 6/29/2017 ordinations, Bishop Fellay stated:
But had everything really fallen to the ground? Had Rome taken back its ordinary jurisdiction to hear confessions (or did Menzingen renounce it)? Was the SSPX no longer able to ordain priests, administer Extreme Unction, or receive delegations from the diocesan bishops for marriages?

Was not Bishop Fellay telling the world only a few months earlier that he only awaited for Rome's stamp of approval?
novusordowatch.org/2017/01/sspx-bishop-fellay-vatican-stamp-approval/

So we see the technique in action once again, to calm tensions and create the illusion of returning to the pre-ralliement status quo, while in reality it was nothing more than a pause to allow some degree of stability to return before marching forward once more.

Or, as [Tradidi.com] so succinctly explains it:
[Note: I could not find this quote on Tradidi, but it is attributed to them here: tradcatresist.blogspot.com/2018/ -See entry for 11/28/18]



In late June, 2012 three Dominican subdeacons from Avrille, France and three Deacons from the Capuchins of Morgon were among those on retreat, preparing for their forthcoming ordinations to the diaconate and priesthood six days hence (on June 29). Abruptly, they were extracted from among their colleagues, and sent back to their respective monasteries, and told they would no longer be ordained.

What had happened? Had someone come forward regarding impediments to the reception of further major orders? Had their seminary professors second-guessed their former favorable appraisals of the candidates' academic or moral fitness?

On the contrary:

According to what has become known as the Steffeshausen Memorandum, Avrille provides some context to the June 25 letter of the General House in which the postponement of ordinations is announced:

"In the afternoon of 21 June 2012, the Secretary General of the SSPX called the Father Prior of Avrille. After having reproached him for playing in the refectory a sermon of a prior of the SSPX who was hostile to the agreement with Rome, he added, 'Father, if we sign an agreement with Rome, will you follow us?' Father Prior, a little surprised, explained to him that if there were an agreement with Rome, it would be on the basis of the Doctrinal Declaration that Bishop Fellay had sent to Rome in April and that we had not yet even seen. 'Indeed, you are not familiar with this text, but I cannot tell you about it. You must trust us.'

Father Prior asked him for two days to reflect on the matter, which he obtained with difficulty.

The next day on June 22, at 9:26 AM, without waiting for the two days to pass, we received a fax from Bishop Fellay, followed by an email from the Secretary General, informing us of the refusal to ordain to the diaconate the three brothers who were to be ordained at Econe on 29 June. Bishop Fellay wrote in his fax:
Fr. Thouvenot wrote in his email:
A circular letter from the general House to SSPX priests et al by Fr. Christian Thouvenot explained the reason for cancelling the ordinations:
Note that the scriptural citation adduced as a justification for the postponement of ordination is neither here nor there: The moral and intellectual fitness for the reception of Holy Orders which this passage pertains to had long since been ascertained by the superiors of the various candidates. In fact, the stated justification of ensuring loyalty of the respective communities to Menzingen follows nearly as a non-sequitur.

But were not these communities independent and exempt from the jurisdiction of the SSPX bishops? How then could the loyalty of their independent and exempt communities be adduced as grounds for withholding ordinations, when Archbishop Lefebvre had stated on 4/27/81 that he did not want to be Master General of the Dominicans, whereas in October/2012 at the Benedictine monastery at Bellaigue, Bishop de Galarreta informed Father Prior that he must consider Bishop Fellay as taking the place of the Master General of the Order? (Ibid., p.9)

This illegitimate arrogation of "authority" represented a raw and unjust departure from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre with regard to the religious communities.

Moreover, to withhold ordination on the basis of these communities' fidelity to the Church and Tradition, and refusing to go along with Bishop Fellay's revolution and sellout is objectively an indefensible abuse of the episcopacy, in the case where the ordinands are all adjudged to be perfectly fit candidates for major orders.

Consequently, the postponement tactic of Bishop Fellay was nothing more than coercion or spiritual blackmail, having nothing to do with the fitness of the candidates, whatever pretext Bishop Fellay may have tried to create with the reference to I Tim. 5, 22.

PS: It would not be the last time Bishop Fellay would abuse his authority in this manner. In 2016, the Capuchins had recently published a book explaining why a deal with unconverted Rome was not acceptable. Soon thereafter, they sided with the 7 French Deans, who wrote a letter of opposition to the SSPX's acceptance of the 2017 "Pastoral guidelines" subjecting SSPx marriages to conciliar authority. Consequently, Bishop Fellay reverted to his extortion tactics, threatening for a 2nd time to withhold ordinations from Morgon. You can read about that incident here: tradidi.com/menzingen-refuses-to-ordain-the-capuchins-deacons




On July 16, 2006 Bishop Fellay's Letter to the Faithful announced that:
We have already discussed whether or not Bishop Fellay received from Rome what he had requested, and concluded in the negative in post #71 of this thread.

Our concern here is to consider the sincerity of the request made in this first Rosary Crusade.

Why?

Because this announcement was made in July/2006, but only three months later, while the Rosary Crusade was still in progress, Bishop Fellay spoke of the "imminent arrival of a motu proprio which would replace that of 1988 so as to give more freedom to the Mass, an equal right to the new Mass."
(Cor Unum #85) (*)

And then, of course, in July 2007, the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum was promulgated (i.e., almost exactly one year after Bishop Fellay's announcement of the first Crusade.

The obvious concern here is that, with Bishop Fellay's October admission that he expected an imminent motu proprio, it makes it look like Bishop Fellay had called for a Crusade to effect an end already agreed upon, and more than this, that the purpose of the Crusade was not so much to bring about the already agreed upon result, but to make it look as though the Blessed Virgin herself was in support of the reconciliation process (a suggestion that Bishop Tissier explicitly denied, as quoted in post #15 of this thread).

Is there some other explanation? Had Bishop Fellay learned of the imminence of the forthcoming motu proprio sometime between the July announcement launching the Crusade, and his October announcement? Or, had Bishop Fellay launched the Crusade merely in the hopes that Rome would follow through on a promise made to him?

Possibly, but in light of the tremendous scandal caused by the Crusade(s), of which the general House was surely aware, one would have expected that if such were the case, the SSPX would have clarified (particularly in the wake of Fr. Rioult's book The Impossible Reconciliation, wherein this timeline is laid out, and of which the General House was also well aware).

That they did not strengthens such a reading of events, and particularly in light of similar "incongruities" in the subsequent Rosary Crusades, of which we shall now discuss.

(*) I have not yet been able to secure the French version of Cor Unum from Which Fr. Rioult surely quoted from, but I do have the Spanish version, and as you can see, it is substantially (nearly identically) the same, stating:




#95: Compromise (The Second Rosary Crusade):

On October 23, 2008 in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors #73, Bishop Fellay announced a second Rosary Crusade, this time, to offer Our Lady 1 million chaplets to obtain the "withdrawal"(*) of the "excommunications" through her intercession, and this time, he wanted it quickly:
Not even three months later, on January 21, 2009 the Blessed Virgin had (allegedly) answered, and Bishop Fellay held in his hands a decree from the Congregation for Bishops "lifting" the "excommunications." www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

By January 29, Bishop Fellay explained in an interview with Libero that:

"We were embraced. Then, first of all, I gave thanks to the Blessed Virgin; it is her gift. It was to obtain her intercession that we gathered together more than one million, seven hundred thousand (1,700,000) Rosaries that had been recited by the faithful who desired the revocation of the excommunications."
-Rioult, Fr. Olivier. The Impossible Reconciliation, p. 22 (2013 English-language edition)

But it remains unclear how, once again, Bishop Fellay can attribute the "withdrawal" of the excommunications to Our Lady as a result of the Rosary Crusade, when he himself attributed the measure to his negotiations with Cardinal Hoyos as far back as 2005:
What is this double-mindedness which can simultaneously acknowledge the result was inevitable (even if the exact day was in question), based on negotiations and assurances from Rome, cook up a quick Rosary Crusade to make it appear that the Blessed Virgin wants a deal, and then attribute to her what had already been prearranged?

But that was Bishop Fellay's story, and he was sticking to it, as he recounted in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors #74 a couple months later:
Not expecting that which you acknowledge you had been expecting for the last two years?

In the words of Fr. Alphonsus Rodriguez, it would seem that some men are as far from telling a lie, as they are from telling the truth.

-The decree had been assured for at least 2 years;

-The decree left Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer "excommunicated" (In fact, they were not even mentioned in the request!);

-The decree as promulgated implies that the "excommunications" were valid all along, but were remitted as an act of mercy.

If the Blessed Virgin is the cause of the decree, then has she not therefore implicitly condemned the apostolate of Archbishop Lefebvre?

Of course, this is impossible, unless we were deceived to have supported Archbishop Lefebvre all along.


(*): Only six months prior, in his April 14, 2008 Letter to Friends and Benefactors #72, Bishop Fellay was "still asking the Holy Father to annul the 1988 decree of excommunication..." Somehow, by October, the request had morphed from "annul" to "withdraw." Had Bishop Fellay received word from Rome regarding how they were willing to word the document, and modified his request/terminology accordingly? archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/sup_gen_ltr_72.pdf



In the Bizarro World which is the neo-SSPX, everything is today the opposite of the way it was under Archbishop Lefebvre, as the Society finally comes to terms with Vatican II 55 years after the fact.

The latest account comes to us from England, where it appears that the General House took offense at the decision of the SSPX sisters to abstain from attending the visit of Bishop Egan to the SSPX St. Michael's School.

The problem was not so much the perceived lack of "courtesy," which will surely be used as a stick to beat the sisters with, or even the (well-deserved) embarrassment the abstention may have caused Fr. Brucciani. The real problem was the setback to the ralliement the sisters' abstention may have caused by showing Rome that the SSPX was not yet sufficiently purified of all resistance (even if it is only its women doing any fighting these days).

Here is the official SSPX announcement from Fr. Brucciani:
What a bizarre state of affairs in the neo-SSPX, where nuns are punished for desiring to protect themselves from modernism, whereas in the days of Archbishop Lefefbvre, he clearly lauded them for spurning the visits of diocesan, infected bishops.

For example, Bishop Tissier describes the unanimous strength of the sisters, who were all categorically opposed to any kind of arrangement (or even contact) with infected bishops and modernist Rome:
And again:
Well, Fr. Brucciani and Fr. Bouchacourt wanted the visit of Bishop Egan, and in fact, the sisters are now divided.

The more the SSPX adulterates itself with infected modernist Rome, contracting its spiritual AIDS and diverging from the path laid out by Archbishop Lefebvre, the more they suffer the fate he predicted.

Their infidelity has made him a prophet, but at their own expense.




In post #86 regarding SSPX-Ecclesia Dei convergence, we supplied a 2014 article from Sean Johnson, which explained the former refusal of SSPX and Ecclesia Dei pilgrimages to have any interaction, and which included something of a "prophetic" forecast:
Well, in 2019 they are not yet marching together, but the SSPX just took a big step in that direction.

This account from the French Resistance forum tells the story:
resistance.vraiforum.com/t877-Jubile-et-saintete-conciliaires-a-Cotignac.htm


"A thousand FSSPX pilgrims deceived by their pastors

We will consult with interest the report of FSSPX-News on the pilgrimage of March 10 to Cotignac (Var) for the 500th anniversary of these apparitions:
fsspx.news/fr/jour-de-graces-a-cotignac-46148

The process of discreet rallying, in small steps, is therefore continuing before our eyes.

A thousand pilgrims of the Fraternity came "to seek the plenary indulgence attached this year to the sanctuary".

To obtain it, we made the "jubilee journey" approved by the "good" bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, Mgr Dominique Rey. And seven pergolas were piously recollected "presenting the life and spirituality of saints of the 19th and 20th centuries, illustrating three by three the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: Padre Pio, Maximilien Kolbe, Elisabeth of the Trinity, Louis and Zélie Martin..." These are certainly excellent examples, but... with the exception of St Gemma Galgani and St Maria Goretti, all beatified or canonized by the Counciliar Popes according to the new procedures in force, those that have also made it possible to "canonise" John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II without difficulty, not to mention Bishop Oscar Romero!

To make matters worse, the FSSPX-News report "forgets" to specify that the false "Saint John Paul II" also appears in the seventh pergola of the journey, as an "artisan of peace through his travels" and an illustration of the gift of Wisdom of the Spirit !

This can be checked at: www.nd-de-graces.com/les-saints-du-jubile/

One can imagine the painful surprise of the pilgrims still attached to Archbishop Lefebvre, to see themselves dragged by their pastors along such a "path" of adulterated holiness, and to have to publicly venerate the memory of the one who excommunicated the Founder of the Fraternity!

As we can see, the subtle "traditional-conciliar" mixture led by the General House is now working perfectly: after Bishop Huonder, who will soon be welcomed in Switzerland for his retirement, and the visit of the Bishop of Portsmouth, Bishop Egan, to a FSSPX school in England, we will have had the consensual, indulgent and "peaceful" pilgrimage of the FSSPX to Cotignac.

The Conciliar Church and its representatives must no longer be made "angry", such is the instruction inherited from the betrayal of the 2012 Chapter, such is the line inaugurated by Bishop Fellay, conscientiously followed by his successor Pagliarani and the leaders of the current neo-Fraternity.

Thus, day after day, the spirit of resistance to the new religion of Vatican II is blunted; thus, little by little, in general indifference, the precious heritage of Archbishop Lefebvre is being squandered.

In this miserable manoeuvre, Fr de Jorna lent his authority as Superior of the District of France, ... he who was considered a strict, doctrinal, and courageous priest!

But only those who are willing are deceived...
________________________________________

CMS
Source: Catholic Fidelity Forum

on FSSPX-News:
in the "..." there are therefore in particular:
"Mother Teresa (1910 - 1997). Nobel Peace Prize winner.Found the Missionaries of Charity."
"St. Faustina (1905 - 1938. Apostle of mercy."
"St John Paul II (1920 - 2005). Peacemaker through his travels."
"Bl Chiara Luce Badano (1971-1990). Committed to the Focolare, for unity."




The old SSPX taught us that all revolution inevitable consumes itself, with the initial generation of revolutionaries laying down new principles, and subsequent generations taking those new principles to their logical conclusion, thereby going further than even the original revolutionaries desired or foresaw. The classic example of this was the battle between the Girondists and Jacobins of the French Revolution (the Girondists appearing "moderate" in comparison to the Jacobins, who grabbed from them the revolutionary principles and developed them to their terrible but inevitable conclusion). In the ecclesiastical realm of the post-conciliar Church, we see the same dynamic between the liberals (Kung, Congar, von Balthasar, Paul VI, Bugnini, et al) and conservatives (Ratzinger, Burke, Schneider, Brandmuller, Mueller, et al), with the latter moving in the same direction as the former, but at a slower pace, and trying to paint the revolution with a Catholic veneer, but gutting the religion of its former self all the same.

If, then, the SSPX has embraced the conciliar revolution, we would expect to see the same phenomena transpiring within the Society, and following the model above, it would do so at an increasingly accelerated pace: From "discreet but not secret" beginnings, quietly contradicting Archbishop Lefebvre behind closed doors while preaching tough sermons to maintain appearances in the years from 1997 - 2006, to achieving practical steps toward the accomplishment of a cohabitation with modernist Rome from 2006 - 2012, to open divergence with the Founder from 2012 to the present.

And of course, the evidence of the revolution lies in the casualties along the way: the expulsion or resignation of 70 +/- priests; the rupture of relations with formerly allied religious communities; the suppression of any questioning of the reorientation of the Society reminiscent of Holocaust denial laws in Germany; the 100+ documented changes, contradictions, and compromises which comprise this thread.

In this post, we focus on a very specific manifestation of the SSPX revolution overtaking itself: A new mindset (de facto and unofficial, but seemingly operative) prevailing in the minds of the superiors and capitulants convened at the 2018 General Chapter, explicated by certain assertions made by the Secretary General and 1st Assistant to the Superior General, by which the General Chapter seems to have lost or relinquished its authority to hold deliberative power to decide on an accord with Rome (as declared at the 2012 general Chapter), and had this authority transferred to the Superior General.

But we must first go back in time a bit to track the progression of the SSPX revolution, and make it more visible:

In 2006, the SSPX General Chapter Declaration announced:
That statement reflected the post-consecration position of Archbishop Lefebvre that a practical agreement with unconverted Rome:
But shortly thereafter, Rome and the SSPX began implementing the agreement to "proceed by stages" toward a practical accord agreed upon in 2000. With the reign of Bishop Fellay freshly secured for another 12 years, it was time pretend Rome was moving toward Tradition by complying with the SSPX's preconditions. But it appears nobody ever considered either that Rome could grant the two conditions as a maneuver, while still remaining hostile to Tradition, or, as was in fact the case, that Rome could pretend to grant the two conditions, with the SSPX pretending along with them, as though checking tasks to be accomplished off a "to do" list, and after having gone through the motions, propose these maneuvers demonstrated a change in Rome which demanded a new response from the SSPX in kind.

So, by the time the 2012 General Chapter had rolled around, the SSPX had convinced most of its clergy and faithful that Rome had granted the two preconditions, engaged in doctrinal discussions, and was now ready to grant the SSPX everything it wanted...but without Rome moving one inch in the direction of Tradition.

It was based upon this pretext that the 2012 General Chapter overturned the operative principle of 2006 with regard to a "reconciliation" with conciliar Rome, and declared:
The pertinent point of the Declaration quoted, for the purposes of this post, is not so much that in laying down conditions for a practical accord with unconverted Rome, the 2012 Chapter had directly contradicted that of 2006 (revolutionary in its own right), but that it had determined that in the event of such a sellout, it would be the affirmative vote of the General Chapter which would authorize it.

This was also explained by the Society shortly before the 2012 General Chapter:
But with the former principle of no practical agreement before the conversion of Rome overturned, the revolution accelerated (as so many examples of contradiction, change, and compromise in this thread amply demonstrate), and by the time the 2018 General Chapter had arrived, even the requirement and authority of the General Chapter to authorize the betrayal had fallen to the revolution, with the Superior General now arrogating to himself sole decision making authority to hand the keys to the castle over to unconverted Rome, with the groundwork for this transition of authority being laid just one month before the 2018 General Chapter by Fr. Christian Thouvenot (Secretary General) in an interview with Mitteilungsblatt:
And at roughly the same time, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger (then 1st Assistant to Bishop Fellay) was explaining to Catholic Family News that:
Bishop Williamson was quick to react to the suggestion that the Superior General along possessed deliberative power regarding a deal with Rome:
But nobody seemed to challenge this new suggestion, and it appears never to have occurred to any who have since accepted this de facto transition of authority that, if Frs. Thouvenot and Pfluger were correct, then the 2012 general Chapter was itself guilty of violating a principle attributed to Archbishop Lefebvre, in illegitimately delegating this decision making authority to the deliberative vote of the General Chapter!

If one reads the various SSPX communiques during and after the 2018 General Chapter (e.g., announcements regarding election results, or what passes for a general Chapter Declaration), no official or de jure announcement of such a transition of authority is mentioned. It seems instead to have been a passively accepted "spirit" (just like at Vatican II), insofar as the statements immediately before the Chapter by the Secretary General and 1st Assistant to the Superior General are nowhere contradicted by any of the capitulants.

Consequently, the revolution has progressed nicely, and the General Chapter -de facto- now has the appearance, at least with regard to relations with Rome, of being nothing more than an executive body convened to rubber stamp the will of the Superior general:

In 2006, no practical accord was possible. In 2012, it become possible, but any decision to come to a canonical agreement were the business of a General Chapter(*), and authorized only by an affirmative deliberative vote. By 2018, according to the suggestions of Frs. Pfluger and Thouvenot, it seems to have become the sole business of the Superior General to decide on a deal with Rome.

When the time comes for the SSPX to sign the definitive accord (Something Fr. Pagliarani has announced his desire to achieve in reopening negotiations/discussions with Rome), can anyone imagine a General Chapter, which gives every appearance of having acquiesced in these suggestions, opposing the will of the Superior general?

Consequently, the door is open for the revolution to continue on its merry way, and right in to the conciliar church.


(*): Note that some have observed that, by the signing of the 2012 April 15 Doctrinal Declaration (the day after rejecting the appeal of the three other SSPX bishops not to), Bishop Fellay had already violated, circumvented, and pre-empted the General Chapter's authority to call for a deliberative vote prior to an accord with Rome, which did not convene for another three months.



When in February of 2012, Bishop Fellay "came out" with his abrupt announcement that he would accept a practical accord with modernist Rome, so long as there were "no strings attached," it served as a rather rude awakening to SSPX clergy and faithful who were struggling to be obedient to both him and Archbishop Lefebvre. Faced with a litany of well known sermons, interviews, books, and conferences all seeming to condemn what Bishop Fellay had just announced, it soon became apparent that, just as in the battle between the SSPX and conciliar church, we were now forced to resist Bishop Fellay's reorientation of the SSPX in order to be found faithful to Tradition and Archbishop Lefebvre (i.e., to retain the true Faith).

In response, Menzingen would seek to stifle the conversation, first by exhorting the clergy and faithful to abstain from the internet (where the conversation still rages), and then by punishing those priests (and some lay faithful) who pointed out the contradiction between Archbishop Lefebvre's position and Bishop Fellay's, while simultaneously unleashing his own cadre of accordist apologists (among whom Fr. Simoulin, Fr. Celier, Fr. Themann, Fr. Schmidberger, Fr. Laisney, and a bit later Fr. Robinson were preeminent) who sought to explain away the contradiction as no contradiction at all. [For an example of discouraging being informed, see this article: sspx.org/en/news-events/news/%E2%80%9Cneed%E2%80%9D-know-all-vs-peace-soul-3073]

One of these arguments was, amazingly, that Archbishop Lefebvre never required the conversion of Rome back to Tradition before he would consider a practical accord.

The following argument by Fr. Simoulin explains it:
This caricature of an Archbishop Lefebvre who merely went to Rome -even from 1988 on- to carve out an approved apostolate for Tradition is not supported by the historical record, and stands contradicted by the fact that there is such a thing in existence called "the Resistance" today, the genesis of which arose precisely because the rupture with Archbishop Lefebvre's position was detected by those most faithful sons who were not deceived, and/or would not allow themselves to be lulled to sleep by "finessed" and "nuanced" historical revisionism regarding Archbishop Lefebvre's position vis-a-vis Rome from the time he determined to consecrate bishops.

However, Archbishop Lefebvre was quite clear on his position, once he understood the Romans had no intention of working for the reestablishment of Tradition, which was most famously expressed in the November-December 1988 issue of Fideliter:
Well, apparently not clear enough.

The revisionists nuanced this argument by seizing upon the phrase "supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions..." They argue that this phrase evinces an Archbishop Lefebvre still willing to negotiate for an agreement with unconverted Rome, and consequently, that openness to such an agreement with unconverted Rome demonstrates Bishop Fellay has not deviated from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Of course, this clever interpretation necessarily leaves out of consideration all that follows, in which Archbishop Lefebvre not only requires the conversion of Rome before an agreement was possible, but even before any discussions were possible: "As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless."

This point is drawn out even more explicitly in another interview Archbishop Lefebvre gave a few months later to Controverses in 1989:
How is this not Archbishop Lefebvre demanding the return of Rome to Tradition before an agreement is possible? In truth, Archbishop Lefebvre is going even further than that: He is requiring the conversion of Rome before he will even sit down to doctrinal discussions with them!

But let's continue providing examples of Archbishop Lefebvre's position that there can be no agreement before Rome converts:
Obviously, to re-throne Our Lord requires the rejection of religious liberty and ecumenism, which would again require the conversion of Rome to Tradition.

But if the Romans have continued to try to bring the Society toward the Council (something they have repeatedly explained to Bishop Fellay), obviously they have not converted to Tradition, for which reasons Archbishop Lefebvre says we cannot have relations with them.

And in a letter to the four bishops-elect, Archbishop Lefebvre explained to them when the proper time to come to an agreement with Rome would be:
Was Benedict this “perfectly Catholic pope"? Is Francis?

And of course, in Lefebvre's Spiritual Journey (his final book, completed just weeks before his death):
Yet Fr. Simoulin and company want me to believe that post-1988 Archbishop Lefebvre never required the conversion of Rome before signing an agreement?

In the next installment, we shall see how the accordists proposed to deal with this mountain of contradictions.



In the previous post, we provided several quotes to rebut the claim of Fr. Simoulin et al. that Archbishop Lefebvre never required the conversion of Rome before considering a practical accord. Of course, we are speaking of Archbishop Lefebvre from the time he had determined to consecrate bishops in 1988, until his death in March - 1991.

But consider that Bishop Fellay had been maneuvering for precisely such an accord since at least 1997, with his sponsorship of SSPX participation in the GREC. It would be naive to believe in all those years of discussions with the GREC, meetings with Rome, and the eventual plan to "proceed by stages" toward a "reconciliation" following upon the 2000 SSPX pilgrimage to Rome that it never occurred to him (or any of his accordist associate and confreres) that eventually he was going to run into the stumbling block of Archbishop Lefebvre's well known position.

How to move beyond all those well known quotes, and the operative principle vis-a-vis relations with Rome which had governed those relations for 20 years?

The "solution" or blueprint was provided by the shadowy and subversive figure of Fr. Gregoire Celier, whom we discussed in post #69 of this thread, with regard to his 2007 book Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists, which the French District Superior (Fr. Regis de Cacqueray) heavily promoted throughout France.

In 2014, the US District excised an excerpt from Fr. Celier's book, and formed it into an article titled "How to Interpret Archbishop Lefebvre." sspx.org/en/how-interpret-archbishop-lefebvre

The introduction to that article explains that Fr. Celier's thoughts have been adopted by Bishop Fellay, removing all speculation and doubt on that point:
What was this "methodology," which would help circumvent Archbishop Lefebvre's prohibition on negotiating a practical accord with modernist Rome?

Fr. Celier rightly explains one principle in understanding the thoughts of another is to determine whether they are systematic thinkers, or pragmatic thinkers:
There is no problem with the principle as such, but it is in the application of this principle that the "magic" happens:

By being correctly labeled a pragmatic thinker, and therefore subject to change and seeming incoherence as circumstances dictate, the permanence and immutability of the 1988 and post-1988 position of Archbishop Lefebvre vis-a-vis Rome suddenly becomes questionable again: After all, they say, "who can really say whether Archbishop Lefebvre would maintain his 1988-1991 position according to circumstances in 2000, 2012, or 2019? After all, he was a pragmatic thinker!"

Consequently, the SSPX, in reliance upon the subversive scheming of Fr. Celier, treated the faithful to articles like Fr. Simoulin's "We Cannot be 88ers," in which it is alleged that:
Translation: Archbishop Lefebvre's positions were good for his times, but nobody can say that he would hold the same position in today's circumstances, because as Fr. Simoulin states in a completely solipsistic swoon:
Even Bishop Fellay's conciliar allies like Bishop Athanasius Schneider took the cue, declaring that today Archbishop Lefebvre would certainly sign a deal:
Archbishop Lefebvre was practical, you see, and today he would see how much better things are, and what a great deal he was getting!

But here is the truth of the matter:

-There is no doubt that Fr. Celier's principle of distinguishing between systematic and pragmatic thinkers is a legitimare hermeneutic;

-There is no doubt that, of the two types of thinkers, Archbishop Lefebvre was pragmatic;

-However, it is not the Resistance, but Menzingen, Fr. Celier, and the accordists of the SSPX who have failed to properly assess how, when, and why Archbishop Lefebvre's pragmatic propensity to react to changing circumstances actually manifested itself, which was this:

#105: Contradiction (SSPX Raising Money for the FSSP!):

Several entries in this compilation have highlighted the neo-SSPX's abandonment of Archbishop Lefebvre's opposition to collaboration with the "regularized" former traditionalists, such as the FSSP, et al.

It is important to recall the primary causes of the Archbishop's opposition to this collaboration, which ran quite a bit deeper than mere sour grapes over their abandonment of the fight for the restoration of Tradition:

1) Those communities all compromised at the level of doctrine, in trading legal recognition and the permission to say the old Mass for accepting the hermeneutic of continuity with regard to the documents of Vatican II (and the errors those documents contain, such as religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism).

2) In doing so, they hurt the Church, and its chances for recovery, because they no longer represent a corrective challenge to the modernists in Rome (and the modernist hierarchy worldwide).

3) And consequently, in thinking themselves to have cut a deal for their own particular good, they have deceived themselves.

Consequently, for these reasons, to collaborate with such groups is to imply an approval of their compromise, which presents a scandal to the faithful who strive not to make the same compromise, and work for the restoration of Tradition to the Church (and churchmen).

It is for all these reasons, Arhcbishop Lefebvre said that the rallied communities are doing the work of the devil, and consequently, were the SSPX to collaborate with these groups, it too would be collaborating in the work of the devil.

Today, a new report reaches us from the French Reconquista blog, which represents an acceleration of SSPX tradcumenism, and a new level of personal involvement and moral culpability on the part of SSPX faithful:

The SSPX Holy Family school in Levis (Quebec) will host a play for the benefit of the Our Lady of Mount Carmel (FSSP/diocesan) school:

SSPX faithful will be made to financially support what Archbishop Lefebvre called "the devil's work," thus incurring direct moral collaboration and culpability in the betrayal of Tradition and the Church.

SSPXers raising money for the priests who betrayed Tradition?!

From Reconquista:
[Emphasis as in the original post]