Who are the true subversives?

July 24, 2014

It is not without difficulty that we hear that priests who have left or been dismissed from the fraternity of Bishop Fellay are subversive elements and that as such they deserved to be excluded from this society because that a society divided against itself can not survive.


The premise is true (no society possible in division) but it remains to look for how and by whom division has entered what was the great and last bastion of faith.


It must be emphasized that division has first entered into intelligence.


Since its founding until 2012 the Society of St. Pius X held this principle that it was not possible to submit to a pontifical authority until it was really converted.


This simple principle, posited as a cornerstone of the combat of faith, had been luminously engraved in the marble by Archbishop Lefebvre: the latter enjoined the four bishops, who were freshly crowned, to put their episcopate back into the hands of the pontiff only when he was fully converted.


Unfortunately this common sense principle was questioned and rejected by the priests and bishops of the 2012 [General] Chapter.


Bishop Fellay's Fraternity entered logically, at that moment, into a completely subversive phase. Let us explain.


The theoretical principle of submission to ecclesiastical authority without its conversion is a false and even revolutionary principle; it is thus that the adherents currently subsist in the Conciliar Church. They pretend to agree with authority and submit to it in many ways but give themselves the right to criticize it on very serious matters. Is not that absurd? Is it not destroying the notion of authority?


Archbishop Lefebvre very rightly invited the seminarians to leave the seminary if they did not agree with him on the important questions. We see the wisdom of the bishop and his deep understanding of authority.


This is exactly what the theoretical decisions of the Chapter of 2012 now invite the priests of the Fraternity (Bishop Fellay): To submit oneself to Rome and to the Conciliar Pope, but to give oneself the right to criticize them.


Incidentally, a priest from this Fraternity was recently threatened with expulsion if he continued to criticize his superior (Bishop Fellay). Why should not this priest have the right to criticize Bishop Fellay if he has the right to criticize the pope? Would Bishop Fellay have become more infallible and impeccable than the Pope?


This subversive logic thus penetrates the Fraternity of Bishop Fellay. This bishop has now proved his strong liberalism (no need to demonstrate it, we refer you to the many studies that have been done on this subject). It is now obvious, for anti-liberal priests, that evil is no longer only in Rome but also at the summit of the FSSPX.


Can these priests keep quiet and not inform the faithful (in public and in private) about acts, words, decisions, maneuvers, lies of Menzingen? It's morally impossible. The priest can not see his flock get lost. He must therefore denounce the wolf who is devouring (spiritually) his sheep. It is necessary to re-read the beautiful treatise "of the duties of the pastor in times of persecution" by the RP Muzarelli.



What can one think of priests who are silent or falsely reassure the faithful? RP Muzarelli, following the Gospel, would say that they are mercenaries and not pastors.


Unfortunately, we have the echo of certain priests who are aware of the tragedy and errors but dissuade good souls from joining the good fight and the priests. Abbot Cacqueray will remain forever the priest who paralyzed all the healthy reaction [against the new direction of the SSPX]. Catholic history will retain only that of its superiority.