"When the salt loses its flavour..."

For any who might not be familiar with Fr. Ruiz this letter in 2013 explains his position and why he left the neo-SSPX.




Dear Friends in Christ,

Some of you are already aware of my departure and my taking up residence here in St. Joseph's House, here in Mexico. In order to avoid any misunderstanding or perplexity on your part, it is not only important but also necessary for me to give you an explanation of the serious reasons which have created this necessity for me.

Nobody from among you should be ignorant of the very serious motives which have guided what is known as the Traditional movement, present a the beginning in various parts of the world, but now principally in the Society of St. Pius X, the work of an exemplary Bishop, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, who tried to save the values of the Catholic Church from the Modernist invasion which hit the Church of Christ, above all by that which we call Vatican II, and by all the reforms of the Church which this council caused. This attack provoked a totally legitimate defensive movement of faithful Catholics, a movement which is in itself very natural and necessary. The struggle, the war against the doctrinal errors of the modern world which was waged by the Popes of the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries, by Pope St. Pius X in particular, is the same one which we wished to take on and try to wage in our turn.

Nonetheless, those Traditionalists in particular who have known the beginning of this fight are the ones to state that our superiors have lowered the tone of our demands and of our fight for the defence of the Faith. To begin with, it was argued that this was a means of converting Rome: not only the fact of no longer denouncing as strongly the deviations of Churchmen, but also a way of coming closer and closer to the official Church. The question is: is all this a proportionate means of converting Rome? Or is it a mere illusion? Can one convert someone to the truth by hiding that same truth? Can one convert someone by leaning in the direction of their errors and dialectic?

With increasing concern, we see on the part of many SSPX priests and faithful, as well as allied religious orders, an omission which takes on ever greater and more misleading proportions. A silence which is more and more noticeable.

The fact is that the Romans have renounced not one of their very serious errors of Vatican II, nor the New Mass (Novus Ordo Missae), nor any one of the reforms which are a consequence of this Council and which affect the life of the whole Church. Rome has merely made some concessions of a political nature to bring the Society closer, little concessions which are not sufficient to serve as proof that there has been a real change of direction in Rome, in other words in the direction of Tradition. Quite the contrary, we find in all these negotiations and dialoguing a diplomacy which is full of duplicity. We cannot base our important decisions solely on rumours or facts which comprise no proof at all of the churchmen's conversion.

The fact is that, despite the famous failure of the doctrinal discussions, supposedly conducted in order to convert Rome, (and which remain unpublished to this day), we are still trying to go full steam ahead towards an agreement with Rome at any price, in extremely dangerous conditions. And to crown it all, there are already today those who think that the Society ought to make an agreement to submit Rome, whether or not Rome has converted! ("I would even say that, in front of this sublime reality, any talk of whether or not we have an agreement with Rome is a trifling matter... defending the Faith, keeping the Faith, dying in the Faith, that's what's important!" - Bp. Fellay, Paris, 30th January, 2013) But perhaps we want to be dependent on those who do not have the same Catholic principles as us? Is it possible to have a good pastoral ministry without having good doctrine? Perhaps those who do not have sound doctrine could be in charge of the Traditionalist pastoral ministry? How can we understand one another regarding practice of the Faith if we do not have the same principles regarding Faith and Morals? Perhaps Francis, the new Pope, didn't begin his Pontificate by recommending a book by the heretic Kasper in his Urbi et Orbi in St. Peter's Square! And wouldn't it be a very pious idea to live in a cave with Ali Baba and the 40 thieves in order to convert Ali Baba and the 40 thieves...? A very pious idea, full of realism...!

The conclusions of the Society's last General Chapter have only dramatically confirmed our fears, because in its official conclusion the leaders of the Society declared what will be the six conditions for us to accept an agreement with Rome or a 'regularisation' inside the Roman system. According to these, three are necessary, and the three others "desirable", which means that even if the Pope doesn't let us have them, we will still accept the "agreement". I might mention at this point that one of the "desirable" conditions isn't really a condition. Much could be said about these conditions, but the worst is to be found in the first of these three "desirable" conditions: the decisions of our ecclesiastical tribunals could be overturned by the tribunals of the conciliar Church; and with our agreement too! In other words, they with their modernist principles would make decisions affecting the pastoral ministry of Traditional priests! What's more, in the second "desirable" condition we accept the possibility of having to depend on local bishops, even though we're well aware of the extent to which they would like to have an opportunity to make us submit to the ideas and pastoral practice of Vatican II. A real programmed suicide of Tradition! In addition, in the third of these conditions we also accept the possibility of the man in charge of the commission which represents us to the Pope not being himself a Traditionalist. But how could someone who does not think like us, and who is not one of us, represent us? Fr. Mario Trejo, the District Superior of Mexico, recently said in the Dictrict newsletter ('Dios Nunca Muere', no.41, p.7) that in the declaration of the last General Chapter of the Society, "Every phrase, every word was weighed and examined in order to give testimony to the Faith of all time." Well, with these conditions, how can the Faith of all time be defended by people who no longer profess it?

In any case, it has now become clear that there is now a new attitude towards Rome and its errors on the part of those who now run the SSPX, a new position full of omissions and ready to make very serious compromises which, even if it hasn't yet been brought about, brings to light a more than worrying state of mind. There is a gradual omission of any reference to our combat, or the objectives which Abp. Lefebvre gave the Society, which are at the same time the reason for our existence and the justification for the 'state of necessity' through which we are able to exercise our priestly ministry. If a 'state of necessity' does not exist, our disobedience to Rome is not theologically justified, likewise, the obedience to authority demmanded so much by our superiors in the Society would no longer be justified.

An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the document in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."

Abp. Lefebvre counselled against going to Indult Masses as well as those groups with an atmosphere such as the Fraternity of St. Peter, because such atmospheres are corrupted at their root, in the sense that what is taught and promoted in the short- or long-term tends towards assimilation with the conciliar Church. But if the Society of St. Pius X changes its spirit and its objectives, could it not also end up being in a similar state, equal or worse, even if the agreement with Rome has, for the moment, not been made concrete?

I myself have commented on how many priests have changed their attitude towards the combat of Tradition against the enemy, and unfortunately this has been more frequently the case with new priests. I am myself a victim of this new line from our superiors, a line full of omissions about struggle and our combat. Already, they're not seeing many enemies in Rome; optimism has little by little replaced the distrust which one ought naturally to feel towards the destroyers of the Church. My District Superior, Fr. Mario Trejo has forbidden me to speak about these subjects: not just in sermons, but also in private! Whether it be with the faithful or with other priests, and that with the threat of transfer and severe punishments.

And since I cannot accomplish my mission as a priest from within the Society, a mission which consists of showing forth the truth and denouncing danger which threatens souls, I have decided to continue my ministry outside the structure of the Society, although I continue to be a member of it, and this is for the good of the faithful who are in Mexico City and who wish to have recourse to my priestly ministry. I hope that you, as well as my fellow priests, will understand the reasons for this serious decision.

May God, through Our Lady of Guadalupe, bless and enlighten you,

Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo, SSPX
22nd March, 2013
In memory of the Seven Dolours of Our Lady.

Source