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

« Prev
1
Next »

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

2018 Archive: The four SSPX Bishops post Arch. Lefebvre? May 13, 2018 21:55:22 GMT

Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 21:55:22 GMT

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

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

The answer is a documented NO!

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

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

First some background:

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

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

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

The entire world of "Tradition" woke up betrayed!

Bishop Tissier

At the time of 2012 Bishop Tissier resided in the Seminary of Econe. Many priests and seminarians asked him for counsel what to do. Bishop Fellay caught wind of this and immediately transferred him with strict house arrest (censored calls, mail, visits, internet) to the small priory in the cold climate crime infested Chicago usa as frail as he is. Fr. Ward (the toughest priest) was transferred to be the prior to enforce this. Bishop Tissier is still there today.

From unprocessed calls and vigilance from the prior, the Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko managed to arrange a visit with Bishop Tissier in July 2013 when the other priests were gone and stated the mind of Bishop Tissier is against the practical deal but will remain quiet under obedience to show an "example" (sic) hoping things will get better. And said the two priests are in "disobedience"; do not leave and so not speak out. He scolded the priests saying they are not the "captains". The two priests reminded him he is the captain (bishop) and must speak -- Bishop Fellay is betraying us. He said no, wait. The priests said if you don't, then the "dogs must bark" (themselves).

Two years later on Jan. 1, 2015, Bishop Tissier gave a sermon beginning to go against the neo-sspx designs. This sermon went viral and Bishop Fellay was angry and put Bishop Tissier of total restriction: no conferences, no sermons, no anything without direct permission from the District superior. In return, Bishop Tissier went coward and scolded the person who recorded that sermon without his "permission" (imagine that). Since that time, Bishop Tissier never said boo again to Menzingen (sic). UNTIL, he compromised with Bishop Fellay. That he did!

Later that year, Bishop Tissier was allowed to give a conference in Oregon usa to promote the SSPX apostolate and allowed to travel to France to visit various sspx houses. These allowances were strange to us until we discovered why. Bishop Tissier gave an interview on March 21, 2016 saying he now accepts the negotiations of Bishop Fellay with modern rome based on a Practical deal (sic).

What is important in this interview is Bishop Tissier described the condition for his change.

#1 He said he is against any agreement to accept Vatican II council and the new mass.

He said the same on September 16th, 2012:

"Never will I agree to say: ‘in the Council, if we interpret it well, yes, perhaps nevertheless, we could make it correspond with Tradition, we could find an acceptable sense.’ Never shall I agree to say that! That would be a lie; it is not permissible to tell a lie, even if it was a question of saving the Church!" (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Gastines, September 16th, 2012).

#2 He said as long as rome "accepts us as we are" he is good with it. We heard that before...it is the coy mantra of Bishop Fellay to fool his followers. Is Bishop Tissier not watching asked our Lord?

Here is an excerpt of his interview:

Question: Now, twenty-five years after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, where is the future of the Society?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
- Things are clearer. During our pilgrimage to Rome in 2000, we experienced the charm offensive on the part of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, who was pushing John Paul II to unilaterally recognize the Brotherhood. Benedict XVI then gave us our two 'pre': recognition of the freedom of the traditional Mass and withdrawal (more or less happy, for us and for him) of the 1988 excommunications. In 2010-2011, we had doctrinal discussions scheduled: and disagree! Our Superior General Bishop Fellay felt good to continue the negotiations and this has caused enough concern among us, until it was clear, in May and June 2012 , Benedict always asked as a condition, as the had said earlier bluntly, the acceptance of the Council and the legitimacy of reforms. It was failure. But now there is obviously the part of Pope Francis, a provision to recognize us without these conditions. "We say Go!" ("Nous disons ‘Pouce !") [1]. Because things are moving and they still need progress.

Archbishop Lefebvre has never posed as a condition of recognition by our new Rome, Rome abandons errors and conciliar reforms. Even if he said something like that to André Cagnon in 1990, he would have never done, because it had never been its policy, strategy with modernist Rome. He was strong in faith, he did not give in on its doctrinal position, but he knew to be flexible, patient, careful, in practice. To achieve his ends, prudence told him to push the opponent, harass, to the back, to persuade, but not block it by requirements still found unacceptable. He did not refuse the dialogue and was willing to take advantage of any door opened by the speaker. It is in this sense that pointed at him a certain opportunism, we spoke of 'pragmatism', and it's true: it's a small annex under the cardinal virtue of prudence, sagacity, a practical wisdom, it is close to the solertia , spoken of Aristotle, St. Thomas (2-2, q. 48, a. unicus ) and 'Gaffiot', which is the ability to find the means to achieve its ends .

Archbishop Lefebvre asked with that sagacity "we are at least tolerated" "It would be a major advance," he said. And "we are accepted as we are," that is to say with our practice that stems from our doctrinal positions. Well, today we see from Rome a provision to support our existence and our theoretical positions and practices. I say 'support' to avoid 'tolerate' because it tolerates bad!

Doctrinally, already, we no longer forces us to admit 'the whole Council' or religious freedom; some errors we denounce is about to be considered by our interlocutors as food for free discussion or debate continued. This is progress. We discuss, but we must admit that we do not change and that it is unlikely that we change. And in practice, we ask these Romans: "Recognize our right right to reconfirm the faithful conditional" and again: "Acknowledge the validity of our marriage! "You see, these are serious irritants. It will be necessary that we recognize these things. Otherwise how would our gratitude livable?

This may take time, but there is a God!

Source: laportelatine.org/publications/entret/2016/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325.php

______________________________________________________

[1] "We say Go!" ("Nous disons ‘Pouce !") are the words Bishop Tissier used shown in the source page. It is very clear in French and French expression to go forward. However strangely enough, Menzingen put out a damage control piece on their other media arm sspx.org to change the word "Pouce" (go) to "Prudence" (prudence). That is, from "Nous disons Pouce !" to "Nous disons Prudence". Why, it is not the same word nor true to form in expression. To hide their agenda? Unwitting Lambs to the slaughter...

There is much to be said in Bishop Tissier's change. The two stand-outs are:

1) He still lives in 1988 and proposes the Moto Propio mindset to take us as we are that Archbishop Lefebvre said the day after he condemned, saying - "I went too far".

-“When I asked why he [Lefebvre] had signed the agreement in the first place, he said: “That’s what they [the chief SSPX priests] all wanted. But then when I was by myself, alone, I realized that we couldn’t trust it.” (Dom Gerard Calvert, Abbot of Le Barraoux, close friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, interview with “30 Days”, Winter 1995)

Fr. Tissier (standing on the right) was one of those chief sspx priests telling the Archbishop to sign.

-
“Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign [the May 5, 1988 Protocol] that you accept everything; and then you can continue as before!’ No! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!”…To ask this of us is to ask us to collaborate in the disappearance of the Faith. Impossible!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “They Have Uncrowned Him” Abp. Lefebvre, ch. 31, p. 230).

-“For them there is no question of abandoning the New Mass. On the contrary. That is obvious. That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“… supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put in conditions. I shall not accept being in the position I was put in during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo X III, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Qua Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communionwith the popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti- Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of the these popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless. Thus, the positions will be clear.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview with Fideliter Magazine, Nov.-Dec. 1988)

Read more here, the Archbishop's Objections to the May 5 Protocol

2) Bishop Tissier also made as a sine qua non to Bishop Fellay before he will accept the practical deal - "Acknowledge the validity of our marriage!"

Hereto we see Bishop Fellay and modern rome all too happy to comply with that request, thus winning over and neutering Bishop Tissier who was the largest obstacle to the SSPX practical deal.

It's Done! On April 2017 both the pope and Bishop Fellay signed the accord here, here, and here. Bishop Tissier is now fully on board with the sellout...based on 30 pieces of silver.

However, Archbishop Lefebvre still said - NO! One does not play with the faith!

Further, MONS. LEFEBVRE RESPONDS:

In a lecture to his seminarians in September 1988:

"I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, (isn’t that right,) did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood, they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations."

Yet, they do not listen.

And too, Bishop Tissier in the same interview DEFENDS the agreement with modernist rome and falsifies Archbishop Lefebvre’s position.

Adding to the fall of Bishop Tissier in that interview was drawn out here.

And what of present? Even though Bishop Tissier disagreed in 1995 (The True Notion of Tradition), he agrees today, thus priming the 2018 SSPX General Council meeting this July, Bishop Fellay keeps him in Chicago under obedience so not to mingle too much to discover the rest of the sellout...we have disclosed throughout.

Before finishing with Bishop Tissier, though not exhausted, it is important to see how duped he had become under a false obedience in reason he says over and over again "he does not accept Vatican II, take us as we are..." but does accept the practical deal with modern rome within the confines of the Vatican II structure. How is that not under Vatican II? The saga continues...

[Addendum below for Bishop Tissier - July 12, 2018]

Adding to the inordinate protection for Bishop Fellay's progressiveness, here is a letter of Bishop Tissier Fr. (Bishop) Faure revealed to the public when he gave a french interview on Sept. 5, 2013. It was revealed to him, as to all the members of the SSPX, by the Secretary General, Father Thouvenot.

Letter from Monsignor Tissier.

Annex to Circular No. 2013-04:

"Winona, Good Friday, March 29, 2013. Dear General Secretary: His Excellency Monsignor Williamson has just published a public letter to the members of the Fraternity of which he is no longer a member . As a testimony of everything that happened last year, I write as follows: Like all the capitulants, Monsignor Williamson received at the end of April 2012, a summary of Monsignor Fellay's "Doctrinal Statement" that he now criticizes, one more year late. He must, like me, calmly express his disagreement.

Several capitulars immediately expressed, as I did, their disapproval of that text to the Superior General. I myself was received in the General House and I was able to manifest the weaknesses and misunderstandings of the "Declaration" sent to Rome. In addition, for the same indignation, I was happy to give an interview to the French newspaper Rivarol on June 1, 2012. But I soon realized that this was only a corrected text of the doctrinal preamble presented on September 14, 2011 by the cardinal. Levada: corrected in extremis by substantial modifications.

So during the interview on June 13, 2012, Cardinal Levada said he rejected this text as "equivocal", since it did not meet the requirement of loyalty of the Fraternity of St. Pius X to the conciliar magisterium. And that day Monsignor Fellay formally rejected the required submission.

Thus, the Doctrinal Declaration is not a text that Monsignor Fellay wrote spontaneously, but rather a document destined by him to avoid the Fraternity the excommunication with which the cardinal threatened it. Despite its weaknesses, this text did not grant anything regarding the authority of the alleged magisterium of the council.

Finally, Monsignor Fellay did not sign this text, which was proposed only for the appreciation of Rome, and upon being rejected by the Roman authorities, the document had no effect. As a consequence, this "Declaration" can not be considered as having committed the FSSPX. The general chapter of July 2012 studied this text; the capitulars had all the freedom to denounce their weaknesses, which I did not stop doing on my part. And it was tacitly concluded that there was no need to emphasize this matter, as it was clear that the Superior General regretted his misstep and determined to "not do it again," as he told the priests during retreat. priests in September 2012.

I can conclude from these facts, that the publication made by Monsignor Williamson one year later of his criticisms of the "Doctrinal Declaration", as if this had been ignored by the Major Superiors of the SSPX, or as if they had not done anything to to denounce the weaknesses of the Superior General, is an honest procedure that could only have been destined to damage the honor of HE Monsignor Fellay. Actually, it will not hurt more than the honor of Monsignor Williamson ".-

Monsignor Tissier de Mallerais.

Source

Bishop de Galarreta

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

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

www.therecusant.com/open-letter-37priests

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

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

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

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

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

The decision that was made and disclosed on the Vatican Press release: "...it was decided to proceed gradually and over a reasonable period of time in order to overcome difficulties and with a view to the envisioned full reconciliation."

cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/new-press-releases-of-sspx-and-rome-meeting-9-23-14.3433/

This came on the heels of Bishop Fellay describing in a Dici article:

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

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

Of course modern rome was all too accommodating:

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

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

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

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

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

Towards a unilateral recognition of the Society.

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

cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/imminent-recognition-by-rome-of-sspx.3678/#post-6111

And, he said in the same conference:

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

Menzingen was all to happy to hear this. They published his conference in their medias:

Feb.
26, 2016 Dici.org article, Bishop de Galaretta stated in a conference he believes Pope Francis is going to recognize the SSPX unilaterally, apart from doctrinal and canonical considerations.

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

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

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

Isn't that what we are seeing today?

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

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

Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Benedict XVI “is theologically identified with the Second Vatican Council. His teaching and government are based upon the spirit of the Council. He wants to incorporate us into an ecumenical conception of the official Church; he is practicing ecumenism with us”. (The Angelus, May 2, 2009.).

And the issuing of Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, in which the Holy Mass of all times was humiliated, and, the lifting of the invalid excommunication was also attributed to the Mother of God, Bishop de Galarreta has said it “corresponds neither to truth nor justice." (The Angelus, May 2, 2009.)

What changed?

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

Bishop Williamson

Well, Bishop Williamson has spent a lot of time discoursing and acting in his Elesion Comments and conferences CHANGE. Yes, Change! Wanted by him and his new followers and completely unwanted by those who continue in the promises of faith through our Baptism.

This is a ongoing and sad development with Bishop Williamson many thought would help the Church maintain in this crisis. Instead, he goes and runs off hiding from boogie-men in dark shadows while tearing down every structure of the Church and distill chaos in Her members creating a false resistance.

See the archive list here The False Resistance - by topic

Why? Only God knows. But it is easy to see.

Is it because he made a silence pact with Bishop Fellay for an amicable deal to settle his departure so they can both go their ways? Was there money involved? Promises not to rival any structure? Bishop Williamson said as much in July 2012:

A saved July 15, 2012 voice recording on Fr. Pfeiffer's phone, shows the neutered "lion" Bishop Williamson he wanted to compromise and deviate from day one in the Resistance; while looking for and setting up a deal with Menzingen over protecting the faith of Jesus Christ. At (minute 40:00):

Bishop Williamson said:

"...I am on the exit ramp. I do not know the details but I'm on the guillotine. Don't make plans yet for the seventh of August. Let's see whats possible. But don't yet commit me because I...huh...er...huh...I don't know what I am going to do. I don't, I haven't had yet the alternatives proposed to me that I know there is going to be a proposition. hum...so...a proposition will be an amiable separation. Now I don't have the details. But I am going to have to make a decision. But...huh... I do not know what I am going to do. So don't yet count on me. So I would think father to go back to the Philippines...you will be resettled...[take your punishment]". (Bishop Williamson, July 2012)

Further in a return conversation with Fr. Pfeiffer hours later, Bishop Williamson elaborated more to say:

Bishop Williamson:

"They offered me a solution. They gave me two choices: "Either I can leave, or I can leave amicably". I have to see what they are offering me. I have to see what the proposition is."

Is their a pension and compliant contract in that "amicably"?

cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/fr-pfeiffer-conference.3776/

Bishop Fellay

It is worth noting were the fourth SSPX bishop -Bishop Fellay the Superior General- is on all of this. One needs not to go to far, he also said, "An agreement is possible without further wait." And, "Little by Little Rome Is Giving Us All We Need for Reconciliation." (Interview with the Register, May 13 2016)

Here are more Quotes of Bishop Fellay towards "Reconciliation"

In addition, here is an archive of the betrayals - The Conciliar SSPX - by topic

The deck is stacked! In favor of modernism; crucifying Christ all over again.

Fr. Franz Schmidberger

How about the previous Superior General Fr. Franz Schmidberger, where is his mind in all of this?

Again, one needs not go far. We just need to re-read what he said:

"It seems to have time to normalize the situation of the Fraternity."
(Preparing the Imminent SSPX Internal Agreement, February 19, 2016)

None of this would make sence if it wasn't for new prerequisites for the SSPX in place, Neo-SSPX Officially Accepts Vatican II in light of Tradition.

All is go...!

Poor Bishops Tissier and de Gallarreta, do they not read their own sspx medias providing all of this sell out? We do.

Or has the punishment of Cognitive Dissonance set in not standing up for the Lord of Lords and King of Kings like their founder the great Archbishop Lefebvre had to his death?

What a betrayal; what treason!

Yet, what a responsibility we have to pass on what the Archbishop gave us a legacy with St. Paul to be missionary in season and out of season.

Instaurare Omnia in Christo! To Restore all things in Christ!

Last Edit: Jul 13, 2018 5:26:47 GMT by Deleted

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

2018 Archive: The four SSPX Bishops post Arch. Lefebvre? May 14, 2018 11:09:00 GMT

Post by Admin on May 14, 2018 11:09:00 GMT

May 13, 2018 21:55:22 GMT @machabees said:

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

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

The answer is a documented NO!

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

[...]

Red emphasis - mine

"When Satan tempted Christ the third time in the desert he offered Him lordship over the whole world in return for His submission, knowing he had nothing to fear from good things which were subordinate." - Carol Robinson, My Life with Thomas Aquinas, Angelus Press 1995, p.74

As has been seen in every example of any traditional community who went over to Rome, especially those under the delusion that they would convert a conciliar Rome from within, every one has themselves been converted. Truth can never submit or be subordinate to error. It is disordered. Obedience and subordination in their proper forms and channels is right and proper.

As Carol Robinson so aptly points out, Conciliar Rome doesn't fear traditional groups as long as they are subordinate to Rome. It only fears them when they are not subordinate. Which was the wisdom of the Archbishop. He knew what would happen if he submitted the SSPX under a conciliar yoke.

Same thing with the priests of the true resistance. They are feared because they will not submit to the errors of the Vatican II Council. They preach in season and out of season against its errors. And the SSPX, Rome, and the false resistance fear them. This is why the false resistance has said they will crush all those associated with OLMC:

"If you do not come with us, we will CRUSH you! And we are going to CRUSH Fr. Pfeiffer and OLMC. We will CRUSH them!"

And these words from a group of supposedly traditional priests and bishops, aka the false resistance.

Satan does not fear the false resistance or the SSPX. They have already become subordinate to the errors and heresies of Vatican II. The false resistance has stated there is grace in the new mass (which came from Vatican II) among many other errors. The SSPX in their Doctrinal Declaration has said the new mass is legitimate, among many other errors.

Hell does not fear these groups. It is not threatened by the fact that there are several priests in both groups who have not agreed with what their leaders are preaching and remain 'traditional' in their thinking. Hell does not care about these priests because they remain subordinate [through a false sense of obedience] to those who promote error. Which is exactly what Satan tempted Our Lord with. Our Lord could remain as 'good' as he wanted, as long as he acknowledged Satan as His superior.

But how did Our Lord Jesus Christ teach us to act when forced to decide when asked to submit ourselves to those in error:

Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve. Matthew 4:8-10

If only those once-good priests in the SSPX and the false resistance had stood firm and remembered this temptation. If only they stood firm as their good and saintly Archbishop told them to - and didn't submit in word and deed - to a hellish Conciliar Church.

We must pray very hard for our few remaining good priests. They have much to assault them. They have much they must fight against. So many others have not been able to fight the good fight as these are. Thanks be to God they are able to stand firm as the Archbishop has done. May Our Lady continue to protect and guide them as She has so many times protected those who defended Her Son and His Church.

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

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

2018 Archive: The four SSPX Bishops post Arch. Lefebvre? Jun 17, 2018 14:38:03 GMT

Post by Admin on Jun 17, 2018 14:38:03 GMT

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

Let us remain calm. Let us remain faithful. And if it should ever come to be that the faith is not taught here [SSPX], then leave me. If, my dear seminarians, I do not teach you Catholic truth, then leave! Do not stay here. That is your duty. But if I teach the Catholic Faith ‑ and you have the whole library at your disposal to find out whether or not what was handed to us is being handed down to you ‑ then, be confident. And we will do everything so that the Catholic Faith continues to be taught here, taught in its entirety so that you can, you too, carry on that truth that is so full of grace and life. Truth is the source of life. We have need of that life. The faithful are hungry for it. Why is it we have requests for priests from all sides? Because the faithful are thirsty for truth, thirsty for the grace of God, for the supernatural life, thirsty for that eternity toward which we are heading.

Therefore, have confidence in doing what the Church has always done - not confidence in Msgr. Lefebvre. I am a poor man like the others. I have no pretention to be better than others. thecatacombs.org/thread/743/great-gifts-god-1977

For the Archbishop, it always came down to the truths of the Faith. Nothing else mattered. Neither canonical recognition nor personalities were important to him. It was always a great love for the faith and consequently a great defense of the Faith.