Is the SSPX now a client state?
Jun 6, 2018 14:45:21 GMT
Post by S.A.G. on Jun 6, 2018 14:45:21 GMT
ROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR:
Dear Reader,
A few ignominious anniversaries have passed us by. The first is the signing over of the SSPX’s doctrinal integrity in the form of a document entitled “Doctrinal Declaration,” in April 2012 by Bishop Fellay. Although he signed and presented this document to Rome in the name of and on behalf of the SSPX, all but a privileged inner- circle of a few priests were not allowed to know its contents until almost a whole year later, the Fr. Rioult, via his (then) website antimodernisme.info, leaked it to the whole world, at which point Menzingen published their own version in Cor Unum .
Although this itself likely passed many people by, when the history is written it will come to be known as a turning point. From that point on-wards the SSPX officially accepted Ecumenism, Collegiality, Religious Liberty, the New Mass, the New Code of Canon Law and every other product
and error of Vatican II. In short, it was the official surrender, signed sealed and handed over. From that moment on the war was over. Conciliar Rome had won. Though the leaders of the SSPX did their best to reassure the faithful, proclaiming far and wide that “nothing has changed!” and “We
never wanted to reach an agreement with modern Rome!” and “We definitely don’t have a different teaching or posture to the one we had in the days of Archbishop Lefebvre!” -there are occasions where protesting one’s innocence only serves to confirm one’s guilt -“The lady doth protest too much, methinks!”-nevertheless, as though Divine Providence wished to provide some extra confirmation for those who were not yet swayed, the boils of liberalism and pustules of modernism began to break out all over the body of the SSPX. Here was a magazine publishing an entire sermon by Pope Francis with not a word of criticism and a new age ‘meditation’ where you have to imagine that you are a door, and the local superior defending
What does a surrender look like? What does it mean, in practice? When a war ends and one side surrenders, there is more than one way in which
The Damning Evidence
Isn’t this all a bit alarmist? Aren’t I exaggerating? Am I being too harsh in my criticism of the SSPX? Can I really prove that they are a client state of Rome, or is it just paranoia? What is my evidence? It can be found throughout these pages going back over the past five or six years. Here, however, with emphasis added by us for ease of reference, is a small sample:
SEPTEMBER 2015 - Pope Francis declared that he was granting the SSPX faculties to hear confessions for the duration of the Jubilee ‘Year of Mercy’.
NOVEMBER 2016 - At the end of the Jubilee year, in an apostolic letter, Pope Francis extended his decree allowing SSPX priests to hear valid confessions. He noted how during the Jubilee, he had allowed "that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year..." See, for example: www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-extends-jubilee-mandate-on-abortion-sspx-confession-83265- this is just one typical example of many such articles.
How can a Society which is at war with Vatican II’s false teaching on ‘Collegiality,’ at the same time inform modernist Rome that:
How can a priestly Society be at war with modernist ideas such as the evolution of truth or progression of Tradition, if it tells modernist Rome that:
How could any Catholic organization claim to reject and oppose not only the new rite of Mass but all the new Vatican II rites, (the Novus Ordo rite of ‘General Absolution’ which has replaced confession in many places, for example, or the rite for the blessing of cremated ashes...), if it is prepared to tell modernist Rome that:
How can it be that the organisation set up by Archbishop Lefebvre to oppose both Vatican II and the new laws which came as a result of Vatican II, the same Archbishop Lefebvre who said that "the fundamental novelty of Vatican II" was what "constitutes the New Code of Canon Law," a code which enacted Vatican II into law (giving the sacraments to non-Catholics, for example, or children no longer being the primary purpose of marriage)- how can that organisation today claim to be faithfully continuing its founder’s opposition to Vatican II and the new (1983) Vatican II version of Canon law, if today it is prepared to declare officially, that:
What are we to think of a Society which tries to reassure its grassroots supporters that it is still fighting against Vatican II and that it still stands for Catholic Tradition, that it maintains Catholic Tradition untarnished and free from conciliar confusion, if that same Society is discovered to have been telling the enemy, the very modernists who are propagating the confusion, that:
Finally, the Doctrinal Declaration sins by omission: it contains not one word condemning or criticising Vatican II. Those tempted to think that I may have made up or doctored any of those quotes, please see for yourself: www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012.
How can a document containing such declarations and affirmations, a document signed, sealed and delivered to the enemy by the leader under a flag of truce, not be called a surrender? Unless words have lost their meaning, I do not see how it is possible. Such statements are not compatible with a Society which still defends Tradition and rejects Vatican II and its works.
If you discover that your army has been languishing ineffectively in camp and not making any sorties against the enemy, that morale in your army is low, that the campaign is going badly for your side and that you are losing ground, you may wonder if it is just that your general is incompetent. That would be bad enough, although not necessarily fatal -even incompetent generals win every once in a while, it has been known to happen. If, however, it is discovered that your general has surrendered dishonourably, secretly and has entered into a pact with the enemy, at that moment you will find yourself faced with two choices. Either you follow his example and go over to the enemy side yourself. Or you leave that general and fight on under a captain, a lieutenant, a corporal, or whoever you can find still on your side, still willing to fight. And if it means fighting a guerrilla war from now on, then so be it, that is what you do.
Dear Reader,
A few ignominious anniversaries have passed us by. The first is the signing over of the SSPX’s doctrinal integrity in the form of a document entitled “Doctrinal Declaration,” in April 2012 by Bishop Fellay. Although he signed and presented this document to Rome in the name of and on behalf of the SSPX, all but a privileged inner- circle of a few priests were not allowed to know its contents until almost a whole year later, the Fr. Rioult, via his (then) website antimodernisme.info, leaked it to the whole world, at which point Menzingen published their own version in Cor Unum .
Although this itself likely passed many people by, when the history is written it will come to be known as a turning point. From that point on-wards the SSPX officially accepted Ecumenism, Collegiality, Religious Liberty, the New Mass, the New Code of Canon Law and every other product
and error of Vatican II. In short, it was the official surrender, signed sealed and handed over. From that moment on the war was over. Conciliar Rome had won. Though the leaders of the SSPX did their best to reassure the faithful, proclaiming far and wide that “nothing has changed!” and “We
never wanted to reach an agreement with modern Rome!” and “We definitely don’t have a different teaching or posture to the one we had in the days of Archbishop Lefebvre!” -there are occasions where protesting one’s innocence only serves to confirm one’s guilt -“The lady doth protest too much, methinks!”-nevertheless, as though Divine Providence wished to provide some extra confirmation for those who were not yet swayed, the boils of liberalism and pustules of modernism began to break out all over the body of the SSPX. Here was a magazine publishing an entire sermon by Pope Francis with not a word of criticism and a new age ‘meditation’ where you have to imagine that you are a door, and the local superior defending
it against criticism.
There a priest of the SSPX serving as the only priest at an Una Voce chapel with the full approval of his superiors. Here a district publishers catalogue advertising books of Novus Ordo devotions such as the “Divine Mercy” of “Saint” Faustina Kowalska. Here a priest participating in a ‘Catholic Identity’ conference and giving a public speech along side Ecclesia Dei and Novus Ordo priestly colleagues in a spirit of what can only be called by its proper name: Ecumenism; there a priest using his “family apostolate” to promote the disgusting and un-Catholic “Theology of the body” of “Saint” John Paul II. Everywhere the urge that families be generous and accept all the children God sends replaced by a purely worldly concern for material welfare, with Sunday congregations in St. Mary’s Kansas being told that having children “is not a race” and the priests of the German district being instructed on their retreat that couples should positively not have more than five or six children. Everywhere standards of modesty in behaviour and in dress dramatically on the decline, worldliness the norm.
The once militant opposition to godless politics, the former emphasis on Catholic politics, the ideal of the Catholic state, Catholic social teaching, the Social Reign of Christ the King, and the reminders of the serious duty of the layman to take up the sword of Catholic Action: all gone and forgotten, dropped down the memory hole, replaced instead by a passive ‘pay, pray and obey’ mentality combined with an alarming desire and
need to be seen by the secular authorities as good little obedient citizens of the New World Order (when was the last time you heard an SSPX priest even refer to the New World Order? Or usury? Or Freemasonry?) A once militant, well-informed and pugnacious if occasionally eccentric and paranoid laity were chiseled, moulded and refashioned by degrees to become more compliant, docile and unquestioning; more respectable, less “offensive.” Instead of: “Do your own reading and research, don’t take our word for it, see for yourself!” the poor faithful arenow far more likely to be told: “Don’t listen to those rumours which will only disturb your peace of soul! Trust us. Everything is fine, there’s nothing to worry about. You can take our word for it.”
When the day arrives, twenty years from now, for example, that you wake up and look around you and discover to your alarm that everything has changed for the worse and irreversibly; that SSPX families of ten or twelve children are a thing of the past and have become a foot-note to history, that sermons are devoid of any mention of Vatican II or the New Mass, when “the separation of religion and politics” has become an observable fact even if it is never quite owned up to, that the Vatican or the local conciliar diocese can, in effect, exercise the power of veto over the SSPX merely by expressing their displeasure, that money has become the measure of all things sacred as well as profane and that the local Ecclesia Dei or Indult priest is more ‘hard-hitting’ and more critical of both the conciliar church and the modern world than his SSPX counterpart, that there is not so much as a squeak of protest from the SSPX as the Vatican announces plans for a Vatican III or the fast-tracking of the canonisation of the late Pope Francis (“Santo subito!”) and, of course, that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, despite being the founder of the SSPX, having long since been airbrushed out of history has vanished almost entirely from the mind and consciousness of priest and people alike... then, perhaps, it will be time for everyone to admit privately within himself, even if they cannot quite muster the humility to admit it outwardly, that the prophets of doom were right all along.
Then, perhaps, a small number will be glad that all is not lost and will thank God for the tiny number of “extremists” and “scandal mongers” who, in the years immediately after the surrender, laboured night and day to salvage what could be saved while there was still time. Make no mistake, that is where we are today. That is where we have been these past five years. There will not be another five. The window is still open for salvage to take place, but it is closing and will one day be closed. This coming September, a mere four months away, it will have been seven years since Bishop Fellay and his inner-circle called a meeting of SSPX superiors at Albano, Italy to try to get them to accept an agreement with Rome.
Six months later marks seven years since their attempt to make the same argument (that the time had now come to seek the approval of modernist Rome) to all the SSPX priests, in the pages of Cor Unum, March 2012. Time flies. In the meantime, if a thing is right, then it is right to do it now. Waiting for “the right time” is usually just a convenient excuse to save ourselves the trouble. That Catholic Tradition still lives today is thanks to a handful of souls who were “impetuous” and “rash” enough to act quickly in the aftermath of the Council. As one might have expected, there were those who announced that they were going to be prudent, that they would wait and see. In the majority of cases they are still waiting and will be for all eternity.
Let me repeat once again: the Doctrinal Declaration of April 2012 was the surrender of the SSPX to modernist Rome. Anyone who is
unsure or in any doubt can study it for himself (the reader will find its full text here: www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012
and a detailed discussion of its contents, here: www.therecusant.com/sspx-new-doctrine). Anyone who wishes to dispute the conclusion that this document represents surrender in the war against modernism is more than welcome to come forward and to correct us publicly. We have been saying so for the past five years and for the past five years nobody from the SSPX has yet attempted to contradict our conclusion or to show why it is wrong. We do wish they would. But they have not. Because they cannot. No one who has ever surrendered and given in to the enemy, especially if they did so in secret and without admitting it to their own side, ever wishes to broadcast that fact. That is why the new SSPX will always distract attention away from their surrender. But a surrender it is, and a surrender is what it shall always remain.
What a Surrender Looks Like
What does a surrender look like? What does it mean, in practice? When a war ends and one side surrenders, there is more than one way in which
the victor can react. He can crush and exterminate his conquered foe and attempt to ensure that in future they can never rise again.
If he is clever, however, for diplomatic or tactical reasons, he might allow his former enemy to continue to exist in much the same way as before, but
If he is clever, however, for diplomatic or tactical reasons, he might allow his former enemy to continue to exist in much the same way as before, but
as a client state: retaining the trappings of nationhood but no longer truly independent or free to decide their own fate, particularly the ‘big picture’
questions. He will allow his new clients to forgo the humiliation of openly admitting defeat, provided they remember which side their proverbial bread is buttered and from whom they are taking their orders from now on. Incidentally, the former is how the Romans (eventually) treated Carthage. The latter is more or less how they treated everyone else. It is a very clever tactic, and one which works very well, provided it is done with care and attention to detail.
Why bother with all the work of micromanaging a newly conquered province (Britain, for example) when you can simply recruit some of the local British tribal chiefs to do it for you? After all, the conquered natives will obey them more readily than they will ever obey you. The chieftains get to stay at the head of their tribes. Their people get to feel that they are still being ruled and led by one of their own, that nothing much really has changed. The newly conquered people will be far more docile if they don’t ever really have to come into contact with their foreign conquerors. And you the conquerors don’t need to bother yourselves with the minutiae involved in the day-to-day administration of your new Province. I am convinced that the SSPX is now a client state of modern Rome.
Instead of the Roman empire of old, we are now talking about a very different empire, a world empire in fact, an "empire" which organises itself in secret and does not usually admit that it exists. An empire which aims to cover the entire globe under a world government and which wishes to reduce all religions and bring them together in one man-made, diabolically inspired "world religion." And the SSPX has now been added as the latest conquered territory, a province to be ruled over by puppet rulers, a client state of modern Rome, which is itself wholly in the hands of the would-be rulers of the world. If the victors are not completely stupid, they will avoid any temptation to rub the SSPX’s nose in defeat. Every now and then they might privately remind the leaders of the SSPX who they are working for now, but for the most part one’s clients, eager to gain the approval of their new masters, will be self-censoring and self-regulating. Very little input is needed from on high, that is the beauty of it. And by the time the native Britons awake to what has happened-it’s too late! They are not Britons any more, they have been "Romanised" and are well on the way to becoming Romans themselves. They have begun to be subsumed into the whole, the once sharp distinction between conquerors and conquered has become blurred, and resistance is now impossible.
The parallel should be obvious, but let us spell it out. For "Britons," read "SSPX priests and faithful." For "Rome" read "modernist Rome," but with one important distinction. Ancient Rome’s conquest of Britain was ultimately for the good and arguably providential, her empire benevolent and civilising, a foundation onto which Christendom would later be built. The modernist Rome of our own day is the opposite, a malevolent and toxic influence onto which will be built an anti-Christendom whose ruler will accurately be called the prince of this world. We have always known that this would happen. We have never been entirely sure of when it would happen. Here we have a little glimpse of how it is to happen. It is happening via the surrender of Rome to the world in the last century and via the surrender of the SSPX to Rome in this one.
As goes the Church, so goes society. If you are distressed at the new laws, the barbarism, the ruin of once Catholic nations (think of Ireland and its upcoming abortion referendum, for example), the breakdown of the fabric of society, the ruin of public and private morals, look no further than the crisis in the Church, the latest phase of which was the surrender of the SSPX. This was a defeat for civilisation and a victory for barbarism. In fighting for Catholic doctrine, the Resistance is ultimately fighting for civilisation itself.
The Damning Evidence
Isn’t this all a bit alarmist? Aren’t I exaggerating? Am I being too harsh in my criticism of the SSPX? Can I really prove that they are a client state of Rome, or is it just paranoia? What is my evidence? It can be found throughout these pages going back over the past five or six years. Here, however, with emphasis added by us for ease of reference, is a small sample:
January 2009- Modernist Rome pretends to take away an excommunication which never existed to begin with.
The reasons given for doing this are:
a) Bishop Fellay begged us to do it;
b) because Benedict XVI is just such a kind and caring chap who couldn’t bear to see the SSPX being caused so much distressed by their excommunication;
c) because it will help reach a "solution" to the "problem" of the SSPX;
d) some sort of vague, fuzzy conciliar ecumenical-sounding talk of "unity" versus "division."
Here is the decree:
June 2012 - Bishop Fellay, in his personal letter to then -Pope Benedict XVI, complains that at a recent meeting in Rome, Cardinal Levada, ignoring his own April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration "which I had submitted" had instead given him an even more obviously modernist, Vatican II-friendly text to sign. Bishop Fellay laments that he could not sign it, "because of the consequences that would lead to" and laments that: "Unfortunately, in the current context of the Society, the new declaration will not get past"- by which he appears to mean that he would sign it if he thought he could get away with it without his SSPX colleagues realising and challenging him on it.
"In a letter of 15th December 2008 addressed to Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Mons. Bernard Fellay writing also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on 30 June 1988 requested once again the removal of the excommunication latae sententiae formally declared by a Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation for Bishops on 1 July 1988. [...] His Holiness Benedict XVI in his paternal concern for the spiritual distress which the parties concerned have voiced as a result of the excommunication, and trusting in their commitment, expressed in the aforementioned letter, to spare no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through requisite discussions with the authorities of the Holy See in order to reach a prompt, full and satisfactory solution to the original problem has decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, resulting from their episcopal consecration. This act signifies a desire to strengthen reciprocal relations of trust, and to deepen and stabilize the relationship of the Society of St Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, coming at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also meant to be a sign which promotes the Universal Church’s unity in charity, and removes the scandal of division. It is hoped that this step will be followed by the prompt attainment of full communion with the Church on the part of the whole Society of St Pius X, which will thus bear witness to its genuine fidelity and genuine recognition of the Magisterium and authority of the Pope by the proof of visible unity. On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on 1 July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.
Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, 21 January 2009
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Prefect " See: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione- scomunica_en.html
Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, 21 January 2009
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Prefect " See: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione- scomunica_en.html
He goes on to say that he will still continue to seek arrangement and accommodation with the modernist Vatican authorities, regardless of the damage such a policy may do to the Society: "I have committed myself in this perspective despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path..." he adds.
APRIL 2013 - a startling admission: "There has been a change in the SSPX’s prudential policy (which is interpreted as a change in principle). Bishop Fellay, since 2011, has been accused of becoming obsessed with a practical agreement and therefore of being willing to put doctrinal questions in second place. This is not the case, but what has occurred is a change in prudential tactics." said Fr. Daniel Themann, in his talk entitled: "Resistance to What?" April 2013. Please note that although Fr. Themann’s main point is itself unsound-see Recusant 12 for a fuller discussion: he seems to think that labeling something "prudential" means that it no longer involves principles! -nevertheless, even he admits that a change has taken place, even if he tries to gloss over it as a "change in prudential policy" or "tactics." I suppose one could say that acceptance of Vatican II is a "tactic," that giving in to the enemy, that laying down one’s weapons is a "tactic" of sorts. I’m not sure that makes it any better, though. And I don’t see how it can be a very effective "tactic" if one’s goal is to oppose Vatican II! The undeniable point here is that he happily admits that the SSPX has changed towards Rome, even while trying to downplay the significance of that fact. This is not the opinion of some rogue priest. Fr. Themann’s talk was widely promoted by the SSPX hierarchy. It can therefore be seen as an official admission on their part.
APRIL 2015 - The conciliar church in Argentina, in the person of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires Cardinal Poli, recognizes the SSPX as an officially "Catholic" institute, allowing them to gain a certain musspx.org/en/news-events/news/argentina-recognizes-sspx-roman-catholic-7845
APRIL 2013 - a startling admission: "There has been a change in the SSPX’s prudential policy (which is interpreted as a change in principle). Bishop Fellay, since 2011, has been accused of becoming obsessed with a practical agreement and therefore of being willing to put doctrinal questions in second place. This is not the case, but what has occurred is a change in prudential tactics." said Fr. Daniel Themann, in his talk entitled: "Resistance to What?" April 2013. Please note that although Fr. Themann’s main point is itself unsound-see Recusant 12 for a fuller discussion: he seems to think that labeling something "prudential" means that it no longer involves principles! -nevertheless, even he admits that a change has taken place, even if he tries to gloss over it as a "change in prudential policy" or "tactics." I suppose one could say that acceptance of Vatican II is a "tactic," that giving in to the enemy, that laying down one’s weapons is a "tactic" of sorts. I’m not sure that makes it any better, though. And I don’t see how it can be a very effective "tactic" if one’s goal is to oppose Vatican II! The undeniable point here is that he happily admits that the SSPX has changed towards Rome, even while trying to downplay the significance of that fact. This is not the opinion of some rogue priest. Fr. Themann’s talk was widely promoted by the SSPX hierarchy. It can therefore be seen as an official admission on their part.
APRIL 2015 - The conciliar church in Argentina, in the person of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires Cardinal Poli, recognizes the SSPX as an officially "Catholic" institute, allowing them to gain a certain musspx.org/en/news-events/news/argentina-recognizes-sspx-roman-catholic-7845
"On April 12, 2015, the Argentinian newspaper Clarin announced the decision of the Secretary of Religion, Guillermo R. Oliveri, published in the official bulletin of the Argentine Republic on April 9, 2015; according to this decision the Society of St. Pius X is recognized in Argentina as a juridical person and has been added to the Register of the Institutes of Consecrated Life in which are listed the Catholic orders and religious congregations present in Argentina. This decision was made possible, among other formalities, by a letter from the archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Mario Aurelio Poli [...] The fact that Cardinal Poli is Cardinal Bergoglio’s successor to the archiepiscopal see of Buenos Aires is a legitimate reason to believe that this decision was not taken without consulting Pope Francis." See, for example: sspx.org/en/news-events/news/argentina-recognizes-sspx-roman-catholic-7845
JUNE 2015 - "Holy See puts Fellay in charge of trying one of his own priests"-La Stampa, 3rd June 2015, which headline (and its reality) were discussed in Recusant 27. Bishop Fellay’s own words, the previous month, in California, are perhaps the most damning admission: "So I was appointed by Rome, by the Congregation of the Faith, to make judgements, canonical Church judgements on some of our priests."
JUNE 2015 - "Holy See puts Fellay in charge of trying one of his own priests"-La Stampa, 3rd June 2015, which headline (and its reality) were discussed in Recusant 27. Bishop Fellay’s own words, the previous month, in California, are perhaps the most damning admission: "So I was appointed by Rome, by the Congregation of the Faith, to make judgements, canonical Church judgements on some of our priests."
SEPTEMBER 2015 - Pope Francis declared that he was granting the SSPX faculties to hear confessions for the duration of the Jubilee ‘Year of Mercy’.
NOVEMBER 2016 - At the end of the Jubilee year, in an apostolic letter, Pope Francis extended his decree allowing SSPX priests to hear valid confessions. He noted how during the Jubilee, he had allowed "that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year..." See, for example: www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-extends-jubilee-mandate-on-abortion-sspx-confession-83265- this is just one typical example of many such articles.
"The Society of St. Pius X expresses its gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this fatherly gesture. In the ministry of the sacrament of penance, we have always relied, with all certainty, on the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by the normae generales of the Code of Canon Law. On the occasion of this Holy Year, Pope Francis wants all the faithful who wish to confess to the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to be able to do so without being worried." See: sspx.org/en/communique-general-house-0
APRIL 2017 -Rome announces that from now on, SSPX marriages need to be witnessed by a Novus Ordo priest from the local diocese: "Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite..." See: press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2017/04/04/0218/00485.html#ing
"The Society of Saint Pius X conveys its deep gratitude to the Holy Father for his pastoral solicitude as expressed in the letter from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, for the purpose of alleviating ‘any uncertainty regarding the validity of the sacrament of marriage.’ "
See:sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-statement-about-holy-see-letter-concerning-marriages-28843
Is it really so paranoid to see something of a pattern emerging here? Can it be that there is a perfectly innocent explanation for each and every one of these occurrences, so that, taken as a whole, they somehow don’t signify what they unmistakably do signify..?!?
See:sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-statement-about-holy-see-letter-concerning-marriages-28843
Is it really so paranoid to see something of a pattern emerging here? Can it be that there is a perfectly innocent explanation for each and every one of these occurrences, so that, taken as a whole, they somehow don’t signify what they unmistakably do signify..?!?
And then, of course, last but not least, there is the most damning evidence of all: the text of the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration itself. As already mentioned, this has been dealt with before (here, for example: www.therecusant.com/sspx-new-doctrine).
In the meantime, for those without internet to hand, please read the following and ask yourself: how could such a text represent the SSPX, how could it have been signed on behalf of the Society, how could such a text ever have even come into existence to begin with if the SSPX were really still at war with the conciliar church, with Vatican II and its false teaching?
How, for example, can a priestly Society be at war with Vatican II and the error and confusion caused by the Council, how can it be at war with the liberalism and modernism found in the texts of Vatican II, texts such as Lumen Gentium, when it tells modernist Rome that it accepts those very texts and the teaching contained therein?
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.1 (1-cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989 ; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.) "
"We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3..."
"Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost5 (5-c.f. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum 8 & 9, Denz.4209-4210)"
"We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II."
"We promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II (1983)"
"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."
How can a document containing such declarations and affirmations, a document signed, sealed and delivered to the enemy by the leader under a flag of truce, not be called a surrender? Unless words have lost their meaning, I do not see how it is possible. Such statements are not compatible with a Society which still defends Tradition and rejects Vatican II and its works.
Our Two Options
If you discover that your army has been languishing ineffectively in camp and not making any sorties against the enemy, that morale in your army is low, that the campaign is going badly for your side and that you are losing ground, you may wonder if it is just that your general is incompetent. That would be bad enough, although not necessarily fatal -even incompetent generals win every once in a while, it has been known to happen. If, however, it is discovered that your general has surrendered dishonourably, secretly and has entered into a pact with the enemy, at that moment you will find yourself faced with two choices. Either you follow his example and go over to the enemy side yourself. Or you leave that general and fight on under a captain, a lieutenant, a corporal, or whoever you can find still on your side, still willing to fight. And if it means fighting a guerrilla war from now on, then so be it, that is what you do.
But take note - a guerrilla war is still a war. It does not mean sitting in a cave and waiting for the war to end. Yes, it means carefully picking your targets, waiting for the right moment. But you do still actually have to pull the trigger at some point. And the long-term goal of any guerrilla war is to one day reach the stage of coming out into the open and defeating the enemy permanently in a pitched battle. Any guerrilla army which does not aim to do that one day, can never win.
Those who think that there is a third choice called "neutrality" are deluded. There is no such third choice. You follow your general and make your peace with the enemy, or you leave him and go on fighting. In a spiritual war such as ours, a battle between truth and falsehood, there is never a middle ground. There can be no neutrality in questions of doctrine because ultimately a proposition is either true or it is not. That is the case whether one be a bishop, a priest or a layman. In the end, the choice is always the same: what think ye of Christ?
Those who think that there is a third choice called "neutrality" are deluded. There is no such third choice. You follow your general and make your peace with the enemy, or you leave him and go on fighting. In a spiritual war such as ours, a battle between truth and falsehood, there is never a middle ground. There can be no neutrality in questions of doctrine because ultimately a proposition is either true or it is not. That is the case whether one be a bishop, a priest or a layman. In the end, the choice is always the same: what think ye of Christ?
I am grateful to a friend who recently drew my attention to the following which illustrates the situation very well. Below is an extract taken from "Catechism of the Crisis in the Church" by SSPX priest Fr. Matthias Gaudron, a book published by Angelus Press and sold in SSPX book shops and repositories all over the world for more than ten years. It reflects nothing more than what used to be the consistent attitude of the SSPX towards the so-called Ecclesia Dei or Indult Catholics (before the change of direction). What is even more interesting, however, is the new relevance that these words have taken on in light of the silence in the face of error on the part of both the SSPX priests and faithful who should know better and equally on the part of those supposedly in the ‘Resistance’ who can see that Bishop Williamson is wrong but who refuse to publicly condemn his words and keep a public silence instead. As you read it, try for a moment to imagine that that is who Fr. Gaudron is talking about.
One might say with just as much accuracy that many priests in the SSPX "began by keeping a prudential silence," continued by having "to give more and more tokens of unity," and "ended by not thinking otherwise than they spoke and acted." Likewise, it need hardly be added, the danger is just as real with any priest who hears Bishop Williamson extolling New Mass and its "miracles," who sees the wrong done and yet decides to "keep a prudential silence."
"Have the members of the Ecclesia Dei communities really accepted the errors of Vatican II or have they only kept quiet about them?
Without pretending to judge the internal forum or possible exceptions, it seems that most of the members of the Ecclesia Dei communities have ended, unfortunately, by adhering to the conciliar errors. They began by keeping a prudential silence. Then they had to give more and more tokens of unity. Unawares, they were subjected to the psychological pressure of liberalism, all the more effective the less compulsory it seems. They ended by refraining from thinking otherwise than they spoke and acted. ("One must live the way one thinks or end up thinking the way one lives," as Paul Bourget said.) In short, they were completely caught in the machinery into which they imprudently put a finger."
Without pretending to judge the internal forum or possible exceptions, it seems that most of the members of the Ecclesia Dei communities have ended, unfortunately, by adhering to the conciliar errors. They began by keeping a prudential silence. Then they had to give more and more tokens of unity. Unawares, they were subjected to the psychological pressure of liberalism, all the more effective the less compulsory it seems. They ended by refraining from thinking otherwise than they spoke and acted. ("One must live the way one thinks or end up thinking the way one lives," as Paul Bourget said.) In short, they were completely caught in the machinery into which they imprudently put a finger."
**************************
*The rest of the editorial can be found here: link