Bishop Fellay Has Signed the Filial Correction

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement' started by Admin, Sep 24, 2017.

  1. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member

    Saturday, September 23, 2017

    Bishop Fellay Has Signed the Filial Correction -- Just Released!

    Edit: it's here.

    [FSSPX] On July 16, 2017, several clerics and lay scholars addressed a correctio filialis, a filial correction, to Pope Francis. They reveal the seven heresies contained in the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

    A website has been created for the occasion:; it offers information on the diffusion of the correctio filialis.

    This thoroughly documented critique is a sort of sequel to the Dubia on Amoris Laetitia (September 19, 2016) of Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Joachim Meisner, and Carlo Caffarra. (The latter two passed away this year, respectively on July 5 and September 6.) They respectfully requested Pope Francis to “clarify” five unorthodox points in Amoris Laetitia.

    The Dubia remained unanswered and were later followed by a request for an audience from the four authors (April 25, 2017). Their request was not granted.

    On June 29, 2016, 45 theologians submitted to Cardinal Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals, another critical studyof 19 points in Amoris Laetitia. This critique also went unanswered.

    In the list of the 62 signatories of the correctio filialis are the names of several persons who already signed the critique of the 45 theologians in 2016, but among the new names is that of Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, the only bishop who has signed the document so far, although – as the presentation of the correctio filialis explains – the list remains open.

    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
  2. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member


    If I Go Wrong, You Will Correct Me. The Seven Heresies
    of "Amoris Laetitia"

    “Most Holy Father, With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetiti’ and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness.”

    So begins the letter that 40 Catholic scholars from all over the world sent to Pope Francis last August 11 and are making public today, Sunday September 24, on the site

    The 40 signers have in the meantime become 62, and others could be added. But so far Francis has shown no sign of having taken their step into consideration.

    A step that has no equal in the modern history of the Church. Because one has to go all the way back to 1333 to find the last analogous precedent, meaning a public “correction” addressed to the pope for heresies that were upheld and then in fact rejected by the pope at the time, John XXII.

    The heresies denounced by the signers of the letter are seven. And they are all contained, in their judgment, in the eighth chapter of the apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia,” the crucial passages of which they present.

    But not only there. The letter also lists a series of successive words, acts, and omissions with which Pope Francis is alleged to have further propagated those same heresies. Thereby giving “scandal to the Church and to the world.”

    Which led to the decision not only to denounce this state of affairs publicly, but also to send to Pope Francis the explicit request to correct the errors that he has “upheld and propagated, causing great and imminent danger for souls.”

    The actual “correctio,” written in Latin, takes up little more than one page of the 26 of the whole letter, and is reproduced in its entirety further below, in the translations that the authors themselves have made of it.

    With regard to which it must be said that, in the letter sent to the pope, the signatures are placed not at the end of the text but immediately after the “Correctio” and before the long final “Elucidation” that therefore has a value more accessory than substantial. This insists on the theological background of the heresies denounced, and identifies it in “modernism” and in the thought of Martin Luther, toward which Pope Francis - it states - indicates “an affinity without precedent.”

    Among the 62 signers, listed further below, the 40 who signed the letter delivered to the pope are marked in bold.

    And among the signatures that were added afterward there also appears one of a bishop, the only one. It is Bernard Fellay, superior of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, meaning the Lefebvrists.

    This signature of his could in reality create more difficulties for Pope Francis than has the letter, for which he has so far made a show of indifference.

    The fact that Fellay recognizes Francis as heretical seven times over makes difficult, if not impossible, that practical reconciliation which Francis himself has repeatedly demonstrated he wants to hasten with the Lefebvrists.

    Getting back to the first 40 signers, among them are two of the six lay scholars who gathered in Rome last April 22 for the study seminar on “Amoris Laetitia” remembered by Carlo Caffarra in his last - and unheeded - letter to Pope Francis.

    The two are Claudio Pierantoni, professor of philosophy at the Universidad de Chile in Santiago, and Anna M. Silvas, Australian, a specialist on the Fathers of the Church and a professor at the University of New England.

    For Pierantoni, Settimo Cielo published on September 14 a commentary that ended as follows:

    “It is all the more necessary and urgent that some kind of ‘formal’, or, maybe better, '’filial’ correction to the Pope, finally appear. And may God grant the Holy Father an open heart to hear it.”

    While Anna Silvas is remembered for having stated at the seminar on April 22 that she was skeptical about Pope Francis’s willingness to receive a “correction.”

    Instead, she proposed for the current post-Christian era a “Benedict option,” inspired by the monasticism at the collapse of the ancient era, a humble and communal “dwelling” with Jesus and the Father (John 14:23) in trustful anticipation, made up of prayer and work, for the tempest shaking the world and the Church today to cease.



    By words, deeds, and omissions, and by passages of the document 'Amoris
    laetitia,' Your Holiness has upheld, directly or indirectly, and, with what degree of awareness we do not seek to judge, both by public office and by private act propagated in the Churchthe following false and heretical propositions:

    1. "A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin."

    2. "Christians who have obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom they are validly married and have contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of their spouse, who live 'more uxorio' with their civil partner, and who choose to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of their act and full consent of the will to that act, are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity."

    3. "A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action."

    4. "A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience."

    5. "Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God."

    6. "Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object."

    7. "Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it."

    These propositions all contradict truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe with the assent of divine faith. […] It is necessary for the good of souls that they be once more condemned by the authority of the Church. In listing these seven propositions we do not intend to give an exhaustive list of all the heresies and errors which an unbiased reader, attempting to read 'Amoris laetitia' in its natural and obvious sense, would plausibly take to be affirmed, suggested or favoured by this document. Rather, we seek to list the propositions which Your Holiness's words, deeds and omissions have in effect upheld and propagated, to the great and imminent danger of souls.

    At this critical hour, therefore, we turn to the "cathedra veritatis," the Roman Church, which has by divine law pre-eminence over all the churches, and of which we are and intend always to remain loyal children, and we respectfully insist that Your Holiness publicly reject these propositions, thus accomplishing the mandate of our Lord Jesus Christ given to St Peter and through him to all his successors until the end of the world: "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

    We respectfully ask for Your Holiness’s apostolic blessing, with the assurance of our filial devotion in our Lord and of our prayer for the welfare of the Church.


    (In bold are the names of the first 40 signers, those of the letter delivered to the pope on August 11)

    Dr. Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg
    European editor, Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior

    Prof. Jean Barbey
    Historian and Jurist, former Professor at the University of Maine

    Fr Claude Barthe
    Diocesan Priest

    Philip M. Beattie
    BA (Leeds), MBA (Glasgow), MSc (Warwick), Dip. Stats (Dublin), Associate Lecturer, University of Malta (Malta)

    Fr Jehan de Belleville

    Dr. Philip Blosser
    Professor of Philosophy, Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Archdiocese of Detroit

    Fr Robert Brucciani
    District superior of the SSPX in Great Britain

    Prof. Mario Caponnetto
    University Professor, Mar de la Plata (Argentina)

    Mr Robert F. Cassidy STL

    Fr Isio Cecchini
    Parish Priest in Tuscany

    Salvatore J. Ciresi, M.A.
    Director of the St. Jerome Biblical Guild, Lecturer at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College

    Fr. Linus F Clovis
    Director of the Secretariat for Family and Life in the Archdiocese of Castries

    Fr Paul Cocard

    Fr Thomas Crean OP STD

    Prof. Matteo D'Amico
    Professor of History and Philosophy, Senior High School of Ancona

    Dr. Chiara Dolce PhD
    Research doctor in Moral Philosophy at the University of Cagliari

    Nick Donnelly MA

    Petr Dvorak
    Head of Department for the Study of Ancient and Medieval Thought at the Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague; Professor of philosophy at Saints Cyril and Methodius Theological Faculty, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic

    H.E. Mgr Bernard Fellay
    Superior General of the SSPX

    Christopher Ferrara Esq.
    Founding President of the American Catholic Lawyers’ Association

    Prof. Michele Gaslin
    Professor of Public Law at the University of Udine

    Prof. Corrado Gnerre
    Professor at the Istituto Superiore di Scienze Religiose of Benevento, Pontifical Theological University of Southern Italy

    Dr. Ettore Gotti Tedeschi
    Former President of the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR), Professor of Ethics at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan

    Dr. Maria Guarini STB
    Pontificia Università Seraphicum, Romae; editor of the website Chiesa e postconcilio

    Prof. Robert Hickson PhD
    Retired Professor of Literature and of Strategic-Cultural Studies

    Fr John Hunwicke
    Former Senior Research Fellow, Pusey House, Oxford

    Fr Jozef Hutta
    Diocesan Priest

    Prof. Isebaert Lambert
    Full Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, and at the Flemish Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

    Dr. John Lamont STL
    DPhil (Oxon.)

    Fr Serafino M. Lanzetta STD
    Lecturer in Dogmatic Theology, Theological Faculty of Lugano, Switzerland; Priest in charge of St Mary’s, Gosport, in the diocese of Portsmouth

    Prof. Massimo de Leonardis
    Professor and Director of the Department of Political Sciences at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan

    Msgr. Prof. Antonio Livi
    Academic of the Holy See
Dean emeritus of the Pontifical Lateran University
Vice-rector of the church of Sant'Andrea del Vignola, Rome

    Dr. Carlo Manetti
    Professor in Private Universities in Italy

    Prof. Pietro De Marco
    Former Professor at the University of Florence

    Prof. Roberto de Mattei
    Former Professor of the History of Christianity, European University of Rome, former Vice President of the National Research Council (CNR)

    Fr Cor Mennen
    Lecturer in Canon Law at the Major Seminary of the Diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands). Canon of the cathedral chapter of the diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch

    Prof. Stéphane Mercier
    Lecturer in Philosophy at the Catholic University of Louvain

    Don Alfredo Morselli STL
    Parish priest of the archdiocese of Bologna

    Martin Mosebach
    Writer and essayist

    Dr. Claude E. Newbury
    Former Director of Human Life International in Africa south of the Sahara; former Member of the Human Services Commission of the Catholic Bishops of South Africa

    Prof. Lukas Novak
    Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Charles University, Prague

    Fr Guy Pagès
    Diocesan Priest

    Prof. Paolo Pasqualucci
    Professor of Philosophy (retired), University of Perugia

    Prof. Claudio Pierantoni
    Professor of Medieval Philosophy in the Philosophy Faculty of the University of Chile; Former Professor of Church History and Patrology at the Faculty of Theology of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

    Father Anthony Pillari, J.C.L., M.C.L

    Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli
    Philosopher, editor of the works of Romano Amerio

    Dr. John Rao
    Associate Professor of History, St. John’s University, NYC; Chairman, Roman Forum

    Dr. Carlo Regazzoni
    Licentiate in Philosophy at University of Freiburg

    Dr. Giuseppe Reguzzoni
    External Researcher at the Catholic University of Milan and former editorial assistant of Communio, International Catholic Review (Italian edition)

    Prof. Arkadiusz Robaczewski
    Former Professor at the Catholic University of Lublin

    Fr Settimio M. Sancioni STD
    Licence in Biblical Science

    Prof. Andrea Sandri
    Research Associate, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan

    Dr. Joseph Shaw
    Tutor in Moral philosophy, St Benet’s Hall, University of Oxford

    Fr Paolo M. Siano
    Historiae Ecclesiasticae Doctor

    Dr. Cristina Siccardi
    Historian of the Church

    Dr Anna Silvas
    Adjunct research fellow, University of New England, NSW, Australia

    Prof. Dr Thomas Stark
    Phil.-Theol. Hochschule Benedikt XVI, Heiligenkreuz

    Rev. Glen Tattersall
    Parish Priest, Parish of Bl. John Henry Newman, archdiocese of Melbourne; Rector, St Aloysius’ Church

    Prof. Giovanni Turco
    Associate Professor of Philosophy of Public Law at the University of Udine, Member Corrispondent of the Pontificia Accademia San Tommaso d'Aquino

    Prof. Piero Vassallo
    Former redactor of Cardinal Siri’s theological review Renovatio

    Prof. Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira
    Former Professor at the Pontifical University of São Paulo, Brazil

    Mons. José Luiz Villac
    Former Rector of the Seminary of Jacarezinho

    Chiesa News
  3. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    This is again a sad announcement from the Menzingen administration. It verifies two things:

    1) The basis for neo-sspx joining the "common denominator' of the family and marriage between all of the catholic ecumenical factions is clear it is based on the foundation and return to the conciliar understanding of Vatican II and its use of the egregious 1983 Code of Canon law. Holding Vatican II to be "conservative" to life, morals, and marriage from the more progressive form of others including pope Francis is not a return to the perennial teachings of Christ. It is a fraud.

    2) For the neo-sspx to "fight" WITHIN the novus ordo structure, and BY the novus ordo structure, is only to gain and hold a position among them with a presence, a clout, and a gesture of being accepted. Frankly, it is coy marketing distraction. As is happening with the new updating of the neo-sspx websites to use the SAME language as the novus ordo masses. This inroad has been developing for years within the novus ordo pantheon of the Ecclesia Dei "traditional" factions. As with an upcoming "meeting" between these wet noodles of tradition this October 27 represented also by the neo-sspx. This too is a fraud.

    Such is the major difference between ABL and the position of his "old"-sspx -vs- the new-sspx. ABL injected dialogue like his predecessors based on the doctrinal foundation of Christ, whereas the new-sspx uses the doctrine of modern man to arrive, so they say, to God. How liberating.

    A goulash of novus ordo mush will always end with the same mush.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2017
    Deus Vult and Martius like this.
  4. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member

    Fr. Pfeiffer comments on the above development.

  5. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    A good break down of the neo-traditional breed.
  6. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member

    Google translation


    Vatican, blocked the site accusing Francis of seven "heresies"

    The page containing the petition against the Pope and its excessive, according to Catholic traditionalists, modernism can no longer be reached by internal computers

    From the computers of the Vatican you will no longer be able to access, created specially to adhere to the accusations of "heresy" launched by the traditionalists against Pope Francis , linked to the contents of his apostolic exhortation «Amoris laetitia». You can no longer access the page in the Vatican computers in any language. Outside the Vatican State, however, the page is normally reachable.

    "Only a plea, no accusation"
    "Access to the webpage you are trying to visit has been blocked in accordance with institutional security policies." the petition, to which 62 priests, laymen and scholars (including former President Ior Ettore Gotti Tedeschi) have so far accused the Pope of seven heresies linked to modernism, and approaching too much to the schismatic ideas of Martin Luther. However, Gotti Tedeschi has denied that they are allegations of true heresy, rather than "a supplication written by theologians, which says that indirectly could facilitate heresies in the faithful." And he added: "I only want the good of the Church and of Pope Francis, for whom I pray every day in Mass. I love the Pope, I am faithful to the Church. "

    "How does the safety device work?"
    Archbishop Dario Edoardo Viganò, Prefect of the Vatican Communications Secretariat, explained to Ansa how the Santa Seine model computer security functions: "Since the establishment of the Communications Secretariat, the dicastero has been equipped with equipment and policies to ensure the security of workstations, as is the case in all companies in the world. While the Vatican State's network traffic management is in charge of the Vatican City State Governorate. " And he adds: "The communications secretary's perimeter firewalls exclusively handle network traffic on the digital boundary of the Communications Dicastery by applying policies derived from well-defined categories at international level. Our IT security policies, do not allow sites identified as "parked-domains", as in this case. A site that uses parked-domains is a regularly-registered site but, through a click on its home page, redirects traffic to another "parked-domain" categorized domain on which it is easy to find ads but is also a repository of malware. "



    Last edited: Sep 26, 2017
  7. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member

    Google translation

    Blocked the site on the "Seven Heresies". Vatican denies:
    "Filters in PCs"

    From internal computers, you can not sign the petition against Pope Francis. The Vatican:
    "No censorship, only PC filters"
    Mon, 25/09/2017 - 12:32

    No censorship against the site of correctio filialis that Pope Francis accused of having supported "heretical" positions. It assures him of the headship of the Holy See's Press Office, thus denying the news this morning by Ansa , according to which access to the website of the 25-page letter addressed to the Holy Father by 62 priests and lay people would be blocked by the Secretariat for the communication of the Holy See "in accordance with institutional security policies".

    The computers available within the Press Room for journalists and authorized personnel clarify, on the contrary, from the Conciliazione, have filters which regulate free internet surfing. Among these there is one "which prevents you from requesting or providing personal information to avoid unwanted transactions". From the Press Room PCs, therefore, you can access the site freely and navigate within it, but you can not subscribe to the appeal contained in the letter "as the form just requires some personal information." This is what the Holy See Press Office says, "that's what's commonplace for any other site that requires that type of information," especially when it comes to other addresses overseas and for security reasons. "

    Nessuna misura volta a impedire la diffusione all’interno dei sacri palazzi della missiva indirizzata al Papa lo scorso 11 agosto e resa pubblica nella giornata di ieri, ribadiscono, quindi, dalla Santa Sede. "Figurarsi se facciamo questo per una lettera con 60 nomi", scherza, infine, il direttore della Sala Stampa vaticana, Greg Burke.

    In the letter, dozens of priests and lay people called on the Pope to correct seven positions "backed up" in post-synodal apostolic exorcism by Amoris Laetitia and "through other words, acts and omissions associated with it", labeled by the extensors of the document as "heretics" . Alleged positions that are not in line with the Catholic magisterium, according to the signatories, concern " marriage , moral life, and the reception of the sacraments." And Pope Francis, it is said in Correctio Filialis , would "cause the spread of these hereticalopinions in the Catholic Church."

    The main object of the contention, in short, would be the statements contained in the Ariesis Laetitia regarding access to communion for divorced and repatriated persons who live more together . The same were the five "doubts" that were presented to the Pope by the Cardinals Charles Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke and Joachim Meisner. Through these assertions, the document reads in the summary of the document , the Pope would have allowed "directly or indirectly," that it was believed that obedience to the Law of God could be impossible or undesirable and that the Church should sometimes accept adultery as compatible with being Catholic practitioners. "

    Not only that, in the text, the signatories attribute the current crisis in the Church to " modernism ", which theologically "argues that God has not delivered truths to the Church," and "the apparent influence of Martin Luther's ideas on Pope Francis ", in particular on" marriage, divorce, forgiveness and divine law ".

    "Branch Correction" comes from dozens of members of the traditionalist universe. Among them are some famous names such as the one of the former President of the Ior, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi , the Superior of the Fraternity San Pio X , the Lefebvriano Bernard Fellay, by Monsignor Antonio Livi , illustrious theologian, historian and vice president of CNR, Roberto De Mattei and President of the American Catholic Lawyers' Association, Christopher Ferrara. No cardinal, however, chose to affix his signature at the foot of the document, although in the past Cardinal Burke had suggested the possibility of presenting a "formal correction" to Pope Francis if the Holy Father did not respond to the "doubt" on Auritis Laetitia.

    The purpose of the correction, however, explained yesterday Gotti Tedeschi at La Stampa , is not to "give the Eyewitness to the Pope", but to safeguard the "good of the Church" and of the Pope itself.


    See also:
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2017
  8. Tobias

    Tobias Member

    And bp. Fellay said rome is becoming more traditional. I like how fr. Peiffer said it. In bp. Fellay's terms it is not tradition as we know it but the reality of new conservatism in vatican ii and a neo tradition bp. Fellay joined.
  9. Vincent

    Vincent Well-Known Member

    The betrayal continues by the SSPX under the guidance of BF. If only a few more priests would just stand up and decry such outrages, something might be done. But it seems the betrayal, like that of Judas, will be a complete one.
  10. unbrandable

    unbrandable Well-Known Member

    This article was posted on the Resistance-catholique website and is from the following website:

    Correctio Filialis to Pope Francis: an antidote injected by an infected syringe

    The letter, opened to the new signatories, now has the names of 62 clerics - including Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X - and lay scholars from 20 countries.

    Its title is in Latin: "Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis" (literally: "A filial correction concerning the propagation of heresies"). It affirms that the Pope, through his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, as well as by other words, actions and omissions in connection with it, has in fact supported seven heretical propositions with regard to marriage, moral life and the reception of sacraments, and that he was at the origin of the dissemination of these heretical opinions within the Catholic Church.

    These seven heresies were expressed by the signatories in Latin, the official language of the Church.

    What we can rejoice in

    The Correctio Filialis is a thunderbolt in the Catholic world: for the first time since the crisis triggered by the Second Vatican Council, the Pope's orthodoxy is being questioned, not by the Society of Saint Pius X, but by a base much expanded. Previously the Dubia of the 4 cardinals had also pointed out the affirmations of Pope Francis contrary with the Catholic dogma.

    The interest of this text, besides its signatories, is the tone which it employs: finally they speak of heresy, the text even counts seven while saying that it does not intend to be exhaustive! Finally, the rapprochement is made with Protestantism, a Protestantism which has so thoroughly penetrated the whole of the conciliar doctrine. A text respectful certainly, but without doublespeak: one can talk about a true brotherly correction.

    What can be regretted

    The 17-page text, if it has many references to the Catholic Magisterium, contains eight references to the Second Vatican Council (1) including three in Lumen Gentium, one of the most harmful texts of this council.

    Now the Council is at the origin of the present crisis of the Church, which Correctio Filialis refuses to point out. This text is thus entirely in the hermeneutics of the reform of Benedict XVI, who in the end wanted to find a hermeneutic that would make the conciliar revolution the development of the Catholic Magisterium.

    Wishing to counter the heresies contained in Amoris laetitia of Pope Francis, a text that relies heavily on the Second Vatican Council, by this Correctio Filialis which also relies in part on references to the Second Vatican Council, is wanting to inject the poison at the same time as the antidote, or inject the antidote with an infected syringe.

    The signature of Bishop Fellay

    The presence of this signature is surprising. On the one hand, because it has been a long time since Bishop Fellay refused to directly challenge the pope, preoccupied in his silence to obtain the personal prelature, but also because this signature took place secondly, once Cardinal Muller and then Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer, the new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had notified to him that prelature would exist only with full recognition of the Second Vatican Council. The Roman gate closed, and the elective chapter of 2018 approached.

    A more embarrassing element, this signature is affixed to the bottom of a generally good text, but a part of the references, as we have seen, is the Second Vatican Council. This is tantamount to endorsing this approach to the hermeneutics of reform which gives a magisterial value to the council, whereas it is this council that is the poisoned source of Amoris laetitia. This signature shows a little more clearly how the specific voice of the Society of Saint Pius X fell silent, in line with the criticisms emanating from the so-called conservative movements of the Church, at the risk of assuming regrettable arguments.


    The Council is not just an event that must be overcome, it is not a false step that must be put into perspective, it is not an ambiguous text that must be reinterpreted. The Second Vatican Council was a complete revolution which spared nothing. And Amoris Laetitia is its natural child.

    "Delenda est Carthago": Rome had understood that she would not survive under the same skies as Carthage. Tradition can not survive under the same auspices as the Conciliar Church. Delendum is Concilium!

    Christian Lassale

    (1) Also surprising, these references are not published in the French version, as if it had been necessary to avoid that these references be too visible ...
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2017
  11. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    What needs to be emphasized here, we always said, this text is BASED on Vatican II, SUPPORTS Vatican II, and ENCOURAGES Vatican II.

    Let's highlight that section again:

    The 17-page text, if it has many references to the Catholic Magisterium, contains eight references to the Second Vatican Council (1) including three in Lumen Gentium, one of the most harmful texts of this council.

    Now the Council is at the origin of the present crisis of the Church, which Correctio Filialis refuses to point out. This text is thus entirely in the hermeneutics of the reform of Benedict XVI, who in the end wanted to find a hermeneutic that would make the conciliar revolution the development of the Catholic Magisterium.

    Wishing to counter the heresies contained in Amoris laetitia of Pope Francis, a text that relies heavily on the Second Vatican Council by this Correctio Filialis which also relies in part on references to the Second Vatican Council, is wanting to inject the poison at the same time as the antidote, or inject the antidote with an infected syringe.

    This is what Bishop Fellay fully acknowledges and consented to, and OMITTED, in his cavalier speech to the trad-world "Why I Signed the Correctio Filialis" to deceive their support walking deeper into conciliarism. Bishop Fellay clearly is more of the revolutionary deceiving and hiding the truth than the open book modernists and pope Francis who are honest to their thoughts, wrong as they are.

    "If I do not preach Jesus Christ, I am nothing...a anathema." -St Paul.

    The standout message here is Bishop Fellay and his neo-sspx believes and lives in the false church. An empty carbon missing the nitrogen of the Catholic Faith we under the great Archbishop Lefebvre stand for. Bishop Fellay can say all he wants he is married with tradition, but he lives conscientiously in adultery shaming that marriage living and wanting to be joined legally betrothed with his new hireling mistress.

    Thanks be to God He is lifting the veil from these corrupters of the faith.
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
    Martius and Elenchus like this.
  12. Martius

    Martius Guest

    Excellent article from the Catholic Candle - October 2017:

    Catholic Candle note: the article below was written by a man who has always been Traditional
    Catholic and who has been continually fighting liberalism since before Vatican II.

    To be Recognized by Modernist Rome, N-SSPX Leaders will (Ruinously) Accept Vatican II’s Errors

    Why do I say that? Because the “new” SSPX has recently published two statements that pervert and
    twist the truth, to deceive N-SSPX followers into accepting Vatican II’s errors as necessary and

    The frst of these two N-SSPX statements lied to say that Archbishop Lefebvre approved of Vatican II’s
    Lumen Gentium —which is totally untrue. (See Catholic Candle, September 2017 issue that completely
    refutes that lie.)

    The second attempt to deceive followers was from the “new” SSPX’s Aug. 9, 2017 SSPX events & news,
    stating that Archbishop Lefebvre and the revolutionary Bishop Athanasius Schneider agree on the
    traditional aspects oF Vatican II.

    First, there are no good and traditional aspects of the Second Vatican Council, when you consider the
    council’s heresies and its weak, ambiguous rhetoric. Archbishop Lefebvre surely would not agree with
    Bishop Schneider on the “traditional” aspects of the Council because there are none.
    Rome managed to neutralize the SSPX and it has now become weak and ineFr ective. Rome fears a new
    strong traditional resistance movement to defend Catholic Tradition against modernist Rome.

    If Bishop Fellay can’t convince his priests and laymen to accept Vatican II, there will be a large number
    of defections when the N-SSPX makes its deal. This scares modernist Rome. Thus, Rome conditions its
    (unnecessary) recognition of the N-SSPX, upon Bishop Fellay convincing his followers that Vatican II is

    Bishop Fellay’s only hope of deceiving his followers into accepting Vatican II, is to distort Archbishop
    Lefebvre’s teaching and legacy. Bishop Fellay has been trying to do this since at least 2012 and has
    recently made stronger and bolder eFr orts to do this.
    Bishop Fellay’s distortions and falsehoods have gone almost entirely unchallenged because the N-SSPX
    priests and followers have been steadily weakening for a long time (especially since 2012). His followers
    accept N-SSPX compromises because they want to believe them. The alternative (viz., seeing the truth)
    requires heroic action which they fear to take.

    Thus, they accept Bishop Fellay’s deceptive statements and his new direction. I will give you two

    Example # 1:
    Bishop Fellay makes ambiguous statements that sound reasonable and that everyone would like to
    believe. But he carefully refrains from stating crucial aspects necessary for understanding the truth.
    (And which low-information-follower does not desire to accept the new, easier direction, requiring no
    heroic action?)

    Bishop Fellay insists the N-SSPX must be recognized and accepted by Rome to be part of the Catholic
    Church. And therefore, we must follow Rome’s lead on important matters. But Bishop Fellay fails to
    distinguish between Eternal Rome and modernist Rome. He omits the most important distinction,
    namely that we need no recognition that we don’t already have, because we live in emergency times.
    Traditional Catholic priests have supplied (emergency) jurisdiction and authority to dispense valid
    sacraments. Archbishop Lefebvre and the “old” SSPX understood this truth for over 40 years. Modernist
    Rome’s recognition and acceptance (with multiple strings attached) is neither necessary nor safe.

    Example # 2:
    Bishop Fellay makes false statements as if they were true, knowing that his priests will never question
    him—much less, contradict him. So most unthinking and/or lazy followers believe him. Statements such
    as: “Bishop Schneider is... just another one of the many conservative bishops... who maintain a position
    based on a positive recognition of Vatican II.” Who would believe that except a liberal Catholic? There
    are no truly conservative bishops who enjoy modernist Rome’s warm regard and approval, and no
    members of the hierarchy who do not maintain a falsely positive position on Vatican II. None.

    And another: As mentioned above, Bishop Fellay claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre approved of Vatican
    II’s Lumen Gentium as being free of all errors and ambiguities. Who believes that? Only Bishop Fellay’s
    brainwashed followers.
    In the process of deceiving his followers, Bishop Fellay always invokes the name of Archbishop Lefebvre
    or says that he is “promoting Catholic tradition...”, to give credibility to his false statements.
    Bishop Fellay once stated he could get Archbishop Lefebvre to say whatever he wants.1

    In effect, he is bragging how he can manipulate the SSPX founder’s words.

    Many statements in the above-mentioned N-SSPX articles are exactly the opposite of the truth.
    Example: Bishop Fellay maintains there are “original and valuable contributions of Vatican II”.....and
    that this (evil) council made a “ to holiness for all members of the church...” I wonder: What
    Church? Certainly not the Catholic Church because Vatican II is full of heresies and heresy is
    incompatible with true holiness.

    This “call to holiness” is the call to false, conciliar “holiness” of the new conciliar religion.
    Bishop Fellay wants us to believe there are traditional bishops in the conciliar church, fighting
    liberalism for us. Also, his reference to the 4th century Arians putting up with evil for a long time is
    supposed to suggest to us that we ought to “patiently” put up with Vatican II’s evils without a fght.
    Plainly, Rome has lost the Faith as the Blessed Virgin foretold at Fatima. Now the N-SSPX, under its
    current leadership, has accepted Rome’s loss of Faith and pleads for modernist Rome’s acceptance and
    recognition regardless of how this harms souls.

    The above is more than enough evidence to prove that Bishop Fellay and the new liberal N-SSPX have
    lost the Faith and given up the fght for true Catholic Tradition. Pray for them, but stand against their errors!

    1. In 2014, Bishop Fellay cynically and publicly remarked that “one can make Archbishop Lefebvre say whatever one wants”. April 11, 2014, DICI #294, p.10.
  13. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Last edited: Oct 5, 2017
    unbrandable likes this.