No to roman marriage: Letter from some SSPX priests and Religious Communities

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement' started by Machabees, May 8, 2017.

  1. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Below is a Letter distributed by some priests of the SSPX and some religious communities. At first glance it may be a fresh air finally hearing some other priests are standing up against the conciliarism happening in the SSPX. But that is first glance.

    The essence of the Letter is a complaint against the new roman document on Marriages just implemented by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and endorsed by Bishop Fellay to be held with esteem in the SSPX.

    Not so for a few of them. Deo gratias. However, there is a greater danger here that is not caught. Namely, the authors of this Letter are only complaining about the new marriage arraignment within the SSPX chapels. They are NOT complaining about the overall generation of conciliarism within the SSPX. Why not? Because this is expected.

    Revolutions take time. It first starts against the divine order then naturally finds its way to revolt against the natural order. These priests do not have a "problem" any longer altering the faith, the mass to call it the ecumenical "extraordinary form" (as they have done many times in their Letter), and the ecumenical relations of some of the other sacraments. But the sacrament of marriage is the social one; a conservative one they are not ready to alter. They are close though. Because they call it the "Extraordinary form of marriage". How things evolve!

    One also finds a hypocrisy the way they use the topic The state of necessity applying it to marriages. That is, they only apply this State of Necessity only to this sacrament of marriage to have a "right" to offer it without the need to be cleared and authorized by a novus ordo diocesan bishop. Yet again, they drop the State of Necessity in the trash when it is needed to discuss their deal and reconciliation with conciliar rome; for which they still want the "Personal Prelature" to be given to the SSPX.

    If only "sanity" were real.

    Below is the Letter.


    Marriages in the SSPX: letter from deans of the SSPX and religious communities


    Following the Roman document concerning marriages in the SSPX, we endeavored to enlighten our readers both on the real scope of this text and on the aspect, at least ambiguous, of the commentary published by the General House of the SSPX.

    Today, in a letter signed by seven deans of the French district of the FSSPX and by all the superiors of the friendly male communities of the FSSPX , they recall the right of the faithful in this field and The true nature of the state of necessity which still exists today. Thus, the jurisdiction of substitute is strongly recalled . This text was published in the Chardonnet of this month and read in many of the chapels of the SSPX in France .

    We deeply thank our good priests for this public speech which defends the rightness of Bishop Lefebvre's position in this crisis of the Church, so much the confusion associated with the will of some to rally modernist Rome stirs up trouble everywhere .

    Christian LASSALE


    Text of the letter
    Dear faithful,

    On April 4, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei published a letter from its president, Cardinal Müller, concerning the marriages celebrated by the priests of the SSPX. Explicitly approved by the Pope who ordered its publication, this document intends to govern the marriages celebrated within the framework of the Catholic Tradition.

    Following this letter, a vast communication campaign, coming from very different backgrounds, suggests that by this gesture, the Pope recognizes purely and simply the marriages we celebrate, and even recognizes the validity of all the marriages we have been able to To celebrate until then. The reality is, alas, very different.

    Because this question touches you closely, whether it concerns your home, your children of marriageable age or your future, we must enlighten you both on the real scope of this Roman document and on our attitude.

    [The obvious validity of our marriages]

    As you know, for forty years now the Roman authorities have refused to recognize the validity of the marriages we celebrate, despite the right of the Church.

    Of course, this right provides that the sacrament of marriage be celebrated before the parish priest or his delegate, as well as before at least two witnesses [1] . This is called the canonical form of marriage, necessary for its validity. Now the priests of the Society of St. Pius X, being neither parish priests nor delegated by them, some maintain that the marriages they celebrate are invalid, by default of canonical form. On this ground, both Roman and diocesan courts do not hesitate to declare marriages invalid. In doing so, they nevertheless oppose the most fundamental right of the Church [2] .

    Indeed, the same canon law [3] provides for the case where "it is not possible to have or find without difficulty a competent assistant according to the law". If such a situation was foreseen to last thirty days, then ecclesiastical law recognizes the right to validly and lawfully exchange their consent before the lay witnesses; Without parish priest, nor a priest delegated by him. However, for the lawfulness of the act, these bride and groom should appeal if possible to any priest. A wedding so celebrated is according to the form called extraordinary. It is in this form that for forty years we validly and lawfully receive the exchange of your consents without any doubt being possible.

    [The state of necessity]

    As you know, there is, unfortunately, no doubt about the extraordinarily dramatic situation that the Church is going through [4] . The latter is undergoing more and more today what Archbishop Lefebvre called "the masterpiece of Satan": "To diffuse revolutionary principles by the authority of the Church herself. [5] We see the authorities of the Church, from the siege of Peter to the parish priest, directly attacking the Catholic faith by a misguided humanism which, placing the cult of conscience at the pinnacle, dethrones All our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, the kingship of Christ over human societies is simply ignored and even fought against, and the Church is seized by that liberal spirit which manifests itself especially in religious freedom, ecumenism and collegiality. Through this spirit, it is the very nature of the Redemption realized by Christ that is challenged, it is the Catholic Church, the only ark of salvation, which is denied in the facts. Catholic morality itself, already shaken in its foundations, is overthrown by Pope Francis, for example when it explicitly opens the way to the communion of the divorced "remarried" living maritally.

    This dramatic attitude of the ecclesial authorities undoubtedly entails a state of necessity for the faithful. There is not only a grave inconvenience but also a real danger in putting his salvation into the hands of pastors imbued with that "adulterous" spirit, which is deleterious both to faith and to morality. We have no choice but to protect ourselves from such authority, because it "is in a situation of incoherence and permanent contradiction" and that "until this ambiguity is overcome, disasters Will multiply in the Church. [7] We live in these circumstances where true obedience demands disobedience [8] , for "it is better to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

    So long as this ambiguity of the ecclesial authorities is not dissipated, the grave inconvenience of Canon 1098 will also persist, and the celebration of marriages according to the extraordinary form will be justified.

    Moreover, as marriage implies a profession of faith as a sacrament, one can not counter the right of the faithful to the sacraments by imposing on them a minister who usually directs his ministry in the adulterous direction officialised in Vatican II, while they have the possibility To refer to a priest free from this prevarication of the faith.

    [The Scope of the Roman Document]

    In the light of these principles appears the real scope of the Roman document. Persistent in the disastrous line of Vatican II, the Roman authorities simply claim to deprive you of the extraordinary form of marriage by denying the state of necessity. This document therefore requires you to have recourse for your marriage to a diocesan priest, leaving to the priests of the SSPX only the possibility of celebrating the Mass that follows. The Ecclesia Dei Commission foresees that " to the extent possible, the delegation of the Ordinary to attend the marriage [of the faithful of the SSPX] will be given to a priest of the diocese (or at least to a fully regular priest) To receive the consent of the parties ...; Will follow the celebration of the Holy Mass by a priest of the Brotherhood. "

    It is only "in case of impossibility or if there is no priest of the diocese who can receive the consent of the parties, [the] Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties directly to the priest of the fraternity. In other words, it is only and only if there is a case of necessity - of which one is unaware of the nature, since it is no longer the serious damage that the liberal spirit causes to the Catholic faith - that the bishop May delegate to a priest of the Society of St. Pius X. Any other marriage celebrated by a priest of the FSSPX without explicit delegation of the Ordinary will continue to be considered invalid by the present holders of the supreme authority.

    Apart from the fact that such a decision is as unjust as it is null, it is a further breach of the spirit of law. Indeed, the Ecclesia Dei commission allows itself to do so even if the new code of canon law had forbidden itself, namely to place the extraordinary form of marriage under the control of the Ordinary, and this at the expense of the natural right to marriage [ 9] .

    [Our weddings, most certainly valid yesterday, today and tomorrow]

    So long as this dramatic state of the Church lasts, and the destructive equivocation in which the highest authorities of the Church live, we shall continue to use the extraordinary form of marriage without letting it unduly govern 'Ordinary.

    We will therefore continue to validly and lawfully celebrate your marriages in our churches and chapels, as we have always done before, referring for this to the canons 1098 of the old code and 1116 of the new, independently of any prior agreement With the Ordinary.

    To those who would object that such a practice would henceforth be invalid since the ecclesiastical authorities offer a possible delegation of the Ordinary, we will reply that the state of necessity which legitimizes our way of doing things is not canonical but dogmatic, The impossibility of resorting to the authorities in place is not physical but moral. We simply do not want to abandon souls who, driven by circumstances, entrust themselves to our ministry. They did not flee from the prevaricating authorities to be imposed on them during one of the most important ceremonies of their lives. Moreover, those who make such an objection show that they know very little about the right of the Church, which converses conversely. In fact, it allows the faithful to voluntarily place themselves in the case of necessity to contract validly and lawfully a marriage according to the extraordinary form, even if they have the possibility of doing otherwise. [10]

    In the event that some of the faithful would obtain a parish priest the opportunity of seeing their marriage celebrated in his parish church, we shall stick to our wise customs established by time. Insofar as this parish priest would usually be well disposed towards the Tradition of the Church and would leave the care of preaching to us, we would not object to his having received consents according to the ritual Traditional, while leaving to a priest of our Fraternity the celebration of the Mass. But we will refuse this celebration of the Mass if, as a delegation to be given, it was denied us, for example to a priest Ecclesia Dei .

    For the sake of the sacrament of marriage, for the good of your homes, for the good of your souls, we do not intend to subject the cause of your marriages to an ecclesiastical jurisdiction whose courts declare marriages certainly valid, The false pretense of the lack of psychological maturity of the contractors. We also know how much these same tribunals effectively endorse Catholic divorce through the simplified procedure of nullity of marriage promulgated by Pope Francis. This is why we will continue to recognize as ultimate judge of these matters only the Saint Charles Borromeo Commission, which the Society of St. Pius X had to establish precisely because of these invalid declarations of nullity.


    Finally, let us express our great astonishment about this Roman decision and the echo it received. The personal prelature given to the Society of St. Pius X was supposed to recognize us as we are, and to keep ourselves in independence from the Ordinaries of the place. But the first decisions taken were to unjustly subject our marriages to these Ordinaries, and then to condition our new houses to their approval tomorrow. This is to say how the duplicity of language reigns not only in the domain of faith and morality, but also in these canonical questions.

    Therefore, in this centenary year of the apparitions of Fatima, we invoke the Immaculate Heart of Mary not to put an end to our canonical position, which is considered by some to be irregular, but to free the Church from its modernist occupation and Higher authorities return to the path followed by the Church until Vatican II. It is then that our bishops can put their episcopate back into the hands of the Sovereign Pontiff [12] .

    On 7 May 2017,

    Abbé David ALDALUR , Dean of the Dean of Bordeaux

    Abbot Xavier BEAUVAIS , Dean of the deanery of Marseille

    Abbé François-Xavier CAMPER , Dean of the Deanery of Lyon

    Abbé Bruno FRANCE , Dean of the Deanery of Nantes

    Abbé Thierry GAUDRAY , Dean of the deanery of Lille

    Abbé Patrick de LA ROCQUE , Dean of the Dean of Paris

    Abbé Thierry LEGRAND , Dean of the Deanery of Saint-Malo

    Also co-signed this letter:

    RP JEAN-MARIE , Superior of the Fraternity of the Transfiguration

    RP PLACIDE , Prior of the Benedictine monastery of Bellaigue

    RP ANTOINE , Guardian of the Capuchin Monastery of Morgon

    [1] Archbishop Lefebvre, Public Declaration on the occasion of the episcopal consecration of several priests of the SSPX , in Fideliter , special issue of 29 and 30 June 1988

    [2] The fundamental axioms of law are at stake: The supreme law is the salvation of souls , and the sacraments are for men well disposed

    [3] Code of 1917, canon 1098; Code of 1983, canon 1116

    [4] Even if there is doubt as to the existence of this exceptional situation authorizing the use of the extraordinary form of marriage, it must be emphasized that according to the law, the Church would compensate for the lack of jurisdiction ( Code of 1917, canon 209, Code of 1983, canon 144), thus retaining all its validity.

    [5] Bishop Lefebvre, The Master's Stroke of Satan , Editions St. Gabriel, 1977, p. 5-6

    [6] Archbishop Lefebvre, Public Statement on the Occasion of the Episcopal Consecration of Several Priests of the SSPX , in Fideliter , Occasional of 29 and 30 June 1988

    [7] Bishop Lefebvre, The Master's Stroke of Satan , Editions St. Gabriel, 1977, p. 5-6

    [8] Bishop Lefebvre, Can obedience oblige us to disobey? , Note of 29/03/1988 in Fideliter , special issue of 29 and 30 June 1988

    [9] Cf. André Sale, La forma straodinaria e il ministro della celebrazione del matrimonio secondo il codice latino e orientale, Editions Pontificia Universita Gregoriana , Rome 2003, pp. 142 to 154: On the eve of the Second Vatican Council, several bishops and cardinals requested a modification of Canon 1098 relating to the extraordinary form of marriage. In order to avoid abuses in the use of this form, they proposed that it could not be used without the spouses having attempted at least a recourse to the Ordinary, and never against the advice of the latter. A draft modification of the said canon was proposed at the 4th session of the Council: " [Forma extraordinaria celebrationis matrimonii] Ad valid contrahendum matrimonium coram solis testibus extra periculum mortis, praeter conditions praescriptas in can. 1098 CIC, requiritur: a) ut petitio Ordinario loci facienda, if fieri possit , omissa non fuerit , vel matrimonium not celebretur nisi post mensem ab interposita petitione sine responsione; B) ut matrimonium non-celebretur contra ordinarii vetitum In order to validly enter into a marriage outside the peril of death and Before the sole witnesses, and beyond the conditions prescribed in can. 1098, it is required: (a) that the request to be made to the local Ordinary has not been omitted, if possible, or that the marriage is not celebrated for a period of one month after the date of the marriage, Sending the request and without obtaining a reply; B, that marriage is not celebrated against the prohibition of the Ordinary. "After a difficult discussion, the conciliar fathers decided to leave the decision in the hands of the Pope and the Commission for the revision of canon law. The Commission addressed this point several times (in 1970, 1975, 1977, 1978 and 1982), but the discussions were bitter. Finally, canon 1116 of the new code resumed substantially Canon 1098, without introducing the slightest obligation to resort to the ordinary use of the extraordinary form of marriage. The reason for this was that the natural right to marriage was guaranteed in all circumstances.

    [10] On March 13, 1910, the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments declares marriage to be valid before the only witnesses of those who surrender, in order to turn the law, into a region where the common impossibility exists. Cf. Naz, Treaty of Canon Law in. Can. 1098, T. II No. 426, p.

    [11] In so doing, we do not intend to endorse the manifest injustice of the new Roman decision, which renders a priest of the Saint Pius X Brotherhood unfit to receive jurisdiction from a parish priest and frustrate the parish priest. A power which is however ordinary to him.

    [12] Archbishop Lefebvre, Public Statement on the Occasion of the Episcopal Consecration of Several Priests of the FSSPX , in Fideliter , Occasional of 29 and 30 June 1988
    Last edited: May 8, 2017
    sarto likes this.
  2. Admin

    Admin Moderator Staff Member

    Playing on the trust of their flock these priests deliberately deceive them with this constant recourse, back and forth, between ecclesiastical jurisdiction and supplied jurisdiction - whichever suits their mad rush to be recognised as Catholic in a counterfeit church. Defies simple common sense, let alone the lemming-like obedience of their unsuspecting spellbound followers.


    Last edited: May 20, 2017
  3. Deus Vult

    Deus Vult Well-Known Member

    They forget Rome was infiltrated first and therefore a step, or rather many steps ahead of the SSPX "conservative" priests. It's too bad they don't know how communists work. For the "conservative sspx priests" are the very ones they need to make their plan succeed.

    Father Pfeiffer explains here:

    "The primary method by which communism spreads itself is through deceit and through the quote, unquote, "anti-communists." When we look at that same principle of communism using the so-called anti-communists to make communism be sealed in the people, it's a very powerful method.
    In the Catholic Church the conservative Priest is the key to the victory of the liberal communist clergy. Without the conservative clergy, the liberal communists cannot win.
    One of the great proponents of this is the liberal Cardinal Ratzinger. Card. Ratzinger said many years ago, 'we need the conservatives'. He was worried about the liberal train running so fast that the conservatives weren't able to keep up. If the liberal train runs too fast and the conservatives can't keep up the train will fall apart and there will be many people going off the train. And when the train turns around sharp turns many cars will fall off the track.
    Therefore the liberals must be careful to go at a sufficiently slow pace that the conservatives can keep up. That way they can make sure that all the people in between remain on the liberal communist train."
  4. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Oh, oh...

    The French District Superior, Fr. Christian BOUCHACOURT, is now a little grumpy with the above Letter signed by the seven SSPX priors and the superiors of the Capuchins, Benedictines and Fathers of Mérigny.

    Certainly I agree the Letter was not proper on its face to distribute without the superior's consent, but reading between the lines, it seems that avenue was exhausted for those signatories to do what they did -Go Public. What else can be done when the upper superiors are squandering the faith as they do?

    That "rebel" Letter seems to be more justified when we read the contents of Fr. Bouchacourt's newest Letter of condemnation against those priests weighed with distraught than with any substance to counter the topic. Fr. Bouchacourt only proposes "peace and unity" around himself; not around the faith.

    Here is his "condemnation" Letter below.





    The District Superior

    + Suresnes, May 7, 2017

    To all the priests of the district of France

    Subject: Marriage FSSPX.

    Dear Colleagues,

    This morning you had to receive or read on the internet a statement signed by seven priors and the superiors of the Capuchins, Benedictines and Fathers of Mérigny.

    I totally and firmly condemn and reject the subversive manner in which this statement has been spread. Prepared in secret, among selected brethren, in order to surprise, to destabilize and to put the superiors before the fact already consummated, this one takes to the faithful like hostages and constitutes them judges of the priests and the superiors.

    The authors of this statement want to precipitate, as the only just and possible, their interpretation of the letter of Cardinal Müller on our marriages. Persuaded that they are right, they were not prudent to submit their text to their superiors. They regard their appreciation as the only true one, which must be imposed by all means, even the least legitimate.

    God can not bless such an initiative whose deadly fruits are manifested from now on: internal quarrels and additional divisions within and between our communities. The faithful are the first to suffer it. How can vocations germinate and develop in a religious family that is torn apart?

    It is up to each of us to confront this new test that runs through our district, rejecting All cooperation to the diffusion of this comment, to have it for nothing and despise it as insignificant and good thing to be discarded.

    For some days, I asked the brethren theologians to prepare a text giving the clarifications on the letter of Cardinal Müller. Having received the endorsement of the General House, I hereby inform you with the present. [NP will publish this document as soon as possible]

    I entrust to your prayers, dear Brotherhoods, our district that must face a new storm that arose unfortunately in our ranks. May Our Lord and Our Lady help us to rediscover our unity in truth and charity for the good of our souls and that of the faithful who are entrusted to us.

    Father Christian BOUCHACOURT

  5. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Here is the Menzingen Document mentioned by Fr. Christian BOUCHACOURT that accompanied his first [angered] Letter to the seven signatories to raise objections by the former priests.

    It should be noted that Menzingen confesses implicitly that they no longer recognize the State of Necessity (and therefore the crisis of the Church) since it accepts the conciliar jurisdiction for marriages.








    Last edited: May 11, 2017
  6. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Back to basics, well all most. Fr. Christian BOUCHACOURT wrote another Letter to "explain" his angered first. Means nothing to most when his opinion is wrong and is the only worth he counts. None the less, he removed all seven signatories from their positions of Priors within the neo-sspx due to their previous "rebel" Letter.

    Knowing the pool of the neo-sspx prospective priors are getting thin to replace them, even the accordist Fr. Vassal received another post after his last unfortunate fail of prudence and mis-management in the u.s.a. which got him transferred some months ago.

    Below is Fr. BOUCHACOURT new Letter to throw his weight around; because he can.



    The District Superior

    Suresnes, May 10, 2017

    To all the priests of the district of France
    For information to friendly communities

    Subject: Marriage FSSPX

    Dear Colleagues,

    After the painful events that motivated my letter last Sunday, I want to give you news of the present situation and communicate the decisions that led me to take.

    I would first like to return to an expression used in my last email. The terms "despise and discard", probably of excessive harshness, concerned the circumstances surrounding the publication of the document. It is very evident that there was no desire on my part to despise its authors. The published text certainly presents errors, insufficiencies, but if it had been proposed with loyalty before its publication, whether it be the district or the General House, it would have deserved to be studied and corrected, as was the study that I sent to them myself. The modum employed was unacceptable, for subversive, which provoked my refusal to consider the content of the document. The end does not justify the means. You can not use an illegitimate means to achieve a presumptive good. Why write this text in secret? Why show it to certain priests and hide it from others? Confusion then has spread in our faithful. Many of them have not understood what happened last Sunday at Mass. In addition, the very painful and disastrous divisions have manifested themselves among the priests of the same community. The fruits of this initiative are not blessed by God.

    So, according to Bishop Fellay, I had to make difficult decisions towards the confreres who signed the document in question. Fr. de la Rocque is relieved of his position as "curate" of St. Nicholas of Chardonnet and the seven signatories have been relieved of their position of prior. Fellay has appointed Fr. Vassal to replace Fr. de la Rocque. As for the new priors, they will be named next August 15.

    Father Christian BOUCHACOURT

  7. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    The revolution continues at the top of the new-sspx. The Official website of the new-sspx put out an announcement of condemnation to this event as "subversive" and breaking the bond of "unity" with the superiors and their authority. But what authority do they have when they themselves subvert the truth?

    This is no longer a scratch your head moment. The Menzingen administration are calculated revolutionaries bringing down God's right and Kingship over all people to the banal degree of conservatism in steps holding a progressive party.

    Caught in their hypocrisy again, Menzingen is always re-narrating their position in piece meal to maneuver the Elephant in the room and wolf' disguise to be more "palatable" to the growing plebs who question their supreme wisdom.

    "Tranquility of order" is the new theme when their push back of authority is getting old to comprehend with the stick.

    Here is Menzingen's newest false cover.


    Concerning A Letter from Some Priests to the Faithful of the French District

    May 11, 2017

    On March 27, 2017, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, signed on behalf of Pope Francis a Letter addressed to the bishops throughout the world “concerning faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society” of Saint Pius X.

    On April 4, 2017, the General House published a press release to express “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.'” This communiqué recalled the Society’s intention to continue in the same spirit what it has always done, namely “to prepare future spouses for marriage according to the unchangeable doctrine of Christ about the unity and indissolubility of this union (cf. Mt 19:6), before receiving the parties’ consent in the traditional rite of Holy Church.”

    In an “authorized commentary”, the official website of the Society of Saint Pius X ( clearly recalled the Society’s positions concerning marriages, particularly their validity, even without official delegation: “However, just as the sacrament of penance was not invalidly conferred by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X before 2015, neither were the marriages celebrated without the official delegation of the local bishop or parish pastor.” This commentary was based on what Canon Law provides in such cases.

    From the beginning, the authorities of the Society have unceasingly protested to the Roman authorities against the unjust, scandalous declarations of nullity pronounced almost automatically by ecclesiastical tribunals just because canonical form was not observed. By this gesture of the Supreme Pontiff, an important change is effected: from now on the official clergy will be obliged to recognize the ability of the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X to be authorized witnesses of the Church, and marriages can no longer be declared null without a canonical process in the correct and due form.

    Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General, also informed the superiors and the other members of the Society that guidelines would be established for the prudent application of these new provisions.

    Unfortunately, some priests from the District of France did not wait for the publication of these guidelines, and on Sunday, May 7, 2017, they imprudently read from the pulpit and published a letter addressed to the faithful, without the District Superior’s knowledge, calling into question the direction of the Society.

    The District Superior, Father Christian Bouchacourt, has relieved these signatories from their function as deans. He condemns this subversive act, prepared in secret, aimed to destabilize superiors and taking the faithful hostage.

    This painful trial reminds us that the fight for the Faith must be conducted in a spirit of faith, with supernatural means. United in prayer, let us keep the peace which is the "tranquility of order," and let us fight generously, convinced that God alone will give the victory.

    Source: FSSPX.News - 05/11/17
  8. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    What good is a conservative if they only fight for their social values and censored views of the Church's doctrines? Well, in that limited intention the good is only relative, because a conservative is relative. Their voice is loud on social values and quiet on doctrine. Look at their non-reaction to the doctrinal crisis in the new-sspx; they are quiet, passive, and tolerable allowing many changes in premise of being "charitable" to others. They only rise to a bubble in periscope to see if anything touches their pet social patterns the world usually likes, and tolerable in blend with itself.

    When it comes to this new marriage sacrament of the sspx, they hoot an bellow, right in some ways, but only in some. They are conservative trying to preserve the family and its identity; but throw out the family when it comes to the road of salvation by allowing every other novel menu of modernism and conciliarism to expand the bridge of their liberal content to their traditional content with fake news and life on sand.

    Passed around in the last few days is a conservative "petition" for their conservative friends to sign against a particular aspect of this new marriage document. That's right, only an aspect. They do not want to submit to a novus ordo priest to do the marriage, they want to reserve and conserve the "right" to do it themselves. Is it embarrassing to have another priests present, human respect, too much dictation to give up in one chunk?

    Notice something missing in their petition; a disconnect?

    They have no problem with the many other conciliar changes in the new-sspx taking place, nor of the practice itself that the novus ordo diocesan bishops regulate the sacrament in their chapels and wish to continue the contacts and submissions of marital forms, they only rise in revolt wanting to conserve a particular part to themselves -to be independent- and do it themselves without another priest involved. Who has a schism mentality here?

    These conservatives are certainly open in their public stance promoting the other new changes to identify with a conciliar stamp and personal prelature that cannot come soon enough for them, because it is "charitable" and "due" to them. But why not be consistent and charitable under that flag? Change takes time.

    Considering "charity", the devil is also "charitable" in promising kingdoms if souls worship him. Means nothing on its base level doesn't it?

    Is a conservative a corrupter to doctrine? Is a conservative like Pilate to put away truth to please everyone? Here are some places that drew this out here and here.

    I can hear the murmuring now. So be it...the conservatives will have their moment in Bishop Fellay's ear until they comply or find another pasture. Most likely they will comply as they did with the doctrinal compromise. The only take away from this is Bishop Fellay sees how he can play his game further. Bishop Fellay is quite content to fulfill his own pet agenda with the conciliarists; join him with a carrot or abandon him with a stick.
    Last edited: May 18, 2017
    unbrandable likes this.
  9. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    The answer to this whole ploy has now become evident -it is a curve ball- to normalize the sspx!

    Fr. Paul Aulagnier, who is an ex-sspx priest and former sspx district superior of France, and started the Eccelsia Dei 2006 group Institut du Bon Pasteur (Instituted of the good Shepherd) following modernist rome's form of reconciliation after the Campos ordeal, had come out and gave the antidote, the solution for this impasse, "...urgently normalize the canonical situation for the SSPX"!

    It all makes sense when the conservatives ("internal resistance") have one common ground with Bishop Fellay and conciliar rome, put away the distractions and reconcile our new-sspx "they way we are" quickly. A perfect solution to a perfect end they all seek! (sic)

    So are all those players, i.e. Bishop Fellay, liberals, and conservatives, and roman heads, ready to sign the filtered theatrical doctrinal concerns they pose (shown above) for the sake of unity the new-sspx yearns for noted by Archbishop Pozzo?

    Problem-Reaction-Solution. The perfect storm.




    For a fair information of the readers of ITEM, I publish the letter of the seven deans of the SSPX about the decision of Rome regarding the marriages celebrated by the priests of the FSSPX.

    I do not congratulate them. It is very clear that they have no practical meaning. It's a letter of ideologues. They do not see the problems in a concrete and practical way.

    In view of this situation, it seems to me urgent to normalize the canonical situation of the SSPX. An evil can bring good ... It is in this sense that this canonical normalization would have the immense advantage, precisely, of fixing all these canonical problems, real problems. Rome does not seem to raise any preconditions, such as during the regularization of Campos. And it is necessary to affirm, in addition, that to want to solve this normalization does not mean in any way want to rallier to the modernist Rome. "Normalization" and "ralliement" are not identical words. One does not understand the other. I do not have the impression of being rallied to modernist Rome. It seems to me that this is the only argument they object to oppose canonical normalization. It is a very poor argument!
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
  10. Vincent

    Vincent Well-Known Member

    A bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

    A little common sense in this situation would be a breath of fresh air. But I guess that is way too much to ask for.:confused:

    "And often times excusing the fault doth make the fault the worse by the excuse." saith Shakespeare. Apparently Fr. Aulagnier saw the problem of standing up for what is right (however weakly) is NOT a seeing a problem in a concrete and practical way :)
  11. Deus Vult

    Deus Vult Well-Known Member

    "The announcement of the guidelines that should establish a discipline for the celebration of marriages in the Fraternity requires a reaction from the priests, because the good of the faithful is directly at stake."

    Some reflections after the letter of May 7, 2017

    The letter of the deans regarding the marriages in the Tradition has surprised you. Being unable to answer all the emails I received after reading, I preferred to write a common text. Many have expressed their appreciation to me. Others, I know, do not think they can approve the method used. Others may not agree with the same content as the deans' letter.

    Agitation is a bad counselor. It is in prayer and in the concern to work in the salvation of souls - starting with self - that the defense of faith can be contemplated, and it is in this spirit that I write. It is in peace that desires, fears and hopes can be overcome that too easily overshadow judgment. On the contrary, it is not a question of hiding in the silence while, precisely, the souls are lost. The Church is infiltrated by enemies who do not sleep and who have succeeded in bringing apostasy to millions of baptized. Silence can and should be kept under certain circumstances. But when you are cornered, when you have to perform an act that is not honest, then the negative must be clear. That certain priests do not immediately realize the consequences of the acts they want to impose on them, does not change the nature of things. Time will do its work of decanting for all souls of good will.
    We are accused of having taken the faithful hostage by subjecting them to a problem they were unable to solve. I reject this accusation, in the first place, because marriage is a public thing. Its celebration belongs to the spouses who are the ministers of the sacrament, as well as to all the faithful. Of course the letter of the deans asks for a little reflection and some misunderstood. But with these arguments, it is the same as giving up doing the least catechism course. Should we give up condemning the errors of the council because they are often difficult to understand?
    I will go further and return to the accusation. It is the priests who have been taken hostage and that is why they could not shut up. Only Rome had published its text when they imposed on the whole Fraternity the deep and public gratitude addressed to the Holy Father. In an "authoritative comment" published by the General House on the internet, it was immediately announced the direction the priests of the Fraternity would take. The magazine DICI chorus to announce that the priests would enter in the frame imposed by Rome and the superiors of the Fraternity. Had to be content to obey without protest? Should priests change their way of exercising ministry without reflection? Beyond the question of law, again I will try to expose the problem of conscience that arises.
    In our day, the main assault of hell against poor humanity is on marriage. No one can ignore this attack because the family is the base cell of society. Everyone has the duty to defend the marriage union in its nature, its purpose and its properties. In addition, baptized persons who confess the sacramental character of Christian marriage should protect the profession of faith which includes all marital consent. The future spouses who will be the ministers of this sacrament (a priest not "house") do not have the right to celebrate it in an equivocal way. Priests have a duty to remind them of this and to help them protect themselves from the cunning of the modernist clergy.
    On April 4, 2017, Cardinal Müller announced the authorization given by the Holy Father to the bishops of the whole world to delegate a diocesan priest to bless the marriage of the faithful of the Fraternity or, in case of impossibility, To grant to the priests of the Fraternity the necessary faculties. It was then announced that this decision of the Holy Father was going to change our current practice. You know that this practice consists in inciting the faithful to take advantage of the provisions of Canon 1098. This allows marriage without recourse to the conciliar clergy because of the grave danger to the faith that this entails. From now on we will have to turn to the bishops and act on their answers. Some priests propose a minimal cooperation to this new practice, contenting themselves with informing themselves about the bishops (not to mention the faithful ...) of what they intend to do on the line or in the framework of the letter of Cardinal Müller.
    For that is where a real problem of conscience arises. Is it permissible to align or enter into that framework? It is enough to contemplate the different possible answers - answers that we will have provoked ourselves - to realize the immense difficulty.
    The possibility of introducing a modernist priest during a marriage ceremony is certainly impossible. I will not dwell on this point.
    Now, if the bishop wants to send a priest from his diocese (or come himself), how can he reproach himself for doing exactly what the pope invites him to do? How can we deeply thank the Pope for his decision, write to the bishop within the framework of this decision, and then reject the positive response of the bishop? How can we praise a decision and see a "serious inconvenience" when it is applied? On the other hand, it is impossible to resort to false arguments, such as saying that it is the couple that rejects this presence of a conciliar priest, or that it is the perplexity that would engender in our faithful that would force us to reject the proposition of the bishop. The shepherd must precede the flock. The priests of the Fraternity do not hide behind the perplexity of the faithful, but enlighten it.
    If the bishop rejects any delegation, how can we say then that recourse to Canon 1098 would be strengthened while the serious inconvenience would be reduced to a personal matter? It is no longer the future spouses who would refuse to resort to an authority dangerous to the faith, but is such a bishop who denies such a priest in such a place and at such a time a delegation that he felt obliged to ask. The logic of this approach does not even allow us to see there an injustice, which on the other hand has never been the fundamental problem.
    Finally, if the bishop gives the delegation without any conditions but always in the framework of the letter of Cardinal Müller, how to proclaim it joyfully without provoking "scruples of conscience of some faithful united to the SSPX" and without prejudice against all the others Marriages that have been or will be celebrated in our chapels? When entering into the pontifical dispositions, it would be admitted that two classes of marriage would be celebrated with us and an unjust hierarchy would be established among them. Instead of honoring the valiant faithful who have resorted to the ministry of the priests of the Tradition, they will be seen, either with compassion because they did not have the happiness to find a complacent bishop, or with hostility because they did not want to enter into the dispositions Explicitly established to achieve an illusory "full communion ". Finally, is not this conciliar seal that is supposed to "secure" the marriages of our faithful? It is not an invitation to turn to the diocesan officials who pronounce by thousands true "Catholic divorces" in the name of the 1983 code, revised even more lax by Francis ? The poor husbands who are willing to put their faith in danger, to violate their marital commitments and to give themselves to adultery, will unfortunately always find a priest to bless them, even in the traditional rite. Is it fair then to weaken the convictions of all the faithful in order to make betrayal easier for some?
    The announcement of the guidelines that should establish a discipline for the celebration of marriages in the Fraternity requires a reaction from the priests, because the good of the faithful is directly at stake. The nature of the "official communiqué" and the "authorized comment" clearly indicate the line of the announced guidelines. The question is public by its nature and by the will of the Superiors of the Fraternity. The cornered deans preferred to express their opposition before the announced orders were actually required.
    Some brethren are very determined not to take these guidelines into account. It is true that the letter of the deans shows that the recourse to canon 1098 is not under the authority of the superiors. Neither the diocesan bishops nor the Superiors of the Fraternity can claim the right to govern the right of the faithful to marry without "grave inconvenience." That said, the priest exercises his priesthood within a society in which he assumes official positions. Personally, I do not see how a priest could adopt this attitude without attracting all the reproaches that we make to the priests who depend on the shameful commission Ecclesia Dei.
    The deans have been accused of wanting to undermine the efforts of the General House to obtain a personal prelature from Rome. Is that your intention? The same letter from the deans evokes this fear. Therefore there is no mystery there. The efforts so farfetched for the simple celebration of marriages augur insurmountable difficulties for the exercise of the priestly ministry in the full and complete profession of the Catholic faith. That being said, the objections raised above these lines retain their value outside of this context and ask for answers.

    Father T. Gaudray
  12. Admin

    Admin Moderator Staff Member

    In short what is all this saying?????
  13. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except to pander a false legalism, a conscience afflicted, and throw egg on the deans for going against the false narrative of their superiors; while adding their own misguided conservatism.

    According to Fr. Gaudray, once a member of the new-sspx, you are not "allowed" to use your conscience and exercise the necessity of Canon Law 1098 (grave inconvenience) to protect yourself and the engaged couple when under the new-sspx "superiors" demands to follow the new marriage procedures under a novus ordo bishop; as there is no cause for harm in what the Menzingen administration is asking the priests to do. (sic)

    The rest is hot air.
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
  14. Admin

    Admin Moderator Staff Member

    Thank you Machabees.
  15. Deus Vult

    Deus Vult Well-Known Member

    Yep, you're right Machabees. Talk is cheap while actions speak louder than words.
    As long as Fr. Gaudray remains within the SSPX as you say he's doing nothing. Nothing but repeating what happened in the 60's and 70's.
    Who were the oblivious instruments the devil used the first time around to lead the millions and millions of faithful to accept the new Mass along with the novelties of Vat. II? It was the clergy, the conservative priests who didn't want to leave their comfort zone. The first example that comes to mind is Archbp. Fulton Sheen. He certainly knew of Archbp. Lefebvre and what he was fighting for. But he went with the flow of the new direction of Vat. II. Oh they may have whimpered a little bit to their superiors the conservative priests, but the laity who didn't know what was in the documents of Vat. II, who trusted their pastors blindly followed the bishops and their parish priests who were going along with saying the new Mass, the many novelties, the shedding of devotions little by little such as the Rosary, the scapular, benedictions, etc . They figured well if it's okay with our priests then it must be right. It has to be good!
    The very same attitudes are of those who remain in the SSPX now who have not researched the documents of Vat II, or bothered to ask questions of their pastors as to what this new sspx direction is all about and where it's leading to. They just look at this or that priest who they envision on a pedestal and trust that all is fine and dandy in Menzingen.
    The method is not new as explained in this article: The Same Old Strategy – Worked the First Time – Works every Time

    So who are the conservative ones in this present crisis?:
    kelley likes this.
  16. Well-Known Member