Once again the ralliement of Bishop Fellay towards modern rome and punishment for any dissenters in the ranks rings loud and clear. Below is the contents written in June 2017 by Bishop Fellay to all of the 600 sspx priests in every country, to every priest friends, and every friendly communities tied to Menzingen. In no uncertain terms, says Bishop Fellay, no priest or bishop will dissent or contradict the superior General; no priest or bishop will announce or pronounce on their own without permission any relation of the sspx and rome on-goings. It is forbidden with pain of expulsion...do not cross or contradict the superior. Tough talk. But when priests are buffered when asking simple questions following the proper channels and are cast as reprobates...the water boils. Too bad Bishop Fellay wasn't on the right side of the debate. He spends more combative energy attacking his brother priests and bishops to be silent than he does against the modernists. There is a lot to flush out; ending the same, betrayal. [I have made some slight editing in the French translation and highlighting with comments in blue.] Mind you, we are in October 2017 and Bishop Fellay has been making some bolder moves with the Vatican over these last three months..to the shackles and silence of his priests. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- June Cor Unum 2017 A Word from the Superior General Dear members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, A few troubles have broken out in our dear Fraternity in recent months. Some members felt that they had to take a position publicly to express their point of view, using the pulpit or their bulletins for that purpose. In this they have acted in disregard of the elementary rules of every organized society, and also of our internal statutes and rules which require that relations with Rome be reserved for the Superior General. This is a provision of our venerated founder. Any article on this subject must therefore receive the approval of the Superior General, after being presented to the judgment of the Superior of the district. We therefore condemn these untimely initiatives, the most serious of which have been sanctioned. Is it necessary to recall that the General Chapter of 2006 included among the grounds for dismissal of the Brotherhood the rebellion and the public dissemination of a dispute with the authority? Let this warning be taken seriously . As always, these confreres imagine they are defending Tradition. But in fact, the means they use weaken it by seriously attacking the unity of our fraternity, sowing weeds and causing confusion among the members and the faithful. Moreover, they pretend to dictate to the authority what should be its conduct. Whatever the good intention or the quality of the arguments, it is impossible to use an evil and unlawful means without causing damage to the common good. [Here Bishop Fellay just condemned the entire (rebellious) work of Archbishop Lefebvre and fight within Tradition.] Once again, we take this opportunity to recall the nature of our relations with Rome, since that is what it is all about. 1. The Church is experiencing one of the most terrible crises in its history, both in its intensity and in the extent of the errors spread at all levels of the hierarchy and the Catholic universe. This internal crisis began well before the Second Vatican Council; it goes back at least to the pontificate of Leo XIII and was strongly denounced by Saint Pius X under the name of modernism . It is experiencing a dazzling development on the occasion of the last Council which introduced a number of new principles and " pastoral " attitudes in order to open up to the world. The latter was able to diffuse its spirit in the favor of compliant texts which were matured. If today voices are heard to deplore a false reception of the Council, speaking of a para-council, a council of the media, we must note that the door open to these errors, called false interpretations, is found in the texts and the very atmosphere of the Council. If it is difficult to define exactly " the spirit of the Council ", it is in his name that the Church has been seriously wounded a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis ... 2. Faced with this terrible reality, Archbishop Lefebvre reacted by taking the means that had to be used to get out of it. He was able to form priests, while rejecting the new orientations, faithful to all the truths and all that had been transmitted by our Mother the Holy Church; [Isn't this the irony to the aforementioned troubles broken out in the sspx-civil war Bishop Fellay directs this stern letter to be the final word - the Emperor has spoken?] 3. That's what saved us! Moreover, it is this firmness which has allowed us to develop and manifest to the world and to the Church that attachment to Tradition is not a nostalgia for the past; but on the contrary a prodigious manifestation of the action of grace today; 4. Obviously, this way of acting contrasts with the general spirit which reigns in the Church. The Roman sanctions as well as the will of the authorities to impose the post-conciliar reforms, have forced us to live in a certain autarchy. This is the meaning of the survival operation of Tradition ... 5. Monseigneur Lefebvre, however, never wanted to separate himself from the Church . It is with great precaution that in the sermon of the consecrations and in other writings he manifested our attachment to the Church by refusing any schismatic spirit. Both his actions before the consecrations and his remarks afterwards show that for him there was no alternative: the pope remains the pope, the bishops of the bishops, with their prerogatives, even if they make mistakes , even heresies. That is why he always demanded that we appoint them to the Canon of the Mass . Here we touch on the crux of the problem that affects us all, for it involves our future, and even our existence. How can we concretely hold the principle of obedience to the Church when in the very name of obedience we must reject everything from the errors that destroy it? A line of action has been defined, in particular at the Chapters of 2006 and 2012. It emerges from a set of principles and practical applications. The principles do not change, but the circumstances in which they must be applied change and require adjustments or clarifications, which was done in 2012 or last year in Anzère . [Here is applied the will of "living tradition" and evolved truth that can change with the times. The Document of 2006 and 2012 is in direct opposition to each other. One (2006) is based on firm doctrinal clarifications and the other (2012) based on canonical favors.] The fundamental principle that we follow from the beginning is that of fidelity to the Church and its perennial teaching. For the Church can not change either the faith or the commandments of God. The accidental modifications, the new dispositions which it applies prudently throughout the centuries, must correspond to this first principle: " nihil novi nisi quod traditum est ". That is why we cry out loud and clear that we remain Catholic even if we do not follow the reforms of the last fifty years and refuse to follow the ecclesiastical authorities whenever they wish to impose them. [Ahem..."not following the reforms of Vatican II"? Acceptance and promotion of the 1983 code of canon law, hybrid masses, and legitimacy of the novus ordo mass, etc to name a few is only a literary canard?] For nothing in the world we do not want to distance ourselves from this line of conduct. [There is the fate of the new-sspx. Bishop Fellay also said in a letter to pope Benedict on June 17, 2012, five years to the date, "I 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 to reach the necessary clarifications."] This may give the impression of a certain contradiction: we affirm our submission to the legitimate authority and we almost systematically refuse to follow it. However, with the help of time and human nature being what it is, some of us adopt erroneous attitudes, either by exaggeration, by simplicity, or by intellectual laziness. If we are to remain in the Truth, we must also respect the Reality and verify that our affirmations of the moment really correspond to the facts as they unfold before our eyes. [So in the words of Bishop Fellay...] It is imperative that the justification of our line of conduct strictly respects all Catholic principles. We can not free ourselves from it. For example, it is false and very dangerous estimations to say : " We do not need a delegation for marriages "; " The substitute jurisdiction for confessions is enough for us ... "; " The acceptance of a delegation for marriages signifies acceptance of the novelties of the Council, " etc. I am afraid that some will end up "dogmatising" prudential action. It is not because we are struggling in an interminable crisis that we should a priori refuse any advance in favor of Tradition, [neo-tradition?] free ourselves from any rule, was it established at the Council of Trent, or disregard power of keys given to the successor of Peter. We have never refused in principle to recognize the acts of the Pope when they are legitimate. [By conciliar standards or by Eternal Rome?] Much good, much work to bring priests or faithful to the Tradition, are thus prevented by cerebral and abstract reasoning that does not correspond to reality. I wonder how some consider the " conversion of Rome ", the return of the Church to its Tradition, while they carefully avoid any action, any contact with the official Church, not to mention the Ecclesia Dei mobility . [This reminds me so much in content of the extreme scathing letter Bishop Fellay and Frs. Pfluger and Nely sent to the three other sspx bishops on April 14, 2012] Saint Francis de Sales already understood that one did not catch flies with vinegar ... It is a fundamental mistake to think that there is nothing better to expect from the official Church, purely and simply identified with the modernist or conciliar Church. While we receive everything from the Church even today. All the means of sanctification, all that we bring to the faithful, we have from this Church with its hierarchy, its pope, its bishops, a very real and concrete Church, the one we have before us. To want to identify it with the conciliar Church inevitably leads to a sterile refusal of all initiative, even good, under the false pretext that it would corrupt our work. It is like wanting to convert sinners while avoiding them! [Archbishop Lefebvre said "...concerning the mystery of a Pope presiding over the destruction of the Church: the Pope remains the Pope, but he is at the head of two churches; the Catholic Church, of which he was elected the head, and another society, the “conciliar church”, which has its dogmas, its liturgy, its new institutions, etc. The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, but a counterfeit “church”. We must separate ourselves from it if we want to keep the Catholic Faith."] We must maintain the principle according to which we receive from the Catholic hierarchy, especially from the pope, but also from the bishops, the means of sanctification. [Catholic and eternal true; conciliar NO!] The axiom Ecclesia supplet is valid only in the event of failure of the authorities for various reasons, the main one being the salus animarum , the transmission of integral faith, the communication of grace through sacraments certainly valid. Even in cases where it is outside the normal exercise of authority, the principle of legislative intent must nevertheless be carefully preserved. We are not free to do what we want in the regime of the Church's substitution of jurisdiction - and I fear that we have taken a liking to this false appearance of freedom . [Bishop Fellay did emphasis in one of his recent interviews an earnest for his followers that the Ecclesia supplet is decreasing and rome is increasing in "tradition". The only life we see is a new brand of neo-tradition within the conciliar empire Bishop Fellay joined and makes no distinction of the two. Drowning in mud is the same as drowning in water.] We mistrust the official Church because of the grave deficiencies of disastrous reforms for the good of souls, and rightly so. But to come to the conclusion that " everything is bad " is necessarily exaggerated and false. Especially since it exists today, though imperfectly, a movement of resistance and reaction to the conciliar disaster. For several years now, we have witnessed a slow evolution in conservative circles. There is today a real realization of the gravity of the widespread errors, a questioning of certain reforms of the Council. In liturgy as in theology, there is a real desire for a return to much more seriousness. The fact that the dominant line remains strongly progressive and does its utmost to neutralize conservative efforts no longer allows universal assertions such as " everything is corrupt ", " they are all modernists ", and so on. [The "Realization..." Yes, if one would only read the texts Bishop Fellay signed he keenly avoids for your knowledge, it all emphasizes Vatican II and leads back to Vatican II. This "conservatism" from some of the conciliarists is a desire for the sweet golden age of the 1960's and 70's. Like an old guilty conscience driving in a car only having a forward shift having remorse with his modern present wanting the exciting brothel of the early days. But reverse does not work in the revolution's machine. Either get off and admit the infidelity or carry on in the desert of thirst.] The same is true of the Ecclesia Dei movements , including in the Fraternity of St. Peter, where there are a number of Nicodemus, convinced that the analysis of Bishop Lefebvre on Vatican II is the right one. [This is a cute riddle. Nicodemus = faith. ABL is right = justice. Conclusion for Bishop Fellay = there is true faith in the novus ordo so lets join them in the brothel.] This does not mean that all the prerequisites and requirements for canonical recognition are already met. Nevertheless, progress in this direction is undeniable. Here is, for example, what Pozzo wrote to me in March 2017 : " I underlined [with Pope Francis] that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X longs to preserve the spiritual, theological, disciplinary and pastoral identity desired by Archbishop Lefebvre, that is, experience and life of the Catholic Tradition prior to the reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council. The pope has not expressed any reservation on this subject. Similarly, with regard to the two points discussed (the possibility of consecrating auxiliary bishops among the clergy of the Prelature and recognition of the clerical state from tonsure and commitment to celibacy as early as sub-diaconate) , His Holiness stated that he had no objection to this . In conclusion, we believe that it is right to say that we are gradually seeing an improvement in the conditions imposed on us by Rome, that this is part of a more general reaction to the objectively more serious situation of the Church in his outfit. But as far as Rome and ourselves are concerned, this situation is not yet satisfactory to conclude. After a short period of exaggerated optimism on the part of Bishop Pozzo, who was pushing, even probable, the date of recognition to May 13 this year, [And yet Bishop Fellay condemned anyone with having "rumors" who said the same.] we heard in turn and Pope Francis and Cardinal Müller announce that things would still take time. " To walk, to walk, and then we shall see " the papal will of not rushing. In the same way Cardinal Müller: " We must take the time, (...) we need a deeper heart conversion ". [And what is not said is the new-sspx will be under complete control within the Vatican II conciliar structure obeying each and every dictum and ecclesiastical discipline if they go against their orders. Who in their right mind makes a contract with an ecumenist thinking they will remain catholic?] In the present phase, therefore, we need to know whether the Roman authorities will confirm the "revitalization" of the Council in spite of the pressure of the Progressives, and whether the Pope is prepared to make specific or universal laws. which was reported to us by Bishop Pozzo. As for us, we see no other option than to continue to treat with great caution with the Roman authorities, who for the moment have shown benevolence. We have much to gain, both Tradition and the whole Church. Time works for us, and we discern every day in an evident way the hand of Divine Providence . [And time works for the superior romans -the "carrot and the stick"- the "Walrus and The Carpenter" chime heartfelt to the little oysters.] Let us look at the history of the Fraternity sub specie aeternitatis. And then the serene and all-powerful protection of the God of peace which it has enjoyed hitherto, should calm the minds of the troubled people of the Church. May Our Lady, her Immaculate Heart, grant all the members of the Fraternity peace of hearts under her benevolent protection. On the Feast of the Holy Trinity, Menzingen, June 11, 2017 + Bernard Fellay Source .