Neo-SSPX Sellout

Admin

Administrator
Following the “new” xspx orientation, here is a photo of a young couple from Winnipeg who exchanged vows in front of a modernist priest inside the modernist church of Brandon MB followed by an “extraordinary rite” Mass celebrated by Fr Vachon ( Canadian) xspx member.

Father Vachon is on the right. He served in SSPX Corpus Christi Tynong for some time when I used to go there.


upload_2018-3-20_15-26-5.png


upload_2018-3-23_10-33-31.png




....​
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
A great sign that Rome is accepting SSPX 'as we are' when the reverse is happening - XSSPX is accepting Rome as it is!

Bishop Fellay commented on the Personal Prelature offered to the SSPX:

Exerpt

B. Fellay gave Rome a clear condition:

I think we do not have to wait for everything to be resolved in the Church, for all the problems to be solved. But a certain number of conditions are necessary, and for us the essential condition is our survival. So I have told Rome, very clearly, that, just as Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre used to say in his day, we have a sine qua non condition: if this condition is not met, then we will not move. And this condition is for us to be able to remain as we are, to keep all the principles that have kept us alive, that have kept us Catholic."​
 
Last edited:

Deus Vult

Well-Known Member
“As they are" right now means a weak, non-principled organization that obeys Rome and the local bishops. They are simply a branch of the Novus Ordo.
Since 2012 they have more and more visibly abandoned the principles of Archbp. Lefebvre and instead promote much of what the Archbishop and the pre-Vat. II Catholic Church stood against, which are the heresies of modernism.
Anyone who still thinks the SSPX is a bastion for the faith, a bastion for tradition, but who really wants the truth, should know about this as well as to understand it is going to get worse.
 

catherine

New Member
Obviously Fr. Vachon still believes the most important things are drinking juices, red wine and listening to classical music. These things have their place of course but the faith matters most.

Fr. Taouk did this same thing in an indult church in Brisbane last year, I just don't have a photo to show of it.
 

Admin

Administrator
This is the Extraordinary Form of the Mass that Fr. Vachon (SSPX) celebrated


On July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI launched one of the boldest papal initiatives since Vatican II: He declared that the traditional liturgy of the Roman rite, which he said was never abrogated, was officially available to all the Church’s faithful alongside the new liturgy of Pope Paul VI. Pope John Paul II had allowed for the traditional Latin Mass on a limited basis since the 1980s; with his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict removed the remaining restrictions.

In the letter he wrote to bishops, the Holy Father’s words explaining his decision are but an elegant expression of common sense: If the older liturgy was sacred in the past, then it is sacred now as well. "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place." Summorum Pontificum declared that the older liturgy "must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage." This due honor, according to Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" president Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, should be shown by making the traditional Latin Mass available even where it has not been specifically requested. The pope is especially hopeful that young people will be exposed to the Extraordinary Form.

Although some Catholics have followed these matters very closely over the years, others may not have understood quite so clearly exactly what the pope has said and done, or what the practical results of all this might be. Here I provide answers to a number of common questions.

What do the terms "Ordinary Form" and "Extraordinary Form" mean?

For a long time, people referred to the new liturgy (or the Missal of 1970) as the "new rite" and the older liturgy (the most recent version of which is the Missal of 1962) as the "old rite." In his July 7, 2007 letter to bishops, Pope Benedict XVI said that we should instead think of these Missals as being two forms of a single Roman rite, rather than as two separate rites. Thus he prefers that instead of "new rite" and "old rite," we say "Ordinary Form" (his name for the Missal of 1970, or Novus Ordo Missae) and "Extraordinary Form" (the Missal of 1962, or the traditional Latin Mass).

The two forms use different liturgical calendars and different cycles of scriptural readings. The Extraordinary Form operates according to a one-year cycle, which means the same readings are used on the same dates every year. The Ordinary Form uses a three-year cycle, which means particular passages are usually used once every three years.

Are missals provided, like the missalettes parishes use for the Ordinary Form?

Wherever I have attended the Extraordinary Form, there have always been booklet missals available for the laity’s use. If you attend the Extraordinary Form regularly, you’ll want to acquire your own hand missal, which is available at online Catholic booksellers, as well as an increasing number of brick-and-mortar stores. These missals contain both the Ordinary of the Mass (the parts of the Mass that stay the same every day) as well as the propers, which are the changing parts of the Mass (such as the readings from Scripture, the Communion and post-Communion prayers), for every Mass of the year. They also tend to contain additional prayers for devotional purposes as well as much valuable information about the liturgy, the vestments, and other.aspects of the Extraordinary Form.

Are the missals in Latin?

The missals are in Latin and English (or whatever the local language is). Latin is on one side and the vernacular language on the other. Anyone can follow along. Even with the missal, though, you may find yourself a little lost the first couple times you attend. Do not worry about every small detail. Soon enough, you’ll find everything to be second nature. Should you want a brief tutorial, the longest chapter of my recent book Sacred Then and Sacred Now: The Return of the Old Latin Mass walks you through the Extraordinary Form step by step.

Are the readings in Latin?

Yes and no. When the scriptural passages are read in the context of the Mass, they are read in Latin, though of course you can read along with the English translation in your missal. Immediately before the sermon, the priest then repeats the readings in the vernacular language.

Do I kneel to receive Holy Communion? Do I receive on the tongue? Do I say "Amen"?

Yes, yes, and no. Communicants kneel at a Communion rail and receive on the tongue. The Extraordinary Form places great emphasis on avoiding any possibility of profanation of the host. You will notice, for example, that the priest holds the ciborium rather awkwardly. That is because, from the moment of the consecration until the purification of the sacred vessels, he may not separate his thumb and forefinger, lest even the smallest particle fall to the ground. It would be incongruous, after that kind of studious care, for him then to place the host into a layman’s outstretched hand.

The communicant does not say "Amen." The priest says it as he places the host on the communicant’s tongue. The priest does not say, "The body of Christ." He says, "May the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto everlasting life. Amen." Amen, of course, means "let it be so." In other words, "may this reception of Holy Communion have the effects for which I have just prayed."

Will the priest have his back to the congregation?

Yes—but that is the wrong way to think about it. It is not a question of turning his back on the people. Instead, the priest and the people together face the same direction. Masses in which priest and people face a common eastward direction, whether in the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form, are called ad orientem Masses.

Fr. Joseph D. Santos, Jr., a priest of the Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island, gives a straightforward explanation of this traditional practice:

When a general leads his troops into battle, does he face them? When a representative of the people approaches the ruler on their behalf, does he face them? When a priest is going to the Lord on behalf of his people, should he face them? When the priest is acting as the intermediary between the people and God, he faces the altar. When he is dispensing the gifts of God, or speaking to the people, he faces the people. (Interview, Traditional Latin Mass Blog, August 1, 2007)
Scholars have begun to conclude, contrary to popular belief, that Mass facing the people was not in fact the regular practice of the early Church, and that Mass facing east has been the historic norm. "As I have written in my books, I think that celebration turned towards the east, towards the Christ who is coming, is an apostolic tradition," wrote Pope Benedict XVI in 2004, while still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger: Proceedings of the July 2001 Fontgombault Liturgical Conference, 151). In fact, those parts of the early Catholic world in which the sacrificial.aspect of the Mass was best understood were most likely to celebrate Mass ad orientem. "The common direction of priest and people is intrinsically fitting and proper to the liturgical action," Cardinal Ratzinger explained (Foreword, Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer by U.M. Lang).

Will I be able to get anything out of it if I don’t speak Latin?

Of course. For centuries the popes insisted on the value of a non-vernacular language for the Mass, and as Catholics we owe them at least the benefit of the doubt that they cared about the spiritual lives of the faithful. It’s easy to follow along in your missal, especially once you’ve attended this Mass a few times. Next to no one spoke Latin in the old days, and yet their souls were deeply nourished by the Mass, and (if polling data is to be believed) they understood the meaning of the Mass far better than do most Catholics today.

It’s important to remember what Pope Bl. John XXIII said about the value of Latin. "The Catholic Church," he explained, "has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular" (Veterum Sapientia, On the Promotion of the Study of Latin). It makes sense that we should leave behind what differentiates us from each other as Americans, Frenchmen, Koreans, or whatever, and meet for worship in a language that privileges no single group but is the common possession of us all. Just two generations ago, wherever someone went in the world he would encounter the same Mass he knew at home—a beautiful testament to the universality of the Church.

That’s one of the things that so impressed the British communist-turned-Catholic Douglas Hyde, who had looked in vain to secular organizations to give expression to the unity of the human race. In the mid-20th century he found what he was looking for in the Catholic Church, having been especially moved by its use of Latin:

At 11:30 p.m. on Christmas Eve I was twiddling the knob of my radio. Unable to get out to Midnight Mass I wanted at least to bring it to my fireside. And as I switched from one European station to the next I tuned in to one Midnight Mass after the other. Belgium, France, Germany, Eire, yes, even behind the Iron Curtain, Prague. It seemed as though the whole of what was once Christendom was celebrating what is potentially the most unifying event in man’s history. And the important thing was that it was the same Mass. I am a newcomer to the Mass but I was able to recognize its continuity as I went from station to station for it was in one common language. This.aspect of Catholicism is but a single one, and maybe not the most important. But I have a strong feeling that it is precisely the Catholicism of the Catholic Church which may prove the greatest attraction, and will meet the greatest need, for my disillusioned generation. (qtd. in Michael J. Miller, "The International and the Introibo: How the Catholic Mass Converted a Communist," Sursum Corda, Winter 1999)
Amid all the speculation regarding the Pope’s motu proprio, columnist Barbara Kay, who attends an all-Hebrew service at her synagogue, explained why she as a non-Catholic favored the use of Latin in the Mass:

The power of liturgy to lift us out of our narrow practical and material pursuits is not dependent on our understanding of every actual word we are saying, any more than our emotional submission to classical music’s soaring magic is dependent on our ability to read the score that produced it. . . . An ancestral, globally employed language like Hebrew or Latin provides a context for predictable and organic communion amongst those present at the service. Through regular engagement, even though rote, with a universally recognized language, worshippers are subliminally imbued with a common motivational narrative from the past, common moral goals in the present and intimations of a common destiny in the future. (National Post, "Latin’s Second Coming," October 18, 2006)
She concluded her article for Canada’s National Post very simply: "Bring back the Latin Mass."

Vatican II urged that "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites," (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36.1) and declared that the faithful should "be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them" (SC 54). The case for Latin as a liturgical language is very strong, and I discuss and defend it at greater length in Sacred Then and Sacred Now.

Does the laity do anything?

Yes: The laity prays the Mass. No more sublime form of activity can be conceived.

Participation in the Mass does not mean only or even primarily physical activity. Evelyn Waugh put it this way: " Participation in the Mass does not mean hearing our own voice. It means God hearing our voices. Only he knows who is participating at Mass. I believe, to compare small things with great, that I participate in a work of art when I study it and love it silently. No need to shout" (A Bitter Trial: Evelyn Waugh and John Carmel Cardinal Heenan on the Liturgical Changes, ed. Scott M.P. Reid). According to the late Msgr. Richard J. Schuler, former editor of Sacred Music, "Listening is a truly active participation. Listening both to the proclaimed word and the performed music can be full, conscious and active participation. The same can be said for watching the ceremonial as it is enacted" ("Active Participation in the Church’s Liturgy: What Did the Second Vatican Council Mean?," Sacred Music, October 1996). The great liturgical expert Dom Alcuin Reid describes active participation as "essentially contemplative."

Pope Benedict XVI, during his years as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, explained that the faithful’s liturgical actions do not consist

only or primarily in the alternation of standing, sitting and kneeling, but in inner processes. It is these which give rise to the whole drama of the liturgy. "Let us pray"—this is an invitation to share in a movement which reaches down into our inner depths. "Lift up your hearts"—this phrase and the movement which accompanies it are, so to speak, only the "tip of the iceberg." The real action takes place in the deep places of men’s hearts, which are lifted up to the heights. (The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy, 89)
There is, in other words, much silence in the Extraordinary Form. This is good and important, says Fr. Kenneth Myers of the Diocese of Pittsburgh:

Silence in the Mass is perhaps the greatest need of modern man because we so desperately need to peer into our souls, to enter into our own hearts, and to see there what God himself sees. In the silence of the traditional Latin Mass we can listen to God’s voice within us.

The silence of the traditional Latin Mass reveals so clearly that the Mass is not the work of the congregation, a performance which we manufacture in order to make God happy with us. Rather, the Mass is the work of God—it is Christ’s own work of Redemption carried out in our midst, on our altar. The Mass is not fabricated by man, it must be received in faith, and silence enables us to do just that: just as we do not "take" Holy Communion, but rather "receive" the Lord in the Sacrament, so do we receive Christ’s Redemption in the Mass. ("A New Look at the Old Mass")
At the same time, in a High Mass there can also be plenty of congregational singing, from the principal parts of the Mass—e.g., the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei —to the various responses (Et cum spiritu tuo, to take one example). I was always moved by the robust congregational singing of the Salve Regina at the conclusion of the old Mass at New York City’s Church of St. Agnes, which I attended in the late 1990s.

Above all, participation in the Mass involves an interior union with the holy Sacrifice. "The uniqueness of the eucharistic liturgy," Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, "lies precisely in the fact that God himself is acting and that we are drawn into that action of God" (The Spirit of The Liturgy, 174). Any other activity is purely ancillary to this primary purpose. That so many Catholics emphasize external actions, rather than interior union with the Eucharistic sacrifice, as the essence of participation, is in Benedict’s view a sign that "liturgical education today, of both priests and laity, is deficient to a deplorable extent" (The Spirit of the Liturgy, 175).

Why did the Pope do this?

For several reasons. First and most simply, Benedict has a deep respect for and devotion to the Extraordinary Form. He has been its great advocate for decades, having been (in his own words) "from the beginning in favor of the freedom to continue using the old Missal" (Address, Fontgombault Liturgical Conference). In 2001 he told a liturgical conference at France’s Benedictine abbey of Fontgombault: "I well know the sensibilities of those faithful who love this [traditional] liturgy—these are, to some extent, my own sensibilities."

If people are attracted to this beautiful expression of the faith, it is part of the Church’s generous nature to offer it to them. That is why Pope Benedict urged the world’s bishops, "Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows" (Summorum Pontificum, letter to bishops). In his letter to bishops, Benedict made particular mention of the Society of St. Pius X, whose irregular canonical status he doubtless hoped to rectify by bringing the Extraordinary Form back into the mainstream of Catholic life.

Beyond that, the Pope is concerned that in practice the new Missal has given rise to a spirit of improvisation that is at odds with a mature understanding of liturgy. "In many places," he told the bishops in his July 2007 letter,

celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. . . . I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
It is not merely the practice of the new liturgy but at times the new liturgical books themselves that bear responsibility for this problem, according to Benedict.

In the new missal we quite often find formulae such as: sacerdos dicit sic vel simili modo [the priest speaks thus or in words to this effect] . . . or, Hic sacerdos potest dicere [Here the priest may say]. . . . These formulae of the missal in fact give official sanction to creativity; the priest feels almost obliged to change the wording, to show that he is creative, that he is giving this liturgy immediacy, making it present for his congregation; and with this false creativity, which transforms the liturgy into a catechetical exercise for this congregation, the liturgical unity and the ecclesiality of the liturgy [are] being destroyed. Therefore, it seems to me, it would be an important step towards reconciliation, simply if the missal were freed from these areas of creativity, which do not correspond to the deepest level of reality, to the spirit, of the liturgy. (Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger, 150-151)
The pope is also concerned that the way in which the new Missal was introduced gave the impression of a rupture with the past, that liturgies can be manufactured on the spot rather than developed over long periods of time. The new Missal, he once wrote, "was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual growth process. Such a thing never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth" (The Feast of Faith, 86).

That sense of rupture was multiplied by the peculiar hostility that some Catholics after 1970 displayed for the traditional liturgy of their own Church and their impatience with those who continued to desire it. Thus in 1997, Cardinal Ratzinger declared:

I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent. (Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium, 176)
The Extraordinary Form, to repeat, is to be given "due honor for its venerable and ancient usage." That is as it should be. As one of my friends puts it, we are talking about one of the great treasures of the Church, after all, not a radioactive moon rock. We should embrace it, not accuse those who desire it of sedition.

May Pope Benedict’s wishes be respected, and in a spirit of joy and celebration.


"A Beautiful Act of Love"


As for the motu proprio . . . a precise, twofold intention emerges. First of all, there is the intention of making it easier to reach "a reconciliation in the bosom of the Church"; and in this sense, as has been said, the motu proprio is a beautiful act of love for the unity of the Church. In the second place—and this fact must not be forgotten—its aim is that of fostering a mutual enrichment between the two forms of the Roman rite: in such a way, for example, that in the celebration according to the missal of Paul VI (the ordinary form of the Roman rite) will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.

—Msgr. Guido Marini, Master of Pontifical Ceremonies (Interview with L’Osservatore Romano, June 28, 2008)


EF Training and Resources

Pope Benedict’s promotion of the traditional Latin Mass has generated a great deal of interest on the part of priests and laity alike. But a generation of Catholics, including most seminarians, have little knowledge of Latin or the intricate rubrics of the Extraordinary Form. Several groups established before the motu proprio’s release are wholly dedicated to the traditional Mass. They offer priestly formation, training, and resources.

  • Canons Regular of St. John Cantius; www.sanctamissa.org
    The Canons Regular, a community of priests and brothers based in Chicago, was established by Cardinal Francis George in 1999. Today they offer workshops on the EF for priests all over the world.

  • Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS); www.institute-christ-king.org
    The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, a worldwide Latin Mass apostolate, has houses on four continents, including several in the U.S. It is dedicated to providing formation and resources for priests.

  • Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP); www.fssp.org
    The FSSP has been celebrating and promoting the Extraordinary Form since 1988, when a number of priests and seminarians, who had been members of the Society of St. Pius X, reconciled with Rome. The FSSP is located in 16 countries, with 36 apostolates in the U.S. and Canada
Source

..
 
Last edited:

Anand

Well-Known Member
Obviously Fr. Vachon still believes the most important things are drinking juices, red wine and listening to classical music. These things have their place of course but the faith matters most.

Fr. Taouk did this same thing in an indult church in Brisbane last year, I just don't have a photo to show of it.
He was in India several years ago. Has not aged much which is not surprising.
 

Admin

Administrator
A second photo shows clearly the two 'altars' with Father Vachon standing at the side whilst the couple are married by the Novus Ordo priest.

Another website says that Fr. Vachon said the Latin Mass later. Would that be an Indult Mass in a Novus Ordo church. ?????????????????

Looks to me as if Bishop Fellay has put the finishing touches on bastardising the Mass with compliant Pax Priests



min 2:37
So Cardinal Mindszenty explains what happened to the priests. This is very important for us in these days, because it is the exact same pattern we are living through in the conciliar SSPX.

He said, Cardinal Mindszenty, "the communist also broke the resistance of the pastors, the Catholic priests, by recruiting through coercion and fraud, a dissident group of priests who they could use for their purposes. These we the so called "peace priests", "pax priests". "I have mentioned the people called them that because they chiefly appeared in public at the peace meetings. Their role consisted largely in undermining the unity and strength of the Catholic Church from within by following the directives of the communists. The baneful effects of this fifth column briefly and in order the events that took place after signing the Condordat. The Concordat was the meeting, the agreement with the communist government between the Catholic church and the communist government."

Cardinal Mindszenty continues, "the recruiting for the pax priests, that began with great empathist throughout the country had small success at first. Out of 7,500 allegedly registered priests a total of 150 actually turned up. And some of these had been brought to the capital by trickery or force. And this as you know was a huge betrayal from within. Nevertheless, he said, all these tactics proved to be unsuccessful because the majority of priests obeyed the bishops ban and held aloof from the peace priests.

Faced with this resistance the communist decided they had to break it by force. So, there were still many good priests who were fighting against this, but the communist saw they had to use a different tactic, which was infiltration and force. So, several good Bishops were replaced, they were removed, some of them, four of them were arrested and imprisoned. Cardinal Mindszenty himself was imprisoned for fourteen years, going through severe tortures.

On July 3, 1951, the bishops met for a conference under the chairmanship of Archbishop _______ of _____.
The four bishops placed under house arrest were, of course missing. Just like we saw for some strange reason Bishop Williamson was missing at the General Chapter Council in 2012. Same tactics, those who would fight were removed.

The new vicar general of the peace priests, came in their place. The weighted conference of bishops issued a declaration of unqualified loyalty to the regime in the name of all Hungarian Catholics. And pledged itself to support the peace movement in the so called spirit of agreement.

In practice this meant recognition and approval of the peace priests. Thus the communist had achieved their goal. They could now proceed to undermine the Church discipline and Holy religion. The Church was being brought to heel.

So by issuing a declaration of compromise they overthrew and infiltrated the Catholic Church.

This is exactly what happened in the Society of St. Pius X. With the Declaration of 2012 July and the April 15th document 2012 Doctrinal Declaration there was the overthrow from within, compromise from within, of all that Archbishop Lefebvre laid down.

So, now instead of no compromise, no agreement, no canonical recognition until Rome comes back to the Catholic Faith. Now it is, we seek, and approve and determine an eventual canonical agreement with Modernist Rome. With Modernist Rome and that is the key difference. It is not a question of prudence. Firstly, it is a question of the Faith. " Stop 8:26

Listen to the similarities beginning at 8:30.

History does repeat itself.

..
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
....... The principle is essential. The fact it was a novus ordo sacrament and novus ordo bi-ritual mass, it had the novus ordo bi-ritual Intention of the man religion. So was it pleasing to God? No. Just as they never will...God shows and condemns in Holy Scripture when the priests mix His religion with an idol religion.

Additionally, the neo-sspx priest said the mass on the novus ordo desecrated altar/table. Was the altar consecrated prior? Did they even look into it? Properly? That's the point. The neo-sspx ACCEPTED everything of the novus ordo as legitimate for themselves just like the FSSP does -- it is all interchangeable. (sic)

Was there novus ordo hosts in the tabernacle distributed...? What was the Matter used? Was it traditionally legitimate (brought in) or the substance used in the sacristy of the novus ordo church...? See the problem...it goes on and on because it is a bi-ritual mass the neo-sspx accepts this and confers this.

Which comes to the other point whether the other novus ordo priest stood their physically to concelebrate with the novus ordo-sspx priest? It doesn't matter, it is all the same novus ordo SPIRIT of concelebration, blaspheme and illegitimate before God. Therefore there are NO graces at those novus ordo masses as taught by the Church.

I hope all this helps.

It is not a matter of the exterior questions the new-sspx wants us to dwell on. It is what God thinks of what it is and what is offered to Him. In this case, the neo-sspx is a legitimate part of the novus ordo religion centered on man; not God. Hence all these abuses and fixations on the human community aspect to serve themselves. Very grave.

This is EXACTLY the same as happened to the other 9-traditional communities who went into the novus ordo proud and ecumenical. The result is always the same. When one plays with mud, they get dirty.

Further, the neo-sspx is participating to have a HYBRID mass of the two to be one. See here, here, here, here, here. So the SPIRIT and practicality of the nouvs ordo is deep in the neo-sspx.

Also is a transcribed sermon explaining Masses that give grace and Masses that do not. cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/masses-that-give-grace-and-masses-that-do-not.4290/

There is only one God: No Unity to Truth, or His unadulterated True Church, equals no Grace. The Holiness of the Church speaks through Her saints...

“The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August 1972, priestly retreat; can be found in A Bishop Speaks)

"If anyone without the right faith receives Baptism outside the Church, he does not receive it unto salvation ... From the comparison of the Church to Paradise, we learn that men can receive her Baptism even outside her fold, but that out there no one can receive or keep the salvation of the blessed."
- St. Thomas Aquinas

"Baptism does not profit a man outside unity with the Church ... For many heretics also possess this Sacrament but not the fruits of salvation ... The benefits which flow from Baptism are necessarily fruits which belong to the true Church alone. Children Baptized in other communions cease to be members of the Church when, after reaching the age of reason, they make formal profession of heresy, as, for example, by receiving communion in a non-Catholic Church."
- St. Augustine

"In like manner, everyone who has received from God the power of distinguishing and yet follows an unskillful pastor and receives a false opinion for the truth shall be punished ... Be not deceived: if any man follows him who separates from the truth, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and if any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood he shall be condemned to Hell."
- St. Ignatius of Antioch

"The Church is built on the rock of Peter, and he who eats the Lamb outside this holy dwelling is reprobate .. .He who eats the Lamb outside this Apostolic See has no part with God!"

- Bl. Pope Pius IX


See also : http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/the-aims-of-the-ecclesia-dei-to-destroy-catholic-tradition.3505/

Source

..
 
Last edited:

Anand

Well-Known Member
This dolly mixture marriage also occurred in India about 2 years ago. Then it was a marriage vows witnessed by a Novus Ordo priest in a Novus Ordo church, while the Marian-Corps priest celebrated the Nuptial Mass.
 

Scarlet Pimpernel

Well-Known Member
This dolly mixture marriage also occurred in India about 2 years ago. Then it was a marriage vows witnessed by a Novus Ordo priest in a Novus Ordo church, while the Marian-Corps priest celebrated the Nuptial Mass.
Anand,
Was this a false resistance priest who participated in this?
 

Admin

Administrator

This letter was published on SSPX website. It is included here for two reasons:


i) in order to show (and boast of ?) the success of Bishop Fellay's indomitable will to achieve, step by slippery step, the traitorous merging of the SSPX founded by Archbishop Lefebvre to merge with a schismatic church:

-"It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church." (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976)
ii) to show the betrayal of trust these two fine young people have place in the SSPX leadership as representative of what the good Archbishop Lefebvre would do and say 'in these times'.


upload_2018-3-30_15-54-55.png

upload_2018-3-30_15-58-10.png


Quotes of Arhbishop Lefebvre
The Conciliar Church

-"This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church." (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

-“To be publicly associated with this sanction [of excommunication] which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)

-“We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)

-"It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church." (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976)

-“It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)

-“John Paul II now continually diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.”(Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death)

-“What could be clearer? We must henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)

- “I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (Interview July 30 1976, published in Minute, no. 747)

-“Such things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church - what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects. Amongst the whole Roman Curia, amongst all the world's bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing...” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“That is no longer the Catholic Church: that is the Conciliar Church with all its unpleasant consequences.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August 1989)

-“Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, p.547)

“How can one avoid the conclusion: there where the faith of the Church is, there also is her sanctity, and there where the sanctity of the Church is, there is the Catholic Church. A Church which no longer brings forth good fruits, a Church which is sterile, is not the Catholic Church.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 8, 1978)

-“I remark, first of all, that the expression "Conciliar Church" comes not from me but from H.E. Mgr. Benelli who, in an official letter, asked that our priests and seminarians should submit themselves to the "Conciliar Church." I consider that a spirit tending to Modernism and Protestantism shows itself in the conception of the new Mass and in all the Liturgical Reform as well. Protestants themselves say that it is so, and Mgr. Bugnini himself admits it implicitly when he states that this Liturgical Reform was conceived in an ecumenical spirit.” (Conference, January 11, 1979)

-“The magisterium of today is not sufficient by itself to be called Catholic unless it is the transmission of the Deposit of Faith, that is, of Tradition. A new magisterium without roots in the past, and all the more if it is opposed to the magisterium of all times, can only be schismatic and heretical.” (Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, July 8, 1987)

-“Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible' - these things we do not accept.” (Sermon, July 29, 1976)

-“…since they have put us out of an official Church which is not the real Church, [but] an official Church which has been infested with Modernism; and so we believed in the duty of disobedience, if indeed it was disobedience! To obey, but to obey the immemorial Church, to obey all the popes, to obey the whole Catholic Church…” (Ordination Sermon, June 27, 1980)

-“It is easy to think that whoever opposes the Council and its new Gospel would be considered as excommunicated, as outside communion with the Church. But one may well ask them, communion with what Church? They would answer, no doubt, with the Conciliar Church.” (I Accuse the Council, p. xiii)

-“Henceforth, the Church no longer accepts the one true Church, the only way of eternal salvation. It recognizes the other religions as “sister religions”. It recognizes as a right derived from the nature of the human person that “man is free to choose his religion,” and consequently the Catholic State is no longer admissible. Once this new principle is admitted, then all the doctrine of the Church must change: its worship, its priesthood, its institutions. For until now, everything in the Church manifested that she alone possesses the Truth, the Way, the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom she possesses in person in the Holy Eucharist, present, thanks to the continuation of His Sacrifice. The complete overthrow of the entire tradition and teaching of the Church has been brought about since the Council by the Council. All those who operate in the implementation of this overthrow accept and adhere to this new “Conciliar Church”, as His Excellency Bishop Benelli designates it in the letter he addressed to me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25th, and enter into schism.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)



Rome Cannot be Trusted


-“For fifteen years we dialogued to try to put the tradition back in its place of honour, in that place in the Church which it has by right. We ran up against a continual refusal. What Rome grants in favour of this tradition at present is nothing but a purely political gesture, a piece of diplomacy so as to force people into compromise. But it is not a conviction of the benefits of Tradition.” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)

- “When they say they [Dom Gerard and the Fraternity of St. Peter] don’t have to give anything up, that’s false. They have given up the ability to oppose Rome. They cannot say anything anymore. They must remain silent given the favours that have been granted them. It is now impossible for them to expose the errors of the Conciliar Church. Softly, softly they adhere, even be it only by their Profession of Faith that is requested by Cardinal Ratzinger. I think Dom Gérard is about to publish a small book written by one of his monks on Religious Liberty and which will try to justify it. From the point of view of ideas, they begin to slide ever so slowly and end up by admitting the false ideas of the Council, because Rome has granted them some favours of Tradition. It’s a very dangerous situation” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)

-“The bishops concerned - the supposedly conservative bishops - are wholly supportive of the Council and of the post-Conciliar reforms, of ecumenism and of the charismatic movement. Apparently, they are being a little more moderate and showing slightly more traditional religious sentiment, but it does not go deep. The great fundamental principles of the Council, the errors of the Council, they accept them and put them into practice. That is no problem for them. On the contrary, I would go so far as to say that it is these conservative bishops who treat us the worst. It is they who would the most insistently demand that we submit to the principles of the Council.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

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

-“I admit that the optimism I showed regarding the Council and the Pope was ill-founded.” (Letter to Andre Cagnon, January 6, 1988, Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography, p.331)

-“There will be possibly other manifestations of putting the brakes on by the Vatican; and it is very, very dangerous for us to "rally" ourselves now. No rallying, no rallying to the liberals; no rallying to the ecclesiastics who are governing in the Church now and who are liberals; there is no rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us on the Mass of St. Pius V - certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually... That they give us back everything. That they give up their liberalism, that they come back to the real truth of the Church, to the faith of the Church, to the basic principles of the Church, of this total dependence of society, of families, of individuals on Our Lord Jesus Christ! At that moment when they give us the Mass of all times, very well, then, we are completely in agreement. Then there will be a perfect understanding, we will be able to be recognized, and we will have no more scruples. But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)

-“That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.” (Sermon June 30, 1988)

-“For them, their goal is to divide Tradition. They already have Dom Augustin, they have de Blignièreres, and now they have Dom Gérard. This weakens our position still further. It is their goal: divide to make us disappear.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)

-“These are fabrications. If ever there were a willingness from Rome to resume discussions, this time, I will be the one to set down the conditions. As Cardinal Oddi said, “Archbishop Lefebvre is in a strong position.” That is why I will demand that the discussions concern doctrinal points. They have to stop with their ecumenism, they have to bring back the true meaning of the Mass, restore the true definition of the Church, bring back the Catholic meaning of collegiality,and so on. I expect from them a Catholic, and not a liberal, definition of religious liberty. They must accept the encyclical Quas Primas on Christ the King, and the Syllabus (Pius IX). They must accept all this, because this is from now on the condition determining all new discussions between us and them.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)

-“It is imperative to know that today Rome is at the service of the revolution and therefore terribly anti-traditional. That is why I refused to put myself in their hands. They only wanted that, by recognizing my mistakes, I help them continue their revolution in the Church – no more, no less. All those who have left us are not aware of the situation and believe in the good will and the rectitude of thought of the bishops or cardinals in Rome. Nothing is further from the truth! ‘It is not possible for them to lead us into the revolution,’ say those who agree with the Pope and his bishops. Well, that is exactly what will happen.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)

-“And I even wrote to him [Dom Gerard]. We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council; we must not have relations with them. Dom Gérard replied that his case was different and that he would try anyway. I do not approve.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)

-“It is time to take a second decision to face up to this Rome. What else can we do? And if they insist that it is worse this time round, because this time it could mean excommunication, well, I reply that the basic problem remains unchanged: Rome means to exterminate Tradition.” (Recommendations to the Four Bishops-Elect, June 12, 1988)

-“I think that it is that outlook that should guide us in our present situation. Let us not deceive ourselves by believing that by these little braking actions that are given on the right and on the left, in the excesses of the present situation, that we are seeing a complete return to Tradition. That is not true, that is not true. They remain always liberal minds. It is always the liberals who rule Rome, and they remain liberal. But, as the Cardinal says, they have gone a bit too far; they have to find a little balance.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)

-“Upon reflection, it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion during these meetings.” (Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 24, 1988)

-“It is obvious that by putting themselves in the hands of the present conciliar authorities, they [Ecclesia Dei priests] implicitly accept the Council and the reforms that came from it, even if they receive privileges which remain exceptional and provisional. Their acceptance stops them saying anything. The bishops are watching them.” (Letter to Fr. Daniel Couture, March 18, 1989)

-“Then there are some who would be ready to sacrifice the fight for the Faith, by saying: Let us first re-enter the Church! Let us do everything to re-enter in the official public structure of the Church. Let us be silent about our dogmatic problem. Let us be silent about our fight. Let us not speak about the malice of the [new] Mass anymore. Let us close our mouths and say nothing anymore. Let’s not be opposed to that. Let’s not say anything anymore about the issues of religious liberty, of human rights and of ecumenism. Let’s be silent. Let’s be silent and like that we will be able to re-enter into the structure of the Church. We will please those who are in the Church. We are going to re-enter like that into the Church, and once we will be inside the Church, you will see, we will be able to fight, we will be able to do this, we will be able to do that… This is absolutely false! You don’t enter into a structure and under superiors, saying that you will overthrow everything as soon as you are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They have all the authority.” (Conference December 21, 1984)

--“We cannot place ourselves under an authority which has liberal ideas, which will necessarily lead us, little by little, by force of circumstances, to accept liberal ideas and all the consequences of these liberal ideas, which are the new Mass, the changes in the liturgy, the changes in the Bible, the changes in the catechism – all the changes… We say: But they fought against the catechism!... This is simply ‘putting on the brakes’ because it goes so far that it was necessary to ‘put on the brakes’ a bit. And the same for the theology of liberation, the same for all that is happening now in the Church and which, of course, frightens them a bit. The consequences of their own principles frighten them. So they ‘put on the brakes’ on the right and on the left, but they are determined to keep liberal ideas. There is no question of changing the liberal ideas.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)

“Although Conciliar Rome’s lying has often been proven to be a fact, it is never useless [for them] to try, since they will always find some who will take the bait.” (Letter to Mgr. de Galarreta and priests, seminarians and faithful in South America, July 16, 1989)

“Most of our priests, seminarians and faithful do not delude themselves and are convinced that it is impossible to trust the authorities of the Conciliar Church for as long as they profess such errors.”(Letter to Mgr. de Galarreta and priests, seminarians and faithful in South America, July 16, 1989)

- Fideliter: Since the Episcopal Consecrations in June of 1988 there have been no more contacts with Rome, however, as you told us, Cardinal Oddi telephoned you saying: “We must come to an agreement. Make a little apology to the Pope and he is ready to welcome you”. Then why not try this final step, and why does it seem impossible to you?
Archbishop Lefebvre: It is absolutely impossible in the present climate in Rome which is becoming worse and worse. We must be under no illusions. The principles now directing the Conciliar Church are more and more openly contrary to Catholic doctrine. … Lastly, the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. All the false ideas of the Council are continuing to develop and to be re-stated with ever more clarity. They are more and more coming out into the open. It is therefore absolutely unthinkable that we should accept to collaborate with such a hierarchy. (Fideliter no. 79 January – February 1991)

..
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Archbishop Lefebvre said to stay away Rome

Bishop Fellay is always trying to justify SSPX “talks” with Rome. Here is his latest attempt: www.sspx.ca/en/news-events/news/bishop-fellay-gives-lecture-michigan-usa-state-society-35572. He says that we must help the “poor, sick, suffering” Church to come back to the Faith and so we cannot stand back and remain aloof, but we must approach them and encourage them and help them along, etc., etc, etc. (Naiveté? Duplicity?)

This is not the course that Archbishop Lefebvre said to follow. Here are some of his directives and wise observations.


WHAT DID THE ARCHBISHOP SAY TO DO? - TO STAY AWAY FROM ROME!

1) “we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions.”

2) “we cannot collaborate with the people who depart from the spirit of the Church, from the Tradition of the Church.” - 1984

3) “We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations.” - 1988

4) “As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” - 1988

5)“We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council.” #3 -1989

6)“Most of our priests, seminarians and faithful do not delude themselves and are convinced that it is impossible to trust the authorities of the Conciliar Church for as long as they profess such errors.” - 1989

7) “One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.” - 1990

8) “It is therefore absolutely unthinkable that we should accept to collaborate with such a hierarchy.” – 1991


#1-“I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions. You are working to de-Christianize society, the human person and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together!’ (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, p. 548)


#2-“But however it may be, we are convinced of this, it is they who are wrong, who have changed course, who have broken with the Tradition of the Church, who have rushed into novelties, we are convinced of this. That is why we do not rejoin them and why we cannot work with them; we cannot collaborate with the people who depart from the spirit of the Church, from the Tradition of the Church.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)


#3-“I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, -isn’t that right - did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood, they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations.” (Conference, September 22, 1988)


#4 -“Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” (Fideliter n. 66 nov-dec 1988, pp. 12-13).


#5 -“And I even wrote to him [Dom Gerard]. We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council; we must not have relations with them. Dom Gérard replied that his case was different and that he would try anyway. I do not approve.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)


#6 - “Most of our priests, seminarians and faithful do not delude themselves and are convinced that it is impossible to trust the authorities of the Conciliar Church for as long as they profess such errors.”(Letter to Mgr. de Galarreta and priests, seminarians and faithful in South America, July 16, 1989)


#7 -“Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)


#8 - Fideliter: Since the Episcopal Consecrations in June of 1988 there have been no more contacts with Rome, however, as you told us, Cardinal Oddi telephoned you saying: “We must come to an agreement. Make a little apology to the Pope and he is ready to welcome you”. Then why not try this final step, and why does it seem impossible to you?

Archbishop Lefebvre: It is absolutely impossible in the present climate in Rome which is becoming worse and worse. We must be under no illusions. The principles now directing the Conciliar Church are more and more openly contrary to Catholic doctrine. … Lastly, the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. All the false ideas of the Council are continuing to develop and to be re-stated with ever more clarity. They are more and more coming out into the open. It is therefore absolutely unthinkable that we should accept to collaborate with such a hierarchy. (Fideliter no. 79 January – February 1991)



UNTIL WHEN? – UNTIL ROME HAS CONVERTED AND RE-CROWNED OUR LORD


“That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circumstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it.”(Letter to the Future Bishops, August 29, 1987)


-“These are fabrications. If ever there were a willingness from Rome to resume discussions, this time, I will be the one to set down the conditions. As Cardinal Oddi said, “Archbishop Lefebvre is in a strong position.” That is why I will demand that the discussions concern doctrinal points. They have to stop with their ecumenism, they have to bring back the true meaning of the Mass, restore the true definition of the Church, bring back the Catholic meaning of collegiality, and so on. I expect from them a Catholic, and not a liberal, definition of religious liberty. They must accept the encyclical Quas Primas on Christ the King, and the Syllabus (Pius IX). They must accept all this, because this is from now on the condition determining all new discussions between us and them.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)


“Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more.I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” (Fideliter n. 66 nov-dec 1988, pp. 12-13).


"When someone asks us if we know when there will be an accord with Rome, my answer is simple: when Rome re-crowns Our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot be in accord with those who uncrown Our Lord! The day when they recognize once again Our Lord as King of all people and nations, it will not be us with whom they have rejoined, but the Catholic Church, in which we dwell!" (Abp. Lefebvre at Flavigny, France, Dec. 1988; Fideliter no. 68, p.16.).



WHY CAN’T WE APPROACH ROME? – REASON #1: WE BECOME LIBERAL

-“I think Dom Gérard is about to publish a small book written by one of his monks on Religious Liberty and which will try to justify it. From the point of view of ideas, they begin to slide ever so slowly and end up by admitting the false ideas of the Council, because Rome has granted them some favours of Tradition. It’s a very dangerous situation” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)


-“I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, -isn’t that right - did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood, they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations.” (Conference, September 22, 1988)



WHY CAN’T WE APPROACH ROME? – REASON #2: BECAUSE ROME CANNOT BE TRUSTED

-“For fifteen years we dialogued to try to put the tradition back in its place of honour, in that place in the Church which it has by right. We ran up against a continual refusal. What Rome grants in favour of this tradition at present is nothing but a purely political gesture, a piece of diplomacy so as to force people into compromise. But it is not a conviction of the benefits of Tradition.” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)


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


“There will be possibly other manifestations of putting the brakes on by the Vatican; and it is very, very dangerous for us to "rally" ourselves now. No rallying, no rallying to the liberals; no rallying to the ecclesiastics who are governing in the Church now and who are liberals; there is no rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us on the Mass of St. Pius V - certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually... They must give us back everything. They must give up their liberalism, they must come back to the real truth of the Church, to the faith of the Church, to the basic principles of the Church, of this total dependence of society, of families, of individuals on Our Lord Jesus Christ! At that moment when they give us the Mass of all times, very well, then, we are completely in agreement. Then there will be a perfect understanding, we will be able to be recognized, and we will have no more scruples. But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)


-“That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.” (Sermon June 30, 1988)


-“For them, their goal is to divide Tradition. They already have Dom Augustin, they have de Blignièreres, and now they have Dom Gérard. This weakens our position still further. It is their goal: divide to make us disappear.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)


-“It is imperative to know that today Rome is at the service of the revolution and therefore terribly anti-traditional. That is why I refused to put myself in their hands. They only wanted that, by recognizing my mistakes, I help them continue their revolution in the Church – no more, no less. All those who have left us are not aware of the situation and believe in the good will and the rectitude of thought of the bishops or cardinals in Rome. Nothing is further from the truth! ‘It is not possible for them to lead us into the revolution,’ say those who agree with the Pope and his bishops. Well, that is exactly what will happen.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)


-“It is time to take a second decision to face up to this Rome. What else can we do? And if they insist that it is worse this time round, because this time it could mean excommunication, well, I reply that the basic problem remains unchanged: Rome means to exterminate Tradition.” (Recommendations to the Four Bishops-Elect, June 12, 1988)


-“I think that it is that outlook that should guide us in our present situation. Let us not deceive ourselves by believing that by these little braking actions that are given on the right and on the left, in the excesses of the present situation, that we are seeing a complete return to Tradition. That is not true, that is not true. They remain always liberal minds. It is always the liberals who rule Rome, and they remain liberal. But, as the Cardinal says, they have gone a bit too far; they have to find a little balance.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)


-“Upon reflection, it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion during these meetings.” (Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 24, 1988)


“Although Conciliar Rome’s lying has often been proven to be a fact, it is never useless [for them] to try, since they will always find some who will take the bait.” (Letter to Mgr. de Galarreta and priests, seminarians and faithful in South America, July 16, 1989)


“Most of our priests, seminarians and faithful do not delude themselves and are convinced that it is impossible to trust the authorities of the Conciliar Church for as long as they profess such errors.”(Letter to Mgr. de Galarreta and priests, seminarians and faithful in South America, July 16, 1989)




WHY CAN’T ROME BE TRUSTED? - BECAUSE THE ENEMIES ARE IN THE CHURCH

-“We must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jewish Freemasonry and of world socialism. John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service of a world communism retaining a hint of religion. He openly attacks all of the anti-communist governments and does not bring, by his travels, any Catholic revival.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier, pp. 602-603)


-“If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Freemasonry.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon given in 1978)


-"The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs,
the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below. ... This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. This Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work on the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican on Religious Liberty prove." (Letter to the Future Bishops, August 29, 1987)


-“So we are [to be] excommunicated by Modernists, by people who have been condemned by previous popes. So what can that really do? We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned…” (Press conference, Ecône, June 15 1988)


-“Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says"—but they are betraying us—betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.” (Two Years After the Consecration, September 6, 1990)


-“We are dealing with people who have a different philosophy to ours, a different way of seeing, who are influenced by all modern subjectivist philosophers. For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is evolving. That is a totally Masonic concept. This is really the destruction of the Faith.” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)


-“A non-aggressive agreement has been made between the Church and masonry. It was covered up by calling it aggiornamento, reaching out to the world, ecumenism.” (Le Figaro, August 2, 1976)


-“There were direct contacts precisely between Cardinal Bea and the Masonic Lodge here in New York and in Washington, with the B'nai Brith, the Jewish Lodge numbering 75,000 members, and with the lodges of the whole world. Why did these contacts take place? Why did Cardinal Bea come in the name of the Vatican, in the name of Rome, to meet these Freemasons? In order that we would accept the “rights of man” at the Council. How could we accept them? By accepting Religious Liberty, which is one of the “rights of man.” Hence, to accept Religious Liberty was in principle to accept the “rights of man” within the Church. Now, the Church has always condemned these declarations on the “rights of man” which have been made against the authority of God.” (Conference, Long Island, New York, November 5, 1983)


-“Everyone knows that in the Vatican an influential liberal-Masonic mafia is active, without whose “placet” [approval] no change is possible. And so we have arrived at the present moment of the Church in which the triumph of Liberalism is being celebrated.” (Fideliter, May 1987, p.17)


-“But, of course, I have no illusions: even if the pope wanted to make those corrections, he could not do so. That “liberal-Masonic mafia” to which I have already alluded cannot tolerate it…all the American newspapers wrote that, before the Council, Cardinal Bea, the founder of the Vatican Secretariat for ecumenism, met the leaders of the most influential Jewish-Masonic lodge at the Hotel Astoria in New York and asked them what they expected of the Council. “A statement on religious liberty,” they told him.” (Fideliter, May 1987, p.17)


-“It's very difficult to say, "This man is a Freemason," "This man is a Freemason," or "This man is a Freemason." We don't know. It's very difficult. It is certain that there are some cardinals, some bishops, cardinals in the Curia, or monsignors or secretaries of congregations in Rome that are Freemasons. That is certain because the Freemasons themselves have said that. They have said that they have in their lodge some priests and bishops.It is certain that there are some cardinals and many monsignors in Rome who do the same work as the Freemasons; they have the same thinking, the same mind. Willebrandt is Prefect of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians, and Archbishop Silvestrini is the first secretary of Cardinal Casaroli who is Secretary of State—and his right hand is Silvestrini. He is a great power in the Curia. He nominates all the nuncios in the world. He has a very great influence and he is probably a Freemason.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)


-“The City of Rome is no longer a sacred city. This is evident. They have fallen under the thumb of Masonry, and of those liberal ideas - "two centuries" as Cardinal Ratzinger said - and now they are supplying water for the mill of the revolution against Our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)


-“We know now with whom we have to deal. We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a ‘diabolical hand’ which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church! And this is why we have the right and the duty to refuse this obedience... I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals... “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?” “With whom am I dealing?” If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?” (1978 Ordination sermon at Écône)


-“Had we found ourselves in the times of St. Francis of Assisi, the pope would have been in agreement with us. There was not an occupation by Freemasonry of the Vatican in its happier days.” (Albano, October 19, 1983)


-“ I would say that the first sensational event which manifested this opposition even within the Church and within the Roman Curia, between the liberal program - masonic, it must be said - and the program of the Church, of the faith of the Church and of Tradition, is the opposition between Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bea.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)


-“The adoption of liberal theses by a Council could not have occurred except in a non-infallible pastoral Council, and cannot be explained without there having been a secret, detailed preparation which the historians will eventually discover to the great stupefaction of Catholics who confuse the eternal Roman Catholic Church with the human Rome, susceptible to infiltration by enemies robed in purple.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)



There you go. As clear as water and completely logical!
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator



Archbishop Lefebvre’s Recommendations
to the 4 bishops-elect, June 12, 1988​


Archbishop Lefebvre

June 12, 1988

"It's over. The talks between Rome and ourselves are over. The more one thinks about it, the more one realizes their intentions are not good. Look at what happened to the Traditional leaders, Dom Augustin, Fr. de Blignieres, who went over to Rome and have been swallowed up. Rome wants everything to go Vatican II, while they leave us a little bit of Tradition.

"De Saventhem [then President of the conservative (not Traditional) organization, "Una Voce"] tells me we could still come to an understanding. But I tell him the misunderstanding is not over little things. They are not changing their position. We cannot put ourselves in the hands of those people. We would be fooling ourselves. We do not mean to let ourselves be eaten up.

"The Traditional Benedictine Prior, Dom Gerard, tells me that an agreement with Rome would have opened up for us a huge field for the apostolate. Maybe, but in a world of ambiguity, facing in two directions at once, which would make us go rotten in the end. They insist: "But if you were with Rome, you would have more vocations." But vocations like that, if you breathed one word against Rome, would make life in our seminaries impossible! And if we "came to an agreement" with Rome on that basis, then the diocesan bishops would say "Then come along and join in the dioceses", and little by little Tradition would be compromised.

"All the Traditional Sisters and nuns in France are against an agreement. They tell me, "We do not want to be dependent on Cardinal Ratzinger. Imagine if he were to come and give us conferences! He would split us down the middle!"

"As for the risk of some of our priests leaving us if bishops are consecrated, it will be no worse than in 1977, when a block of priests and seminarians walked out of Econe all in one go. They have all now gone over to Rome or dispersed. It is time to take a second decision to face up to this Rome. What else can we do? And if they insist that it is worse this time round, because this time it could mean excommunication, well, I reply that the basic problem remains unchanged: Rome means to exterminate Tradition, while the sedevacantists have no love for us.

"You four will be bishops for the Church, at the service of the Society of St. Pius X, as laid out in the Protocol of May 5. The Society has the standing to deal with Rome. It will be the Superior General's job, when the time comes, to pick up the threads again with Rome.

"Your function will be to give the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation and to KEEP THE FAITH on the occasion of Confirmations, to protect the flock... You will be an immense support for the Society. Let all four of you be of one mind, without too many personal initiatives, for instance when it comes to requests for ordination. Do not ordain men who are on their own, and if they form part of a community, take a good look at the community.

"Rome wants us to go Conciliar... You will have to make the rounds once a year, once every two years for Confirmations. As for ordinations, I am presently doing 25 to 30 ceremonies a year, but from June 30 onwards, I am not moving from Econe! I will have done my work, by giving to the Society the structure it needs. And then, as I told the Pope, as soon as Tradition comes back to Rome, the problem will be over.

"As for an eventual excommunication, it will mean nothing, because they are not looking out for the wellbeing of the Church. However, excommunicating us will be a nuisance for them. They are trying to get to me by fair means or foul, through de Saventhem, a Czech bishop, and so on and so on. They even wanted to send Mother Theresa of Calcutta. But there is no point in such meetings. It has all been talked out long ago.

"Let anyone just read the letter of the former seminarian of Econe, Carlo, who went over to Rome to set up a conservative organisation there, called "Mater Ecclesix", who tried to corrupt our seminarians by getting them to leave us, but whose eyes have since been opened wide by the trickery of Rome. In that letter he admits that Rome treats them like outcasts, that they are forced to take off the cassock, that nobody receives them. He has found out what this Rome is like. Rome wants to turn the Society into another "Mater Ecclesiae". And when the first "Mater Ecclesiae" collapsed, Cardinal Ratzinger rejoiced.

"So why should they keep their word to us? We were protected by God when He allowed the agreement of May 5 to come to naught."

Archbishop Lefebvre

..
 

Admin

Administrator
The “new” SSPX deceptively tries to change the principles of its priests and followers. In other words, it is brainwashing them. Bishop Fellay acknowledged this fact in euphemistic terms, when he said that the “new” SSPX is working to get its followers to adapt to the new conciliar “reality”. (Emphasis added by Admin)

Here are Bishop Fellay’s words: when he was asked in May 2016 if the SSPX [can] be confident of the support of SSPX churchgoers for reconciliation [with Rome], he stated:

It will be quite a work, and it will take time to be able to bring the faithful to realize this new face in the history of the Church, this new reality ....
There are two prongs to the “new” SSPX’s brainwashing its priests and followers, to bring them to accept the conciliar wolves as if they were shepherds:

  1. Praise the “wolves” themselves, e.g., (continuing the pastoral analogy) tell the sheep how beautifully shiny and thick the wolves’ fur coats are; and
  2. Minimize the known evils of the “wolves”, e.g., (continuing the analogy) tell the sheep how few, dull, and small the wolves’ teeth are.
As shown briefly below, the “new” SSPX carefully follows both prongs of this brainwashing program.

  1. Here are only a few of countless examples of the “new” SSPX praising the conciliar wolves themselves (analogous to telling the sheep how beautifully shiny and thick the wolves’ coats are):
  2. Here are just a few of countless examples of the “new” SSPX minimizing the known evils of the conciliar wolves, (analogous to telling the sheep how few, dull, and small the wolves’ teeth are).
On August 24, 2016, Bishop Fellay added to these poisonous teachings (above) by minimizing the evil of Vatican II in an additional way. He now says that Vatican II contains no direct heresy and few errors. Here are his words:

In Vatican II, there is no direct heresy. There are openings. Openings to the [sic] error. And some direct errors. Not so many direct errors.
Of course, the truth is that Vatican II is full of direct heresies.

Archbishop Lefebvre correctly taught that the whole Vatican II contradicts what the popes have taught for centuries. This plainly shows that Vatican II teaches heresy and that Archbishop Lefebvre does not mean only 5% of the council, but rather the whole council. Here are his words:

[W]e have to choose. Either we choose what the popes have taught for centuries and we choose the Church or we choose what was said by the Council. But we cannot choose both at the same time since they are contradictory.3
When a faithful Catholic examines any documents of Vatican II, especially the principal ones, he finds them continually contradicting the consistent and infallible teachings of the Catholic Church, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. For example, Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty (for false religions) directly contradicts the infallible, consistent teaching of the Church.4

To take many other examples: the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium, averages about nineteen errors for every page!5 Thus, Bishop Fellay falsifies and minimizes by saying that there are Not so many direct errors.

Further, Vatican II’s very many errors contradict the Catholic Faith. Thus, Vatican II’s errors are heresy, since errors about the Faith are heresies (in contrast to errors on some other subject, such as geometry). Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this:

We are speaking of heresy now as denoting a corruption of the Christian Faith. Now it does not imply a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a false opinion about things belonging to the faith.
Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above, in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g.those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.11, a.2, respondeo (emphasis added).

Thus, when Bishop Fellay denies that Vatican II’s direct errors are many, he minimizes and falsifies the truth, since the council’s direct errors (as well as indirect errors) are very many.6

Further, Bishop Fellay minimizes the truth a second way, by denying that Vatican II contains direct heresies. As St. Thomas explains, direct errors about religion (as opposed to errors about geometry or some other subject) are direct heresies by definition. Vatican II has many direct errors and so has many direct heresies.

Even Bishop Fellay’s own minimizing is inconsistent with itself. He says (bracketed words added):

In Vatican II, there is no direct heresy. There are openings. Openings to the error. And [there are] some direct errors.
Those direct errors which Bishop Fellay admits, are direct heresies by definition.

In summary:

  1. Bishop Fellay is wrong to deny that Vatican II has very many direct errors;
  2. And therefore by definition, he is wrong to deny that Vatican II has very many direct heresies; and
  3. He is inconsistent within his own statement, both admitting there are direct errors and denying there are direct heresies.
Conclusion
Bishop Fellay minimizes Vatican II in order to brainwash priests and people by falsely telling them that Vatican II’s “teeth” are small, dull and few. The truth is that Vatican II heresies are “teeth” which are large, sharp and many! Those “teeth” ruthlessly rip the “flesh” of the Catholic Faith out of the poor, abandoned sheep both in the conciliar church and, increasingly, in the “new” SSPX.

Let us pray for the weak, blind, SSPX sheep (priests and people) and the SSPX’s hireling leaders!

  1. Amoris Laetitia is Pope Francis’s scandalous and heretical document on marriage. The truth, of course, is that (continuing Bishop Fellay’s boat metaphor) this document is a complete shipwreck! Plainly, Bishop Fellay greatly minimizes the truth when he says Pope Francis’s beautiful boat has a very small hole, because most boats have very small leaks. That is why boats have bilge pumps—to remove the water from very small leaks. A very small leak is not ideal but is not a disaster like Amoris Laetitia and other teachings of the conciliar church.
    Read the SSPX’s Amoris Laetitia quotes and find the citations to the SSPX publications.
  2. Quoted from Bishop Fellay’s April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration (dashes are in the original).
  3. Archbishop Lefebvre, 1976 press conference quoted in Religious Liberty Questioned,page xi, Angelus Press, 2002.
  4. See the direct heresy of religious liberty taught by Vatican II (which echoes the freemasons of the French Revolution), as contrasted to the infallible Traditional teaching of the Church going back to the earliest ages of the Church.
  5. See, Lumen Gentium Annotated, by Quanta Cura Press, © 2013, available at scribd.com (free) & at Amazon.com (sold at cost). Our calculation of approximately nineteen errors per page is based on the 406 footnotes in Lumen Gentium Annotated,which point out the errors in this landmark Vatican II document, and then we then divide this number of errors by the 21.5 pages of the official Vatican edition available on the Vatican’s website. 406 ÷ 21.5 = 18.9 errors per page.
  6. Lumen Gentium Annotated, by Quanta Cura Press, © 2013, available at scribd.com(free) & at Amazon.com (sold at cost).


Catholic Candle

..
..
 

Admin

Administrator
2138



Joint communiqué of Bishop Huonder and Father Pagliarani


On Monday, May 20, 2019, Pope Francis relieved Bishop Vitus Huonder of his duties as Bishop of the Diocese of Chur (Switzerland), while appointing an administrator with a view to the election of his successor.

According to an intention that he stated long ago, Bishop Huonder is retiring to a house of the Society of Saint Pius X. The one sole purpose of this step is to dedicate himself to prayer and silence, to celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively, and to work for Tradition, the only way of renewing the Church.

The Society of Saint Pius X appreciates Bishop Huonder’s courageous decision and rejoices to be able to provide him with the spiritual and priestly surroundings that he desires so deeply. May this example be followed by others, so as to “restore everything in Christ”.

May 20, 2019

His Excellency Vitus Huonder Don Davide Pagliarani

Bishop Emeritus of Chur Superior General of the SSPX

..
 

Admin

Administrator
Stand-alone comment from another source:

Just because a TLM is said doesn't mean it's automatically good and God is honored. A catholic is forbidden by canon law from attending a mass from a known heretic/modernist, therefore many TLMs would be wrong to attend because the priest is in the state of public sin (this also applies to probable heretics, because canon law also forbids catholics from attending masses/sacraments based on "probabilities".) We have the highest duty, both legally and morally, to offer God our best, which means to attend masses which are certainly valid, legal and moral. Anything less is to offer God the sin of Cain, the 2nd best of our selves and the liturgy.
.
Further, being that many TLMs are said in the same churchs and by the same priests who say the novus ordo abomination, then those TLMs are tainted by sacrilige and blasphemy, since those churches as desecrated by sins against the First Commandment, which highly offend God, above all other sins.
.
In the case of +Huonder, until he publically denounces his previous errors, his previous silence on V2, his previous sacrilegious performance of the novus ordo (with his allowance of the blasphemous 'communion in the hand', girl servers, lay eucharistic ministers, etc, etc, etc), then he is to be avoided as a probable heretic and a practical apostate. Anyone who associates with him is guilty of this scandal to the Faith. The new-sspx has an obligation to the entire catholic world to properly legitimize this "bishop" (if he's a bishop at all...he should be conditionally ordained/consecrated) and to help him make resitution for his enabling the V2 errors, by him issuing a public condemnation of all things Modernism, a public taking of the "oath against modernism" and a public "Credo" of all things orthodox and Traditional. Much like Bishop Castro Meyer denounced his former errors, and spend the rest of this life supporting Traditionalism, so +Huonder has the duty, as a Bishop of the Church, to make up for his past and to spread/preach the Faith for the little time he has left on earth.

..
 
Top