What a coincidence! As we reported "Pie" A évêques'est levé Forum, "The fraternity has until late February to give an official response to Rome. And the threat of sanctions on the fraternity are very serious."

In the forum "Fecit" handled 100% by acuerdistas very close to Bishop Fellay, we confirmed this statement:

Austremoine: What is the role of bishops Di Noia and Muller, who sent an ultimatum to Bishop Fellay strong threats accompanied the end of February? The agreement of this date to the end of the pontificate is strange ...

In Le Forum Catholique Ennemond tells us, is, Jacques-Régis du Cray, which we read in the Open Letter to Father Lorans of antimodernisme.info:

On the Internet, presumptuous interventions, although poor, Mr. Jacques-Régis du Cray (Ennemond of Prévigny ...) that since 2007 has not "missed the opportunity to attend meetings of GREC", are part of the official communication of the SSPX? How this young man, so weak in theology as haughty, could only hope to play the role of censor of Tradition? This history professor who lectures at random on the intended spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre, right lets you Lorans Father, you and the House General, "preparing" the opinions saying aloud what you think quietly?

This is what has been published "Ennemond":

In early January, Bishop Muller sent a letter to Bishop Fellay, also signed by Bishop de Noia where he'll have until Feb. 22 to accept the preamble revised on 13 June, with three modifications imposed. If denied, Rome will send the revised preamble to every priest of the SSPX. The first steps at the Ecclesia Dei of Bishop Muller glimpse an offensive attitude that runs the risk of not attracting absolutely no priest of the SSPX, requested conditions are more stringent than those required to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.

We will see ...


Original: Non Possumus


¡Qué casualidad! Según nos informó “Pie” del foro Un évêques’est levé, “La Fraternidad tiene hasta finales de febrero para dar una respuesta oficial a Roma. Y las amenazas de sanciones sobre la Fraternidad son muy serias”.

En el foro “Fecit”, manejado 100% por acuerdistas muy próximos a Monseñor Fellay, se nos confirma esta afirmación:

Austremoine: ¿Qué papel desempeñan los obispos Di Noia y Muller, que han enviado a Monseñor Fellay un ultimátum acompañado de amenazas fuertes para finales de febrero? La concordancia de esta fecha con el final del pontificado es extraña…

En Le Forum Catholique nos dice Ennemond, es decir,  Jacques-Régis du Cray, del cual leemos en la Carta Abierta al Padre Lorans de antimodernisme.info:

En internet, las intervenciones presuntuosas, aunque deficientes, del señor Jacques-Régis du Cray (Ennemond, de Prévigny…) que desde el 2007 no se ha “perdido la ocasión de asistir a las reuniones del GREC”, forman parte de la Comunicación oficial de la FSSPX? ¿Cómo este joven hombre, tan endeble en  teología como altivo, hubiera podido, sólo, aspirar a ejercer un papel de censor de la Tradición? Este profesor de historia que diserta a tontas y a locas sobre el pretendido espíritu de Monseñor Lefebvre, ¿no le permite usted, Padre Lorans, usted y la Casa General, “preparar” las opiniones diciendo en voz alta lo que ustedes piensan en voz baja?

Esto es lo que ha publicado "Ennemond":

A principios del mes de enero, Monseñor Muller envió a Monseñor Fellay una carta firmada también por Monseñor de Noia en la que se da hasta el 22 de febrero para aceptar el preámbulo revisado el 13 de junio pasado, con las tres modificaciones impuestas. En caso negativo, Roma lo solicitará a cada sacerdote de la FSSPX. Los primeros pasos de Monseñor Muller en Ecclesia Dei dejan entrever una actitud ofensiva que corre el riesgo de no atraer absolutamente a ningún sacerdote de la FSSPX, las condiciones solicitadas son más exigentes que aquellas requeridas a Monseñor Lefebvre en 1988.






1) a) What Archbishop has said about the greatest danger to traditionalists was to put themselves in the hands of modernist Rome and b) Bishop Fellay recently saying those who want the good of the Church want also the Society of St. Pius X to be officially recognized by modernist Rome (which is the same as being put in the modernist's hands);

2) a) What Archbishop said about Rome preparing a trap by offering us every advantage we could desire to settle our situation  and b) Bishop Fellay saying that to currently think this way is a lack of realism and supernatural spirit;

3) a) What Archbishop said about Benedict XVI (then Cardinal still) looking to deschristianize the world and b) Bishop Fellay saying Pope Benedict XVI takes very seriously the situation and life of the Church;

4) a) When Archbishop said he could not get along with Benedict XVI (then Cardinal) and b) Bishop Fellay getting along quite well with Benedict XVI;

5) a) When the Archbishop said that we should not put ourselves under the authority of those who do not profess the integrity of the Faith b) Bishop Fellay said that not want to put ourselves under the authority of Pope Benedict XVI (who does not profess the integrity of the Faith ) is to have schismatic and sedevacantist spirit;

6) a) What Archbishop said about a conspiracy of Freemasonry against Holy Church, in which she was infiltrated by this sect to the highest levels of the hierarchy even in Rome and b)  that Bishop Fellay does not believe or does not take seriously enough these conjurations, saying that it is a too human vision of the Church, too fatalistic; seeing only the dangers, difficulties and conspiracies; 

7) a) That Archbishop Lefebvre made a public manifest repudiating the ecumenical meeting  in Assisi, a grave sin of the Pope against the first commandment of God and b) that Bishop Fellay did not do the same when the current Pope repeated this sin in "Assisi III"[1];

8) a) That Archbishop has said that religious freedom sponsored by Vatican II is the height of impiety, equivalent to the principle of the state's secularism, considering the atheistic state and not taking into account the difference between truth and error and b) that Bishop Fellay has said that Vatican II presents a very limited religious liberty;

9) a) That Archbishop has said that the documents of Vatican II are a total perversion of the spirit and that this council was the biggest disaster of all centuries since its foundation and b) that Bishop Fellay has said that Society of St. Pius X was exaggerating Vatican II's heresies;

10) a) What Archbishop Lefebvre, in view of his experience and contacts with members of the Vatican, took from 1988 a more uncompromising position in regards a possible canonical recognition of the Society and b) that Bishop Fellay quoting Archbishop Lefebvre has been silencing this last position of his, implying that the thoughts of Archbishop Lefebvre has always been on his pronouncements before 1988.


That the way of speaking and acting of Bishop Fellay is a betrayal of the doctrinal legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre in regards the attitude to take on the current crisis in the Holy Church, and a refusal to recognize, accept and assimilate the experience of Archbishop Lefebvre in his contacts with Rome.


Some will say that Bishop Fellay recanted saying he has been deceived.


Bishop Fellay was not very clear on what he was wrong and his attitude toward those who were not deceived nor deceived him makes us think he keeps essentially the same positions as before.



1) What has been noted in more than one occasion (as we have said in response to the objection the topic above) Bishop Fellay has spoken and acted in a contradictory manner to accomplish his purposes;

2) That this way of behaving with duplicity does forfeit the due credit of those who behaves likewise.


1) That the spirit animating Bishop Fellay is not the spirit of God, therefore we can and should judge before putting our trust and our salvation (in a certain way) in the hands of someone;

2) That he is unworthy of this confidence we normally would have for him as the highest authority within the Tradition.



a) That Archbishop has said the masterstroke of Satan was to cast all Catholics in disobedience (towards the Church, Tradition and, ultimately, to Our Lord) through obedience (to the Conciliar Popes) and b) that Bishop Fellay is conducting all those associated with the SSPX to disobey Archbishop Lefebvre (and, ultimately, the Holy Church, Tradition and Our Lord) by obedience to himself.


We must resist and, moreover, publicly denounce his doctrinal deviations in order that people do not continue to be deceived, following the false path by which he is leading the Society: a spirit of sympathy towards the present Pope; of decreased aversion of Vatican II; of desiring to join the "Conciliar Church", identifying it with the Holy Catholic Church; the decrease in fighting the progressivists.



1) That the members of the SSPX who publicly oppose the new orientation and doctrines of Bishop Fellay are being expelled from the Society for this very reason;

2) This being the cause, the so called expulsion is unfair because the attitude of these members are just;

3) That being unfair, this expulsion is invalid;

4) And being this expulsion invalid,  by right and before God they remain true members of the Society of St. Pius X.


That these members of the SSPX should not be considered as rebels but on the contrary, as faithful children of Archbishop Lefebvre, who before the Conciliar Popes had the same attitude that they are now having towards Bishop Fellay.



1) That lately on the doctrinal talks, we witnessed the incompatibility of Church doctrine with the doctrine of the current holders of authority in Rome;

2) That Benedict XVI renewed in 2011 the ecumenical meeting in Assisi;

3) That Benedict XVI beatified Pope John Paul II;

4) That Benedict XVI said in 2012 that any renewal of the Church should be based on the deepening of the documents of Vatican II;

5) That Benedict XVI signed in 2012 the decree of "heroic virtues" (?) of Paul VI;

6) That the Principality of Liechtenstein in late 2012 was in the process of ceasing to be an officially Catholic State due to the pressure from the doctrine of the Council on Religious Liberty;

7) That the two signals in which Archbishop Lefebvre recognized he should consecrate bishops without the Pope's permission were an ecumenical meeting in Assisi and the reaffirmation of the errors of Vatican II on religious freedom by Rome.


That the current situation of the Church is very serious, similar (or worse) of that we found ourselves in 1988, contrary to what Bishop Fellay affirm.



1) That those who remain in the SSPX are in tremendous need to choose between remaining silent or being expelled for opposing the current direction imposed by Bishop Fellay;

2) That the work of Archbishop Lefebvre should not become extinct because of this new direction;

3) That Bp. Williamson alone is unable to meet all the appeals of the priests and faithful throughout the world, to administer the sacraments and give them sound doctrine, as received from the Archbishop;

4) That the same reasons that led the Archbishop to make the consecrations of 1988 exist today and therefore currently justify new episcopal consecrations for Tradition without permission of the Pope.


That is most convenient that Bp. Williamson proceeds in a timely fashion to these consecrations, for the good of the Church, waiting for better days, when things will normalize.

It's up to him to set the most convenient time and to do it.


[1] Please note that these meetings have taken place regularly after 1986, almost every year in different places with the participation of members of the Conciliar Church.

Conferência com Padre Jahir, FBMV - Jan 25 / 2013

Entrevista com Dom Tomás de Aquino

Mosteiro da Santa Cruz, 29 de Janeiro 2013.