An entire neo-SSPX Chapel joins the Resistence

Ciudad Del Leste - Paraguay
___

Fr. Foure and an ex-seminarian from [i]La Reja [/i] (who will soon be joining the Seminary in Kentucky) have helped a whole Chapel to realize the neo-SSPX of Bp. Fellay is no longer the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre.

The parishioners have written to Fr. Bouchacourt, District Superior of South America, and told him he won't need to worry about sending any more priests to them because they will no longer be welcomed.

Fr. Bochacourt has been desperately trying to have a meeting with Fr. Fouré because he knows he is going after the Chapel in Asuncion as well, the only other place the neo-SSPX has Mass in Paraguay. Let's pray the faithful of Asuncion will be just as brave as the ones from Ciudad Del Leste.

It seems that Fr. Foure is shaking the grounds of Paraguay.

Deo Gratias!

Bishop Fellay - Kansas Conference 10/13/13

“To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I thinksomething else from what I do. They are not in my head.”

Bishop Fellay 10/13/13 Kansas Conference

This poor people accept the challenge of proving to those with eyes to see the CLEAR intention of Bishop Fellay in getting an "agreement" with MODERNIST Rome. To come out now calling pope Francis a "genuine modernist" could only have come about because Bishop Willimson has just announced the project of purchasing an eight bedroom house for priests in England, or because he (Bp. Fellay) has finally been told by the roman authorities to take a hike, that they are not interested on his 'negotiation' skills. 

Back to the challenge...

We'll try to make it simple and concentrate only on three points to unmask the head of the pius union in Menzingen: The Council, the CatholicMass/New Mass and the World/Jews. Plus some miscellaneous to wrap it up those three.

1. In regards to II Vatican Council

a) "Vatican II is 95% acceptable".  Bishop Fellay - Interview with “La Liberté” Magazine

http://sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_4_12-19-2012.htm

b) “…We see that, in the discussions, many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are, in fact, not from the Council, but the common understanding of it [….]. Many people understand wrongly the Council”.   CNS Interview, May 11, 2012, 1:06 until 1:23.

c) “As for the Council, when they asked me the question, “Does Vatican II belong to Tradition?”, I answered, ‘I would like to hope that that is the case’ (which a faulty French translation transformed into: ‘I hope so.’)”  [The parenthetical comment is in the DICI original.]

d) Religious liberty “is used in so many ways. And looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it.  The Council is presenting a religious liberty which, in fact, is a very, very limited one: very limited!” 

 Bishop Fellay interview – listen at minute 1:25 of 6:00 at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY&feature=topics

e) “[T]he Society of St. Pius X can accept ‘some points’ of  [Vatican II’s document on the Jews] Nostra Aetate.” Quoted from: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201985.htm.

f) “We must set aside the secondary problems [doctrinal differences between the SSPX and Rome] and deal with the major problems [in the Church]."  6-8-2012 DICI interview

2. On the Catholic Mass and the bastard mass

Bishop Fellay has credited (blamed) Our Lady for "freeing the Traditional Mass" --fooling millions of people in the mockery of the first rosary crusade. Was the Mass really freed?

The motu proprio not only did not free the Mass but even emphasized that the traditional Mass was (at best) on par with the new mass or, actually, gave the new mass precedence. Listen to Pope Benedict:

"[T]here is the fear that the document [i.e the motu proprio itself ] detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions -- the liturgical reform -- is being called into question.

This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II obviously is and continues to be the normal form -- the "forma ordinaria" -- of the eucharistic [sic] liturgy. The last version of the "Missale Romanum" prior to the council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the council, will now be able to be used as a "forma extraordinaria" of the liturgical celebration."

Source: Pope Benedict XVI’s 7-7-07 letter accompanying the motu proprio (bold emphasis added).

Bishop Fellay had the SSPX singing the Te Deum for that, believe or not.

The SSPX has also begun using the term “extraordinary form” to refer to the traditional Mass. http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2658.

 To control the language of an argument is half of winning the argument itself.  If there is an extraordinary form, then that implies an ordinary form which is also an option.  Thus, the SSPX use of this term implies acceptance of the new mass.

That is confirmed by the official Doctrinal Declaration of Bishop Fellay/neo-SSPX:

#7. We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does, according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals, legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.

3. On the Jews

“[T]he Society of St. Pius X can accept ‘some points’ of  [Vatican II’s document on the Jews] Nostra Aetate.” Quoted from: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201985.htm.

In a 2012 interview he gave about the SSPX/Catholic position on the Jews, Bishop Fellay said:

It “does not reflect mainstream thinking in the SSPX to see ‘Jews as ‘enemies of the Gospel’, who seek the ‘corruption and ruin’ of Christians”.

"I don't think that in any talk or sermon, I ever talked about the Jewish question," he said. "It's not an issue for us."

"The topic (of the Jews) is very, very delicate, very delicate, and should be handled with the greatest care," the bishop added. "We don't want at all to provoke and to make unnecessary turmoil in the world."

(All of this is quoted from: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201985.htm )

Many have noticed that the SSPX has been purging its websites of strong Catholic teaching. To take a single example reported by Catholic News Service: “In 2009, … the society's U.S. website (www.sspx.org) removed articles arguing that the ‘Jewish race brought upon themselves the curse that followed the crime of deicide’, and that the ‘Jewish people, if it has not converted to Christianity, will, even if it does not wish to, seek to ruin Christianity.’”  Quoted from: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201985.htm.

“The position of Bishop Williamson is clearly not the position of our Society.  Anti-Semitism has no place in our ranks.  We follow fully God's commandments on justice and charity and the constant teaching of the Church.  Anti-Semitism has been condemned by the Church. So do we condemn it.”  Rorate Coeli 2-2-09 (emphasis added). 

- Miscellaneous 

*Bishop Fellay accused the three bishops of lacking supernatural spirit

*Expelled one of them (The one who could spoil his sell out plan the most)

*Expelled also many priests and faithful

*Muzzled all those who are still with him

*Denied sacraments (Holy Communion, Holy Order, Absolution)

*The discovery of GREC

*The involvement with Maximilian Krah and Jewish money

*The hiring of a P.R Dutch Company to change how the old SSPX looks

*The 100+ articles of Archbishop Lefebvre which has vanished from the websites

*Many articles on the Jews have also disappeared, apparently for good.

For these reasons I think it is safe to say it blatantly that the pope is not the only genuine modernist!

On the other hand, [1]I am perfectly willing to believe that Bishop Fellay has had a genuine change of heart. All he would need to do would be to show his gratitude for the deal falling thorough by thanking those who made that failure possible, especially Bishop Williamson. And of course, as many others have already pointed out, he would need to publicly admit that he was completely and utterly wrong, invite back Bishop Williamson and all the other priests he expelled or otherwise drove out of the Society, and step down from his position as Superior General. Spending the rest of his life cloistered in a monastery doing penance would be a nice touch, but I would be willing to believe him sincere even without it. But I am forced to conclude that unless he acknowledges his fault and attempts the minimal reparation that common decency demands, his words are empty. It is obvious that if he wants to retain ANY credibility among even neotrads, he must say something along the lines of what he has said. If the situation weren't so painfully clear, I would force myself to give him the benefit of the doubt out of charity. But I see no doubt to give him the benefit of.

__________

[1]MiserereMeiDeus at Archbishop Lefebvre Forum

* Most used quotes from truetrad.com

Letter of Appeal to the unfaithful to Resistance

As time has passed in the terrible crisis within the SSPX along with the insurmountable evidence of compromises, lies, secrecies and blatant betrayal from the highest authorities (Bp. Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, Fr. Schmidberger, Fr. Rostand, etc.), much hope or expectancy has been placed on the old-timer priests--most of them formed by Bp. Williamson--as far as having their help to counter-fight the myriads of new language, approaches and actions taken towards the worst enemy of the Church:  The Modernists! (Pope Saint Pius X) 

Here is "the" very big deception with regard to this hope:  Bishop Tissier! 

In 2012 he was reported as saying that if the deal really goes through, he will retire.  He has done nothing against the liberal attacks of Bp. Fellay, thereby seriously compromising the work of Archbishop Lefebvre which is none other than to preserve intact the Catholic Faith.  He has even stated he wasn't sure if Archbishop Lefebvre did the right thing in consecrating his "not-too-long-ago friend" Bishop Williamson. Later reports from France have also mentioned Bp. Tissier saying that a "regularization" wouldn't be bad after all [2013].  So there you have it:  Bp. Tissier's "engine" has already given signs of having the same problems as his clutch.

Much hope was placed in some really good priests of the SSPX, but many fell short on this hope.  I would like to mention some names, but I'm certain you could also have your own list of good priests who have helped you become a Traditional Catholic but who right now have let themselves be silenced.  We should feel urged to encourage them as we were once encouraged by them to stand for the Truth.

How in the world could one imagine priests of the caliber of Fr. Peter Scott (my biggest deception after Bp. Tissier), Fr. Morgan, Fr. Robinson, Fr. Cooper, Fr. Novak, Fr. Fox, etc. being muzzled by the liberal dictator from Menzingen???

 Mystery of iniquity!

Many are the excuses of these priests... A major one is "obedience" so...

“What should I do? I am told: ‘You must obey. You are disobedient. You do not have the right to continue doing what you are doing, for you divide the Church.’ ” What is a law?  What is a decree?  What obliges one to obey?  “A law,” Leo XIII says, “is the ordering of reason to the common good, but not towards the common evil.  This is so obvious that if a rule is ordered towards an evil, THEN IT IS NO LONGER A LAW.”  Leo XIII said this explicitly in his encyclical “Libertas.” In other words, a law which is not for the common good is not a law and consequently, ONE IS NOT OBLIGED TO OBEY IT. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Montreal, Canada, May, 1982). 

They are hiding themselves behind a virtuous word (obedience) while viciously acting as cowards.

“A BLIND OBEDIENCE … has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic Faith… One must understand the meaning of obedience and must distinguish between BLIND OBEDIENCE and the VIRTUE OF OBEDIENCE.  Indiscriminate obedience is actually A SIN AGAINST THE VIRTUE OF OBEDIENCE.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, USA, July, 1978). 

Some other priests use the word "prudence" to disguise their cowardly silence which enables them to continue on, comfortably ‘taken care of,’ but...

“We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent!  Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues and see that the world is rotten because of silence.” St. Catherine of Siena

Many of them admit [internally] that minimizing Vatican II is wrong.  Many of them are against putting the candle under the bushel with regard to condemnations toward Assisi III, for instance.  Many of them know now about GREC and the unjust expulsion of Bp. Williamson.  Many of them know Religious Liberty is NOT very limited (quite the contrary).  Many others know that the agreed upon and signed acceptance of being under the local diocesan bishops is a disgusting betrayal.  Many others came to find out Vatican II "enlightens and deepens certain aspects of the doctrine of the Church," and that the New Code of Canon Law is unrestrictedly accepted as well as the legitimacy of the new mass (according to Bp. Fellay and his Doctrinal Declaration).  So why are they still silent??

“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend Truth is to suppress it; and indeed, to neglect to confound evil men when we can do it is no less a sin than to encourage them.” Pope Felix III

“He that sees another in error and endeavors not to correct it testifies himself to be in error.” Pope Leo I

“All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.” Pope St. Pius V

“All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics.” Pope St. Pius X

“When they sin, rebuke them in the presence of all that the rest also may have fear.” 1 Timothy 5:20

Many priests of the SSPX do not interiorly condemn the just resistance and efforts of those fighting the good fight in the open field, but is this enough?

“He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, both are abominable before God.” Proverbs 17:15

Some others hope and wait for a better formation of resistance and the greater assurance of a bishop...  Is a structure or even a bishop greater than Truth?

"Do not follow the multitude nor rely yourself on what seems to be of a greater number if, by it, you deviate from the truth." St. Athanasius

Now some Faithful wish for these priests to do something and sometimes even criticize them for not doing anything.  But what are they themselves doing about it?  Would the SSPX clergy be so lethargic if the laity were standing by and/or speaking up for the Truth?

"The greatest obstacle in the apostolate of the Church is the timidity or rather the cowardice of the Faithful." Pope St. Pius X

"To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against Truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe.  In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind."
Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae

Some yet try to justify their silence in order to avoid any scandal:

"It is better that the Truth be known than that scandal be covered up." St. Augustine

"In hell, the hottest place is reserved for those who have chosen neutrality in times of crisis." Dante Alighieri

What about those afraid of Menzingen's threatening letters and canonical sanctions?

"Human laws cannot be contrary to the Divine Law from which they derive all their force and efficacy, so that a law which prescribes something morally wrong is no law at all and cannot exert any binding force on the conscience.  A parent is bound by natural, Divine, and human law to bring up his children properly." (Manual of Moral Theology, Fr. Thomas Slater, Vol. 1, Book 3, ch. 3) 

Is there any doubt that many of these well-formed priests KNOW that “They [neo-SSPX] are blind and leaders of the blind.”  And “IF THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND, BOTH WILL FALL INTO THE PIT.”

"If the Faith is in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public." St. Thomas Aquinas

“Every Catholic can and must resist anyone in the Church who lays hands on his Faith, the Faith of the Eternal Church, upheld by his childhood catechism.  The defense of his Faith is the first duty of every Christian, more especially of every priest and bishop.  Wherever an order carries with it the danger of corrupting Faith and morals, “disobedience” becomes a grave duty.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, no. 9, 1975). 

Let us heartly take Don Bosco's words when he said:

"I do not fear at all what men can do to me for speaking the truth. I only fear what God would do if I were to lie."

"Have courage in your Faith and convictions.  The evil ones are the ones who should fear the good not the other way around. ~ St. John Bosco

"Therefore, In God's name!  Let us go bravely!" ~ St. Joan of Arc, 1429

"How far he has come"

by Arsenius

With the recent publication of the Doctrinal Statement of Bishop Fellay, sent to Cardinal Levada on April 15, 2012, several observations have been made but there is something that looks like it is going unnoticed: that is the reference Bishop Fellay makes to the profession of faith of 1989. Indeed, he cites in a note, on paragraph 2 of its statement, as a document that would be the way to accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church. Here is a passage of that profession of faith: "I adhere with a religious obedience of will and faith to doctrines that, either the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops, speak when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they don't have the intention to proclaim a definitive act. "[1] Note that this profession of faith is preceded by an introductory text that explains the meaning to be given to such a profession. However, this introduction reads: "It seemed essential to prepare adapted texts, in order to make them updated with regard to your style and your content and put in accordance with the teachings of Vatican II and the documents from the same." [ 2]

And now let us hear Archbishop Lefebvre, with his piercing eyes, giving us a proper appreciation of this document by Cardinal Ratzinger:

"The mistakes of the Council and its reforms remain the official norm consecrated by the profession of faith of Cardinal Ratzinger in March 1989" (Mgr Lefebvre, Itinéraire spirituel, p. 10-11) [3]

"The new profession of faith which was written by Cardinal Ratzinger contains explicit acceptance of the Council and its consequences. It was the Council and its aftermath that destroyed the Holy Mass, which destroyed our Faith, destroyed the Catechisms and the kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ in civil societies. How can we accept it? (...) It is necessary to keep the Catholic Faith, protect it by all means "(Mgr Lefebvre, Paris, le 23 septembre 1979) [4]

"This is to put us in a contradiction, because while Rome gives the Fraternity of St. Peter, for example, or the Abbey of Barroux and other groups permission to celebrate the Traditional Mass, at the same time they call the new priests to sign a profession of faith in which you must admit the spirit of the Council. It is a contradiction: the spirit of the Council is expressed in the new mass. How do you want to keep the Traditional Mass accepting the spirit that destroys this very same traditional Mass? You put yourself in a complete contradiction. One day, little by little, will be required of those to whom was granted the Mass of St. Pius V, the Mass of all time, it will be required that they also accept the new mass. And it will be said that it is simply that they conform to what they signed, for they have signed because they accept the spirit of the Council and the reforms of the Council. You can not put yourself in such a contradiction, in an aberrant illogic. It's an uncomfortable situation entirely. That's the difficult of these groups who signed it and who currently find themselves in a kind of deadlock. "(Homily, Friedrichshafen, April 29, 1990, quoted in La messe of toujours, p. 428)

What I like especially is to underline the extent to which Bishop Fellay came to cave in order to achieve its objective: the regularilization of Society of St. Pius X

With or without agreement with Rome, the evil is already at the head of Bishop Fellay. And his position is increasingly contaminating the minds of those who trust him.
Our vows that everyone open their eyes, do not be fooled and join those who resist him in the face (cf. Gal. 2, 11-14): ut fideles inveniantur.

Arsenius

___________________

[1] J’adhère aussi avec une obéissance religieuse de la volonté et de la foi aux doctrines que, soit le pontife Romain, soit le collège des évêques, prononcent quand ils exercent le magistère authentique, même s’ils n’ont pas l’intention de les proclamer dans un acte définitif.

[2] Il est apparu donc indispensable de préparer des textes adaptés pour les mettre à jour en ce qui concerne leur style et leur contenu et les mettre plus en phase avec les enseignements de Vatican II et des documents qui en étaient issus.

[3] Les erreurs du Concile et ses réformes demeurent la norme officielle consacrée par la profession de foi du Cardinal Ratzinger de mars 1989.

[4] La nouvelle profession de foi qui a été rédigée par le cardinal Ratzinger contient explicitement l’acceptation du Concile et de ses conséquences. C’est le Concile et ses conséquences qui ont détruit la Sainte Messe, qui ont détruit notre Foi, qui ont détruit les catéchismes et le règne de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ dans les Sociétés civiles. Comment pouvons-nous l’accepter ! […] Il nous faut garder la Foi catholique, la protéger par tous les moyens.

http://spessantotomas.blogspot.com/2013/03/ate-que-ponto-ele-chegou-por-arsenius.html

THE CURRENT CRISIS

I) DOCTRINAL TREASON


CONSIDERING


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.


WE JUDGE


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.


ON THE OTHER HAND


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


WE ANSWER


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.

II) A SPIRIT THAT IS NOT GOD


CONSIDERING


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.



WE JUDGE


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.


III) THE MASTER BLOW OF SATAN


CONSIDERING


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 JUDGE


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.


IV) REBELLION? NO.  JUST RESISTANCE? YES!


CONSIDERING


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.


WE JUDGE


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.


V) THE ACTUAL AND VERY GRAVE SITUATION OF HOLY CHURCH


CONSIDERING


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.

WE JUDGE


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.

VI) A DRASTIC REMEDY FOR A DRASTIC EVIL 

CONSIDERING


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.


WE JUDGE


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.


Arsenius



[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.