April 10, 2013
We are approaching the first anniversary of the discovery of the correspondence exchanged between the resistant SSPX bishops, who were then three, and the headquarters of the Society under Bishop and Superior General Bernard Fellay—a discovery that triggered in a greater extent the resistance process to change the direction in which the SSPX is headed. According to all human perspectives, but also according to the divine way of proceeding in the normal way of correspondence with or rejection of grace, the SSPX will never be the same because Liberalism is a poison so subtle that once inoculated it shows itself rebellious to mitigated treatments. Once it enters the body of a society, its treatment requires immediate, clear, and unambiguous annihilations with practical measures proportional to contagion. But this can only be done by an authority who cares, with all the clarity and firmness of will, for the common good of society. But what to do when the authority itself is the most affected by the aforesaid poison which darkens the mind and perverts the will? [i]
What is occurring in the world of Tradition today is something similar to what happened in the years following the Council: Evil is perceived but most refuse to see it as such. Alleged motives abound, such as respect for authority, the desire for "regularuty” various fears, etc..
He who feels the evil without knowing well its causes and effects becomes perplexed. And the perplexed do not act in proportion to the gravity of the evil, or simply do not act at all. This inertia becomes of great importance for the progress of evil that tends to destroy or denature the society wherein it has settled.
We can't deny that Liberalism is already part of the modus operandi of the SSPX authorities. The revelation of the discrete procedures of GREC has shown us that even in the 90s the accordistas’ intentions were being formed through a small but powerful and influential group. For a decade and a half, this [agenda] was maturing and letting itself be carefully experienced among priests and faithful. Little by little the contacts with conciliar Rome were becoming more frequent, creating a sort of "state of affairs" which is the misery downfall of the traditional Catholic movement since it obliterates in the Catholic minds the breadth, intensity, and the demands of the state of necessity, which is so real but so uncomfortable.
Undoubtedly, it is not easy to face the ecclesiastical authorities as they currently are. Our dear God uses them, but they do not serve Him. Therefore, for our part, we must practice recognition and resistance, two attitudes that in the face of authority should only occur rarely, such as in situations of emergency. But because Vatican II and its spirit has institutionalized silent apostasy, we are forced to take this difficult and delicate attitude habitually. This is our cross.
But when you do not want to carry the cross, the resistance is changed into compromise, thus sacrificing coherence in principles in the name of an utopian unity.
Some moments in this sad trajectory are [ii]:
2007: The SSPX asked for recognition of the Mass of all time. Rome responded with a decree declaring it not abrogated ... but restricted its application, humiliating and putting it on the same level with the illicit rite of Paul VI. And what did the SSPX do? They accepted the decision and thanked the Pope, along with many others, thus entering down a false path.
2009: The SSPX asked for the removal of the decree of excommunications of the bishops. Rome only lifted the excommunications, considering thus their validity. The SSPX, along with many others, once again thanked and accepted even though these excommunications were never valid. Each one with its truth...
2010: Then we had the doctrinal discussions, whose duration and secrecy were not of a nature to appease the faithful. Even currently we do not know much about them (which is a bigger secret than the conclave!). It is quite possible that the righteousness of the defenders of the good doctrine has influenced its negative results, which is recognized by both sides. But there has been no change: Anunbridgeable gulf [still exists] between the steadfastness of Faith and their obstinacy in error.
But things did not go well for the SSPX headquarters. The resistance triggered by the SSPX should not be restrained. The imminence of a desire for canonical regularization was announced by the Society but they took care to precede it with a doctrinal preamble which would express "a common understanding of faith" [iii]
Almost a year later we have the canonical regularization intention presented to us. It is the testimony of a willingness to agree to a practical surrender in the combat for the Faith through an explicit profession of ambiguity. Ambiguity is the preferred way to make an agreement between what is Catholic and what is not. Bishop Bernard Fellay himself acknowledged the ambiguity with the unedifying comment regarding seeing things through rose-colored glasses. The direction of Menzingen was clouded by showy frames and thick rose lenses, but their lenses and frames were broken by Benedict XVI himself who, with three blows, brought everything down. In his Modernism, the reigning Pope at that time was more correct than Menzingen in its traditionalism of rose color: The necessity in accepting the Council, its teachings, and the Mass of Paul VI. May that be clear!
The analysis of the referred doctrinal statement, along with the consideration of the facts here briefly summarized, is more than enough to conclude that we are facing a process of infiltration, of poisoning with consequential internal destruction, though all the while retaining certain appearances. The infiltration seeks to instill itself especially in the high command posts and intoxication is done by frequent and dangerous environments that foster ambiguity and contradiction. The main objective in this case is the effective submission of the maximum number of traditional Catholics to the Roman authorities, especially priests and bishops. But if this submission does not become official, at least you must keep track of the flagship, the SSPX, whose authorities must keep intact its purposes, never failing to shape the image and mindset of its clergy and Faithful. [iv]
We hasten to declare we have no conclusive evidence showing that the direction of the SSPX is composed of insiders such as Freemasons, Marranos, etc., but the facts and documents show that they act in a remarkably similar manner.
Nine centuries ago, St. Bernard noted that the Jews practiced usury (nihil novum sub sole) ... But he also used to say that when Christians practiced the same, they became worse than the Jews. To apply this appropriately to this case, the least we can say is that they act as enemies by infiltrating and moving in ambiguity and contradiction and with a final and unchanged goal which is not the purpose for which the Society that they govern was established.
And this is what legitimizes resistance and must set aside any perplexity. The perplexed could ask about how men of God, who speak so well the things of God, could behave this way. They hear them constantly say that they work for the good of Tradition ... Others might opine that they may not realize their mistakes and that all this can be considered as a well-intentioned illusion on their part.
But what matters are the facts: The weakening of the doctrine [leading to] the detriment of souls and the instability of the Society. And all this must be considered in relation with the change in direction of the leadership of the Society which, as it becomes more explicit, becomes more dangerous. [V]
It is necessary to clarify. You cannot expect a significant change in these conditions. To wait, to remain inactive, amounts to harming oneself where it is most important in the life of the soul: Theological Faith, which should inspire us in everything. In order to continue to live the Faith, the just must denounce those who are selling it.
Fr. Joaquim Daniel Maria de Sant'Ana, FBMV
http://fbmv.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/dissipando-a-perplexidade/
*Google traslation on references
[i] Suffice it here to quote the now famous text of the General Council's response to the bishops: "For the common good of the Fraternity we prefer by far the current situation of intermediate status quo, but evidently not tolerate Rome more."
[iii] Fr Pfluger, in an interview with Kirchliche Umschau. Renouncing have a common faith, which necessarily involve the conversion of Rome to reconcile, what is sought is now an "understanding" to be exploited for practical purposes an agreement. You want to live with Modernism, nothing more.
