"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.