Dissipating the perplexity

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."

[ii] See the analysis of "La Strategy of Satan" in http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/la-estrategia-de-satanas.html

[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.

[iv] The fruits of this action are already being felt bitterly. See the article "the faithful have a right to know", in:

[v] And they are not going to tell us, with hypocrisy or blindness of mind, those who denounce and reveal the hidden subversive actions are causing the crisis. Cause it would reveal what was not true. But the correspondence between the bishops and the direction of the SSPX, the conditions of the last chapter, and the doctrinal preamble documents are unquestionably truthful. Disclosure of these documents increases the conflict? Yes, because it provokes a salutary reaction against hidden action. Do not love war, but hate being conducted as blind to the hole.

From April 15th 2012 to April 15th 2013... Is Bishop Fellay credible?

A priest responds to Bishop Fellay's Letter to Friends and Benefactors

On April 15th, was made public the text of Bishop Fellay soon to be shown in the Letter to the friends and benefactors of the Fraternity. If we look at the text isolated, it is firm as it consists primarily of quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre. Bishop Fellay recognized the "present analysis" of our founder who is still "the conductor wire of his doctrinal position and action" in the Fraternity. "His very fair perception, theological and practical, continues to be valid." The profession of faith which opens the famous statement of November 21st, 1974 "is also of all members of the Fraternity." In short, "currently, following the same line, we can not do more than repeat what Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Schmidberger affirmed after him. All the errors they denounced, we denounce". Wow, may this serve to appease the most suspicious!

But ... if you consider this text, not as an isolated text but in the current context of Tradition, we can not but ask ourselves: Is Bishop Fellay credible? Or more precisely, should we believe Bishop Fellay in his statement of April 15th, 2012 or in his statement of April 15th, 2013? From the one April 15th [2012] to another [2013], the contrast is startling. "The analysis of Monsignor Lefebvre" is truly being "the conductor wire of the doctrinal position and action" of the Superior General of the Society in 2012? "The situation of the Church is virtually unchanged" at Easter of 2013: that's not what we read in the editorial of Cor Unum of March 2012.

So how should one understand the text of the last April? Can we not fear that this shift to the right is intended to reassure and put to sleep those who still resist the policy of adherence to Rome? In order to Bishop Fellay again be credible, three conditions are necessary:

1. A sincere and unequivocal  mea culpa: Bishop Fellay acknowledged that "the Fraternity found itself in a delicate position (what a euphemism!) during a great part of 2012" (what now?), But immediately explained that the difficulties came from the "demands" and "lack of clarity" of Rome. The Superior General and the headquarter wouldn't have anything to do with it? It is indispensable that Bishop Fellay explicitly retract certain writings and certain events of last year: among many others, we'll simply quote the shameful April 14th response to the three bishops, the scandalous Statement of 15th, the painful statement of the General Chapter, the odious sanctions that have fallen upon a bishop, priests (exiled or expelled) and religious (ordinations delayed) ...

2. The solemn affirmation, in a statement addressed simultaneously to the Holy See and the bishops, priests and faithful of Tradition, the principle of: "no practical deal without doctrinal agreement". Carefully specifying the meaning of words in order to avoid any ambiguity or imagination of a "doctrinal agreement" for the simple fact that Rome accepts us as we are.

3. The firm and public criticism of todays Rome and its current pope. Archbishop Lefebvre didn't rejoice denouncing the errors, but did not hesitate to attack, respectfully but vigorously, the abettors of errors, not only the bishops, but even the pope. Towards the end of his text, Bishop Fellay seems to quietly and timidly criticize (without daring to name it) pope Francis, but do not denounces the numerous scandals that have marked the first few weeks of his pontificate. And DICI reintroduces us the story of Aeneas and Pio, comparison attempted by Fr. Celier in relation to Benedict XVI in 2005. After eight years, the number of "pink eyeglass wearers" have grown terribly.

We conclude proposing in a loud voice what many priests and faithful think silently: when a Superior puts a work entrusted to him in so much danger, it is convenient after having recognized his mistakes, to resign his office. This is at least one "desirable condition" to save the little part remaining healthy in the Fraternity [St. Pius X]. It better be a "sine qua non" condition.


A PRIEST. 

Original in French: http://www.lasapiniere.info/dun-15-avril-a-lautre-mgr-fellay-est-il-credible/

In Spanish: http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.mx/2013/04/de-un-15-de-abril-al-otro-monsenor.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.