The Boil, the Scalpel, and the Bandage – II
1 – The conversion of Bishop Fellay.
Martin Luther and John Calvin would have been horrified at first sight by the heresies of Francis I, while we must wait for our part for 12 October 2013. Finally, it’s official: after seven months of deafening silence, Bishop Fellay has confirmed that Pope Francis is a very bad pope—at the very long “rebranding” conference in Kansas City, in his sermon commenting on the known actions of this terrible successor of Peter, brought gradually to light (though still deceptive) from official sites—all to show a change as compared to the previously imposed changes regarding the way in which we are to see how Rome has changed. From the year 2000 until now, Rome “changed” in a good sense, of course, without having totally changed; while now it “re-changes” in the bad sense (all the while retaining certain positive, but rare, “changes”).
From Menzingen’s point of view, it is Rome who “changes,” not us, even when we change point of view, so that if Rome “changes” again in favor of Tradition, as under Benedict XVI, we will change tomorrow, as we are changing now, this 12 October, and just like we changed before.
That’s just it, because the Revolution offers a continuous rotation between destroyers and conservatives. After the Franciscan 'rain' of the current Pope, will we be ready to not be surprised by a so-called new spate of “fair weather,” like that of Benedict XVI? Will the Society not change again?
Another change of discourse: Bishop Fellay thanks God for preserving us from signing a canonical agreement in 2012. Yet those who have publicly spoken out against such an agreement and who have persevered in the categorical refusal of it, by refusing the 'accordist' principles of the 2012 Chapter in accordance with the principles enunciated by Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. the book Nos rapports avec Rome by Fr. Pivert, ), principles solemnly recognized by the 2006 Chapter, all these anti-accordists-madmen . . . have been “sacked.”
The official version is that it was not they who prevented the signing, but Rome, who on 13 June 2012 made such changes in the text of the DQA [Doctrinal Declaration], that under the present circumstances, “unfortunately” (sic), such a text would not be able to pass in the Society (cf. letter of 17 June 2012, Cor unum no. 104).
No worries now, we can once again publicly oppose the agreements unmolested. A considerable change when compared to 2012. If the poor resistance priests had been able to wait a year, they would still be nice and cozy. The election of ultra-revolutionary Francis should calm their latest concerns about an agreement, but here they continue to get excited, mainly about the “ouaibe” (the web).
Why are the Resistance priests continuing their fight?
2 – Any change in the abscess?
Unfortunately not, except for the worse, like the current papacy by the way.
The DQA is still there, in this latest speech, still intact.
You have to understand one important thing, I insist that, and I would almost say that I am infallible on this subject : the Pope is infallible, but can be mistaken, whereas Bishop Fellay is infallible even when he is wrong. (Some say, especially when he is wrong).
It is in this way that the Bishop comes to repeat for the umpteenth time in this Oct. 12, his position on the DQA. The DQA is a subtle, poorly understood text, and acceptable taken as a whole. He thinks that at worst, all we could blame him for is leaving in the ambiguities which could be resolved if we took the trouble to analyze the context.
Yet the ambiguities in the text are significant:
1 – Vatican II illuminates the life of the Church.
2 – The new Mass is legitimately promulgated.
3 – The Novus ordo sacraments are valid, per se.
4 – The new code is essentially to be followed.
5 – The 1989 Profession of Faith is valid.
Question: are these simple ambiguities?
If the DQA contained only these unambiguous errors, it would be simply wrong. The error would be easily detectable by all and the text would not be as dangerous.
The problem is the modernist ambiguity which consists of saying that we will follow the whole of Tradition, unchangeable, continuous, uninterrupted, infallible, by insisting that that is only what we think about . . . even though we trample on this same Tradition a few paragraphs later.
Bishop Fellay is telling anyone who will listen that he has put the principle of unchanging tradition at the head of the document (before leaving laying around five so-called “ambiguities” that are rather obvious errors). He refuses to understand that it is mainly that which horrifies us—the idea that he is going to use Tradition to voice such errors. “Yes, you have put Tradition at the head of the document, but how is it possible that Tradition has made you accept such mistakes thereafter, instead of making you immediately condemn them all?”
It is modernist to think that the idea of Tradition can be powerful to the point of giving a traditional character to these statements that are frankly erroneous or contrary to this same Tradition. Bishop Fellay refuses to see the irreducible opposition between the beginning (doubtful) of the DQA and five errors that follow. This refusal is much more serious (because more dangerous) than the five errors themselves.
We are dealing with a disease of the mind, a gradual decay of concepts that is called modernism. And there are many dwelling places in the house of modernism—one in Rome and one in Menzingen. (Small technical problem at Menzingen: everyone takes the anti-modernist oath, while in Rome, they no longer practice that form of doubletalk).
This disease is all the more profound as it affects the principle of non-contradiction, and in general it is incurable—at Menzingen or anywhere else. And it is the same disease that Bishop Fellay criticizes in Pope Francis, a scandalous speech, to the other quasi-traditionals! He reproaches him for his procrastinations without realizing that the DQA “temporizes” as well, on the same page.
Bishop Fellay says that it is too bad for us who do not have the chance to understand that if we present Tradition as an absolute principle, we can then make use of subtle, seemingly ambiguous expressions (the 5 points), so as to make pass, not the error, but Tradition itself. We will never understand that the best way to combat Vatican II and its reforms is to recognize it to a certain extent . . . “We dare say that there is something Catholic in Vatican II.” (minute 17 of the sermon of 13 October 2013). We say that it is juxtapositioning modernism.
3 – The progress of error
Under these conditions, we can no longer hear one another, best not to “thank” those we have “sacked.” It is time to seek the destruction of these five novelties outside the influence Menzingen. Admittedly, we may appear to be a little troubled, because it is not always easy materially and our small groups are so scattered, but we have peace in our hearts and the way is clear.
Meanwhile, Menzingen’s errors descend the chain of command. The conference given by Fr. Themann, a professor in Winona, is being widely disseminated. It is the same modernism. As the young priest said, those who think that “legitimately promulgated” means legitimately promulgated did not understand. In context, “legitimately promulgated” means “legitimate authority promulgating.”
All the priests of the Society are not in favor of the DQA, but a new way of seeing Vatican II was born: it is interpretable, not in the Ratzingerian way (hermeneutic of continuity), but in the “traditional” way, if you change what needs to be changed in its greatest ambiguities in a totally traditional sense. (Interview with Nouvelles de France ). Unfortunately, our minds are not subtle enough to see the difference between these two interpretations. (In fact, there is none).
Another deeply disturbing thing is the use of the new Code of Canon Law (1986). In the expulsion letters being distributed, the new code is referenced before the old one. I am assured by Father Ortiz, who has just been expelled, that nothing has changed since 2012.
All the irregularities occurring during the witch hunts and expulsions, such as that of Father Raphael, OSB (of which Bishop de Galarreta is guilty), also show a disregard of the law as such.
Liberal pustules emerge here and there, even among colleagues we believed to be anti-liberal and, among the faithful, we have noticed a growing worldliness and contraceptive mentality, encouraged by those priests who recommend the natural method, and mixed marriages with the Ecclesia Dei community, trad-ecumenism .
In some places, the youth have totally abandoned religious practice.
We still do not know where we are in relation to branding. What happened to the Rothchild 70 million euros? Is the Society a properly recorded corporation registered under the title “Dello Sarto AG”? Are the properties of the respective districts now all centralized? Is the real property of the Society being used as collateral to borrow money? Does Krah always have a seat in the intimate affairs of the Society? Are the Jews still our “elder brothers” in the words of Bishop Fellay? The answers are all opaque.
And they cannot simply say that we are exaggerating. Is this not the first time we have seen a newsletter of the Society, stupidly called “the flying squirrel,” publish an entire homily of Pope Francis, in which he praised Fr. Arrupe, SJ, who was so far left he kept Paul VI from sleeping? Is this not the first time, when Francis calls for a prayer vigil with false religions, that a district superior:
- responds to this call,
- publicizes this appeal to false religions,
- and all this instead of making prayers of reparation,
then asks the faithful to pray for peace with the Pope at the same time the Pope brought war to this world by trampling on the first commandment!
Finally, the many other unfortunate quotes of the General Council must be retracted, one by one, cf. the interview with CNS, the theory that Vatican II is 95% good, the claim that Vatican II is not a super heresy. The same goes for the six conditions of the Chapter. From the human point of view, recovery is impossible, especially since the Menzingen concept of authority is that authority can not lose face (which includes present-day Rome: Bishop Fellay’s conference in Lille on May 7), and what’s more, the Superior General is the only infallible interpreter of what he says, even if the obvious meaning of his words leave a lot to be desired, and even if his choice of words are unfortunate, context should come to the rescue to give them not only an orthodox, but a highly diplomatic sense. We are not out of the woods yet.
4 – Caritas non cogitat malum
But hey, what is true is true, even next to a mountain of pretenses that I do not want to list. Bishop Fellay calls Francis a modernist and rejoices that there is not and will not be an agreement. He even expects a great general chastisement, along with Bishop Williamson.
Good for the Society, we hope that this will help them snap out of it!
If Bishop Fellay had been able execute his reconciliationist desires, (remember the Pentecost sermon in 2012, “It s a beautiful and good Rome that want to recognize us”), more priests would have joined us, but it would have been the end of the Society. I do not think I have desired such a catastrophe, even to inflate the meager ranks of the resistance. However, the creeping liberalism within the Society is a much more serious risk and more difficult to eradicate than just signing a canonical recognition with the fornicating new Rome.
The deadly poison of liberalism is still at work, it has gained many important positions, and the good, like Fr. Scott, are sent to live with the baboons in Zimbabwe, if they are not sufficiently purified. The doctrinal line is no longer the same as before, and the modernist reasoning of the Superior General in the DQA and about the DQA does not bode well.
For us the best thing is to stay outside and never be reconciled with Menzingen, as the nullam partem with heretics will not have officially prevailed in the head and the members of this profoundly sick body, so long as Menzingen refuses to understand that truth juxtaposed with an error is more than an error, but a total perversion of the mind, as Archbishop Lefebvre said about Vatican II.
The last word in modernism is the use of the truth to pass off error. Poor me, who believed that everyone had learned this at Écône.
5 – In the end.
If “whether by occasion, or by truth, Christ be preached: in this also I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice,” says the great St. Paul. (Phil. 1:18)
If they demolish the infamous Francis, then I, the pathetic Francis, can only rejoice. We are here, as St. Paul also says, “to demolish all the constructions of the devil.” Who can deny of all the historical machinations of Lucifer, that modernist Rome is the greatest and deserves all the condemnations and all possible loathing until the measure of its iniquities is full and the divine wrath finally overwhelms it.
This new Rome is an insult to God. The more times we tackle it, the better. Welcome, my lord, to the periphery of the antechamber of the area adjacent to the sheepfold! The boat is sinking a little slower, it seems. Pump as much as you can! Pump water, not air. All our wishes and prayers are with you.
In Iesu and Maria
François Chazal +
Translation from the original courtesy of Sr. Mary Reginald T.O.P.