Dear District Superior,
Pathetic, psychodramatic if not psychopathic. These are the qualifiers that come to mind following your epidermal reaction to the public statements of loyalty of the co-signatories, 7 deans and 3 community superiors.
Their public act called “subversive”? [Rather, a] profession of faith to their faithful, who had been expecting one since the ever more silent apostasy at the top of the SSPX, who are adorning themselves with the virtues of prudence and obedience to the “Roman authorities.” This being a rather poorly argued calling, since, according to your example, it makes the Suprema Lex not an absolute duty, but a simple “canonical permission” which would “authorize” one to disobey it. So you are such a Caiaphas tearing your clothes in the face of “subversives” who are very obedient. That is to say that for you the obedience of the apostle must be not only blind, but also mute!
I think that the best for your career (and perhaps for your salvation) is to follow the path of your predecessor, to resign and leave the neo-SSPX, but for quite an opposite reason as that of Fr. de Cacqueray. In the “Letter to our brothers priests” he had indeed succeeded in the quasi-miracle of working in with two dispositions as distant as the rushes and the sycamore, that is, with Fathers Celier and de la Roque. He had also had the courage to publicly upset several times the “pseudo-diplomatic”, traitorous and crypto-conciliar line of the 2012 chapter, and to be forced to return to the official ranks, after scarcely veiled reproofs of his superiors. If his reason for resigning was publicly a vocation to wed Aurenque Dame Pauvreté de St François, God certainly arranged it also because of his “nullam partem” with the betrayal of the leaders.
Your reasons for your resignation are already, in your own words, a betrayal, subversion and hostage-taking of the faithful by Menzingen.
The proof by 9.
1. Betrayal and subversion of the 2012 chapter.
The expulsion of Bishop Williamson and of certain priests in the manner of Paul VI versus Monsignor Lefebvre (false trial and false suspension a divinis) is only a Pharisaical pretext for a second flow of the Rhine, purified by Archbishop Lefebvre, into the Tiber, fouled by the Bataves. “Prussian” vocations and mere Swiss guards of Rome made the 2012 chapter a real mini-Vatican Council 2 at the top of the “Society”. It is no longer SSPX, but SSPius-R-bis (Revolution-bis, Pius-bis).
2. Betrayal and subversion of Apostolic Tradition.
For Mgr. Lefebvre and bishop de Castro-Mayer, as for Mystici corporis, the principle of unity of the Church is first of all the Holy Spirit, precisely the Spirit of Truth, and not first of all the Pope, a principle of government in the service of this first unity of Catholic dogma, [which is] unquestionable. In his sermon of the 1988 consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre took great pains to recall what Mgr. de Castro-Mayer had reminded his Campos priests of, i.e. the authority of Tradition, an objective authority even superior to that of the popes. It is the authority of the Commonitorium of St Vincent of Lérins , which remained as “mounds of witness” during the “geological” collapse of the papacy, consisting of the Syllabuses of all the anti-revolutionary popes up to Pius XII (John XXIII excluded, Roncalli was notoriously sillonist and doubtfully elected pope, a historical fact which, even if the fraud is proved one day, is not enough according to St Robert Bellarmine to declare him urbi et orbi “non-pope”). Apostolic Tradition is a “verb” and a “hermeneutics of Scripture,” which the Holy Spirit puts in the mouth of the true apostle, sometimes even against the failing ordinary jurisdiction. This made the social body of the Church less an army blindly subjected to its leader, the pope, and more of a militia (Father Calmel), often of “snipers”, “out of ordinary” bishops or even popes (St. Athanasius) .
Not to denounce this radical rupture between Apostolic Tradition and Conciliar Rome is a betrayal and a subversion.
3. Betrayal and subversion of the dogma on the Church.
In the dogmatic definition of the Church, submission (not necessarily active) to the Sovereign Pontiff comes in 3rd position, after 1) the necessity of valid baptism (possibly that of desire seen by God alone), and after 2) the profession of the faith, exclusively Catholic, and “primarily” that of the popes!
“A baptized person” leaves the body of the Church at the external forum in four ways: a notorious schism, formal heresy, apostasy, and valid excommunication (that of Archbishop Lefebvre was invalid). Apostasy, schism and heresy are formal and notorious at the Second Vatican Council, which led Monsignor Lefebvre to make his statement in November 1974: “We refuse neo-Protestant Rome,” and to say later: “They have left Church, that is sure, sure, sure! “. As a result, the popes themselves endorsed a “reversed, subverted, reformed, revolutionary papacy” until the pseudo-canonization in 1983, which made the two consecrating bishops say: “ It is a new religion. We are dealing with a counterfeit of the Church. This 1983 code is worse than the novus ordo “.
As for all their “sanctions” (canonizations or excommunications), they are null because pronounced in the name of a “church” that is not the Church. Indeed, what are the “hierarchical authorities” of the so-called conciliar church?
OLSJ (Our Lord Jesus Christ)? No, a Council, crowned and idolized to replace a defeated and uncrowned OLSJ,
The Holy Spirit of Truth? No, a “spirit” of a new fake Pentecost, fake new evangelization, instead of the Holy Spirit and a submitting of one’s intelligence to the Apostolic Traditions,
Apostolic Tradition? No, a “new tradition”, that of the Masonic Counter-Church, the Revolution,
Popes as Vicars of OLSJ? No, according to Lupus à Volpe, rather vicars of an apostate Council, canonizing the apparatus of the modernists whom Fr. Calmel called the pandemonium of the antichrist. It is therefore by “ordinary Roman jurisdiction” that the Revolution:
On the one hand, corrupts the catechism, the power of order and all the sacraments,
On the other hand, tears souls from the Church by depriving them of certain faith and of the sacraments which give rise to, nourish and strengthen this faith.
To say that these men of the Conciliar Church are “the Church”, as Monsignor Fellay asserts, is a betrayal and a subversion, endorsing that [betrayal and subversion] of the Church, by men of the Church.
4. Betrayal and subversion of the present state of necessity, and of the jurisdiction of substitution.
The present state of necessity has never been foreseen in its scope by any canonical code. It is therefore insufficient to call for a “canonical permission” to compensate for it.
Ordinary jurisdiction has authority only for the truth (St Paul), and has as a precept to confirm in faith, a faith necessary (but not sufficient) as a means. The power of jurisdiction is to the necessity of precept (avoidable), which the power of order is to the necessity of means, unavoidable, the state of grace in order to be saved. The supplied jurisdiction is always exclusively personal, but no longer territorial or conjunctural. Since the Roman Ordinary is no longer in conformity with the Apostolic Tradition, supplied jurisdiction (as a necessity) is universal and structural:
the Supreme Law is, for every cleric, above canon law, a universal duty and not a “Roman permission,” article x, y, or z. For the laity, it is the profession of faith, “for which it is not necessary to await the express order of superiors” (Dom Gueranger),
the ordinary Roman jurisdiction is no longer in the service of the power of order, which it corrupts and makes doubtful (Archbishop Lefebvre: “all their sacraments are doubtful”, including marriage!),
the conciliar jurisdiction is but a precept, but it is necessary to circumvent it all the more insofar that it is a precept of universal perdition!
The necessity of means being the state of grace of the faithful implies a necessity of precept: to continue the power of sacramental order by a supplied jurisdiction, “outside the ordinary Roman and universal [jurisdiction]“, as long as the latter crowns an apostate Council instead of OLJC, Sovereign priest and uncrowned King.
To consider only accepting a “canonical normalization” by today’s Rome is to accept the coronation of the Second Vatican Council, discouraging and eclipsing Our Lord Jesus Christ. Betrayal, Apostasy, Subversion.
5. Betrayal and subversion of pastoral charity in the service of doctrinal purity.
At the ordinations of June 2011, Msgr. De Galarreta said:
The current doctrinal discussions in Rome are an act of pastoral charity in the service of doctrinal purity, so that Rome may return to the Tradition of the Church, “Her” Tradition”. It was praiseworthy in spite of the naivety of “easily” obtaining an improvement, whereas the necessary closed door was “to put a light under the bushel” …
OLJC and His Holy Mother do not seem to have granted many graces to this kind of apostolate: Rome closed the file of this “dialogue of the deaf”, to say now let us pass to the “praxis”, obey …
Same thing in 2013:
Everything happens as if the doctrinal agreement came under a practical question, a pragmatism.
This is the “synthesis” of Fr. Pfluger:
Thesis, we have the right. Antithesis, we are inaudible. Synthesis, let us fix and recollect the pieces of the misunderstanding between OLJC and the Sanhedrin.
At the end of the Cenacle after Pentecost, in which camp does Fr. Pfluger belong? The contrary of the Cross, the Truth who saves the one who says it as much as the one who receives it, and Who attracts everything to Himself only if He is raised from the earth, and not put under a bushel.
6. Betrayal and subversion of the upcoming vocation of the SSPX, the dream of Dakar.
Until Pius XII, the dream of Dakar posed no problem of ordinary jurisdiction. The primary vocation of the SSPX, “Father, sanctify them in the truth”, was a work of doctrinal formation, oriented mainly to “vaccinate” the priests against liberal, modernist and neo-modernist diabolical subtleties (liberation theology but also against Teilhard de Chardin, Chenu, Congar, de Lubac, Rahner, all of whom were forbidden by Pius XII ex “cathedra”, a teaching chair. Did St. Pius X excommunicat them? only God knows).
With the Council and the new Rome turned back, the reformed Papacy, rejected in the November 1974 Declaration, it was also a matter of wresting priests and faithful from such an “ordinary jurisdiction” of the perdition of souls. Hence the cry of the Apostle at the coronations of 1988:
Your manifestation is not only natural, but supernatural, that of finally having Catholic priests, who give you faith, and the means of keeping it, the true sacraments, the true catechisms.
As for the ordinations of bishops? Simple as God [saying]:
You know very dear faithful, that there are no priests without bishops. And who will confirm your children tomorrow?.
Case closed !
7. Betrayal and subversion of the ultimate vocation of the SSPX, the salvation of the faithful, not the conversion of Rome!
The second master stroke of Satan is to make believe that to oppose Rome “too long” is a “beginning of schism, of practical sedevacantism”. Let us cheerfully ignore the false accusations of Fr. Pfluger, the “practical sedevacantism” of which he is careful not to accuse Monsignor Lefebvre! But “Too long”? Archbishop Tissier de Mallerais theorizes that God can not leave His Church “too long” in this crisis … That is unfounded, for in the time of Athanasius the very pagan society of the time was less perverse than today, whereas the historical sense of history is that of an increased decadence with the abandonment of the gifts of grace after having received them. If it is never too late, we always arrive late, at the risk of being late not only from a war but from an apocalypse. Satan did likewise with the 17th parallel in Vietnam! The Soviet Politburo and Khrushchev disputed whether to negotiate with the US on the 18th or 19th parallel to separate North Vietnam from South Vietnam. What a burst of laughter when the USA proposed the 17th! Bishop Tissier presupposes that 50 years after the Council, one can trust God to transform a practical agreement into “conversion of Rome”. We know what happened even on the 17th parallel, when the enemy did not ask for so much! …
Archbishop Lefebvre, like the Good Shepherd in search of the “lost sheep”, had a concern for souls more than the concern for “Rome”. Rome, the Pope? Let us remain modest and humble! Let us leave this mystery and the “conversion of Rome” to God, even to the Mother of God. But our duty of state? Do not be silent, be living Syllabuses, against the anti-syllabuses of John, Paul, John Paul, Benedict, Francis and others. And this urbi et orbi: if we must go to Rome, let us go only to say it publicly, not in “closed” doctrinal discussions, and certainly not to receive “privileges” as exorbitant as “extraordinary”, as the rite only tolerated as so-called “extraordinary” when it is the novus ordo that is extra-catholic, in a “church” that does not support the privilege of having the gift of the Catholic faith, nor that of holding truth as a legacy to be conveyed.
8. Betrayal and hostage-taking of the Catholic institutions of the SSPX.
The laity entrusted their souls and their children to the spiritual direction of the men of the SSPX, and with them instituted schools, chapels or churches. Here, the priories are the moral property of the SSPX, schools, chapels and churches are the moral property of the Church! Evidently, these are so many “bastions” that the Revolution has always sought to destroy, “solve and coagulate” if possible from the top, their leaders. The personal prelature is also a means of transferring moral ownership of all the common works of the Church, to the only moral person that is the SSPX. Then once in Rome to “the Pope alone”. But which Rome? That which diverts all the goods of the Church towards all that is not the Church, as was the case for the AED of the “père au lard”, used to help the schismatics of the countries of the East …
First mistake of the SSPX: to consider their faithful as “belonging to” the SSPX. The faithful belong to the Church, are “legally” subject to the conciliar jurisdiction, and are only “morally” subjected to a personal supplied jurisdiction of the priests of the SSPX, and not collectively: the SSPX is not a “supplied church,” but a priestly society, without any ordinary jurisdiction other than the canonical one of the Superior General over the members of the SSPX, but absolutely no ordinary jurisdiction over any layperson.
The chapter of 2012 seems to have established a sort of personal prelature of Bishop Fellay, who no longer respects the canonical statutes of 1917. The question is no longer that of a prelature, but of the “1983” regularization of a Prelature still “under 1917 statutes, corrected internally in 2012” (those of Archishop Lefebvre reviewed by Bishop Fellay!).
2012 was also a hostage taking of all the people and works of the SSPX, in a personal prelature “anticipating” his Roman regularization to come.
9. Betrayal and subversion of Catholic institutions by their leaders.
It is the superiors who form the subjects. The prelature of Bishop Fellay has already removed some anti-poison chapels, such as the Dominican of Avrille’s [with their] Sel de la Terre, whose only fault was their true answer to an “eventual” “Roman” personal prelature of the SSPX . The same blackmail to blind confidence and “obedience to Monsignor Fellay, a kind of anti-pope”, acts against the Benedictines and Capuchins, via Bishop de Galarreta. Now it is a question of “solver”, of introducing the poisoners and their poisons, the clergy and conciliar sermons rallied to the conservatives.
But, as Fr. Schmidberger says so well, the future is normalization! In other words, the “coagula” …
Salvation is in keeping “distance from the SSP-R-bis” for the religious, in the escape for the laity, in voting with their feet …
Kyrie eleison, Lord, give us many holy bishops!
Laity, join the Reconquista, http://cristiadatradicinalista.blogspot.fr/
Please accept, dear district superior, the expression of my nullam partem in Christi veritatis rege per semper virginem Mariam,
A faithful nine times betrayed