Skip to main content

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. Ultimately it is by means of doublethink that the Party has been able—and may, for all we know, continue to be able for thousands of years—to arrest the course of history. (…) These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely.

George Orwell, 1984


“One of your great (representatives) once said that there is an hour of reconciled diversity. Today we ask this grace, the grace of this diversity reconciled in the Lord. “

Francis, address during his visit to the Lutheran temple of Rome, November 15, 2015

Among the many noticeable causes that could explain why the priests of the Society fail to react to the debacle of their Society, which is on the verge of surrendering without resistance to modernist Rome, one of these causes could be that this Society convinced itself that there are currently still voices criticizing Rome, that publicly denounce the scandals of Francis and that still repudiate the council. This idea, which we’ll see is false, that the identity received from Monsignor Lefebvre is still preserved, keeps the majority of clergy in a passive state, as they prefer not to dwell too much on these things, apart from letting their voice be heard now and again to say what of course “everyone thinks”. But this is nothing more than a half-hearted glance and far from the complete truth. The Society has for years now been sick, we might say, of this doublethink, which the liberals in charge have slowly infected it with. Once this contradiction has been accepted in it’s ranks, it is no longer possible to react because one fails to see the whole truth. Contradictions must be resolved, not reconciled. The Society is on it’s way to reconcile Catholic Tradition with the new conciliar religion; the religion of the God who becomes man with the religion of the man who becomes God; Monsignor Lefebvre with Francis. This direction came about in several stages: the lifting of the “excommunications”; the Motu Proprio on the Mass; the doctrinal statement of April 2012; the general chapter of 2012; the project of a prelature; the acceptance of the new code of canon law, etc. Since then, a double message and an ambiguity were injected.

We see, for example, that the Superior of the District of South America, Fr. Trejo, deplores and denounces, in an article in the magazine “Iesus Christus”, the ecumenism of Francis and of Vatican II, saying that “Luther’s commemoration is another step of the same process”, or even “although many people saw Benedict’s ‘path’ as more conservative, it is still the same as the one Francis [is following]. It is the Council. The real problem is not in people but in principles. ‘I accuse the Council,’ Monsignor Lefebvre said. If there is Francis, it is because there was a Council. Like father like son. Different speeds, different momentums, but the same process”, and he finished by saying “My God, if this is how the Council works, let’s get out of it’s way!”

Meanwhile, the superior general of the Society says that “there is no longer any insurmountable obstacle to a canonical recognition of the Society” and “I do not think it is necessary to expect everything to be satisfactory in the Church, that all problems be fixed” (in order to accept the canonical arrangement). Thus, he clearly states that doctrine is a minor problem and that doctrinal differences are no obstacle to submission to the Roman modernist authorities. This allows Monsignor Fellay and the Neo-Society commanders to continue on their way to a suicidal agreement, allowing some voices to (moderately) criticize the ecumenism of Francis and the Council … of course without saying a word against the “accordism” of the superiors. Thus Fellay applies the same policy of “limited freedom of criticism” within his Society, as Francis does in the official Church. Knowing well that, rather than stopping the agreement process, it works well in order to stop any public action which would tend to question or resist it. It is the democratic principle that allows controlled dissent. It is a “reconciled diversity”. That is why those who have decided to “resist” from within the Society, have done nothing effective to prevent the advance of a ralliement with Rome. On the contrary, they have sown in many the idea that the Society is not as bad as it seems or that it will not be able to fall under the hammer of the modernists.

The quotation presented by Father Trejo in his editorial is absolutely conclusive regarding Francis’ intentions, and it is sufficient to understand where the Conciliar Church is going and where it will lead the Society, under the new name and structure of the Prelature of St. Pius X:

“Holy Father, some people think that in these ecumenical meetings you want to liquidate Catholic doctrine, that you want to protest against the Church,” said Stefania Falasca of the newspaper Avvenire. Francisco responded: “I won’t give up my dream. I follow the path of those who have gone before me, I follow the Council.”

The journalist, a spokeswoman for the frightened conservatives, once again lashed out: “You, in less than four years, met with all the priests and leaders of Christian Churches. Why this acceleration?” Francis answered: It is the path of the Council that goes on, intensifies. It’s the way, it’s not me. That way is the way of the Church. I have been with the leaders and those responsible, that is true. But my predecessors also had those meetings.“​

Francis is consistent and we can even say faithful because he “follows the path of those who preceded him”. Can the same be said of Monsieur Fellay? To the contrary, he does not follow the path of the one who preceded him, Mons. Lefebvre, but instead he follows the opposite path. Bishop Fellay pursues “Operation Suicide” instead of the “Operation Survival” of Bishop Lefebvre , who stated at the end of his life that “every priest who wishes to remain a Catholic must remain outside of the Conciliar Church”, while Bishop Fellay claims that we must seek a “normalization” in order not to become “schismatics” (as also said the traitor Rifán).

While Fr. Trejo quotes a Francis who cannot be moved off the course set by the council, Bishop Fellay says in another interview that Rome, thanks to the discussions with the Society, is veering in the right direction. And all these contradictions are accepted in the ranks of the Society without the slightest challenge, without objections, without protest.

As Father Trejo says “let’s get out of it’s way” (of the council), which is the one that Francis follows, does one leave the road that Rome is following? Or does one rather agree with Rome and happily follow this suicidal path?

How did this come about?

We believe [it came about] by adopting a liberal policy that was similarly applied at the council: subordinate truth to freedom, reversing the terms of the true proposition. For Our Lord said: “If you abide in my word, you will truly be my disciples; And ye shall know the truth, and THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE “(John 8: 31-32).

The Fraternity was free - from the modernist conciliarist influence - as long as it remained in the truth. In order to do so, it must, as divine wisdom teaches (cf. Ps. 1, Ps 25) withdraw, separate, segregate itself from the heretics and the impious who sought to lead it astray. Whoever abides in the word of God has true freedom. Saint Thomas teaches that the truth of our instructions keeps us from the wrong way: “My mouth will meditate on the truth and my lips will detest iniquity” (Proverbs 8: 7). But not content with or not knowing and appreciating the grace that God had given it, the Society wanted to seek “freedom” within the structure of the church. And it called for “freedom” from those who are precisely not in the truth. Therefore, how can those who are not in the truth grant freedom to those who already possess the truth? But the abandonment of the preoccupation with doctrine as the central point of this struggle against modernist Rome is precisely the sign that the path of truth has been abandoned. And as the truth is the most precious good that God can give us (“For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to bear witness of the truth: every one that is of the truth heareth my voice”, John 18 , 37), if one despises it, if one changes it, if one neglects it, one loses it.

Some very clever Bishops and Priests, who have seen and know perfectly well what the conciliar church stands for, who wrote magnificent books on this subject, who know all about this new religion that sprang up there, however do not see or manage to talk about what happens within their own Society. Why? Because it is easier to see the evil in our neighbor’s house than in one’s own house, and commenting on what we see there is less risky than speaking up about the evil that happens in the room next door, in our own house, between our own acquaintances, our own family. In criticizing the Councils harshly, he does not risk too much, but publicly denouncing the betrayal or mistakes of his own, and above all of his superiors, can be very costly. Not everyone is willing to pay that price that the defense of the truth demands. But is it possible that these superiors have prepared the priests to fight for the truth in every area and all circumstances, no matter where it came from, or have they taught them a “partisan” attitude to the crisis of the Church, which they see as between two sides that could never influence each other?

Ernest Hello wrote: “The centuries follow one another and never resemble each other. Each century is characterized by a special threat, by a threat that is theirs. The threat of our times, and I believe that it contains all the others, is the indifference in relation to principles. Do you not hear it said every day: ‘What good are abstractions for? Principles have had their turn. We must give way to actions, practicalities. We are business people. We are far from being dreamers.’ That language, which directly leads to hell, penetrates the hearts of men” (“The Century, Men and Ideas,” Editorial Difusión, 1943).

Business people have taken control of the SSPX. The Machiavellianism of the Conciliarists has infected them with the use of Hegelian dialectics and doublethink as tools of power and manipulation. At this point, the priests of the Society should have realized this, but for years now, a mechanism of control been built, by which they have accepted the contradiction in their lives, and sentimentality was injected into their ranks, which prevented them from the internal fight, and which does not allow them to remove the blindfold. The truth demands to be loved entirely. For its own sake. And be put into practice so that its possession is complete: Birds resort unto their like: so truth will return to them that practise her.”(Ecclesiasticus, XXVII, 10). If the bishops and priests of the SSPX had taken up these words of Archbishop Ezequiel Moreno Diaz, a true champion of antiliberalism, the Society would not have reached this point, where it is ready to place itself under the power of its enemies:

“Truth can not deal with heresy, as a sovereign with another sovereign, since truth is the sole sovereign and heresy is but a rebel. Truth cannot make a pact with error; truth contradicts, fights, excludes error, and would stop believing in itself, if it recognized in error the right to occupy a place next to it.”

Bishop Ezequiel Moreno, pastoral letter, April 30, 1904.​

Ignacio Kilmot