Bishop Fellay’s interview

July 23, 2018 BY Bp. Donald Sanborn 

Bp. Bernard Fellay

Bishop Fellay, who has been, until recently, the head of the Society of Saint Pius X for the past twenty-four years, gave an interview to Tagespost in which he said a few things which deserve attention.

The first is this: “We have never said that the Council directly taught any heresies. But it took away the wall of protection from error, and thereby permitted error to show itself.”

Is this an accurate statement? Did Vatican II merely expose the Church to error? Or did it actually contain heresies? Answer: It contained heresies.

The first heresy of Vatican II: ecumenism. The document Unitatis Redintegratio, or the Decree on Ecumenism, contains a glaring heresy against the Catholic dogma which teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation. The Council states:

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. [Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3] [Emphasis added].

The Catholic Church teaches as dogma — it was called a “most well-known Catholic dogma” by Pius IX — that outside the Church there is no salvation. The Council states the precise contradictory of the Catholic dogma, namely that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, that these non-Catholic religions can deliver salvation to their adherents, and are indeed the means by which they are saved. This is heresy.

The second heresy of Vatican II: religious liberty. The Catholic Church, professing to be the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ, and outside of which there is no salvation, understands religious liberty to be the liberty of the Catholic Church to carry out its mission in the world, to establish itself everywhere, to function freely as an entity distinct from the State. It also claims the liberty of its adherents to profess and practice their Catholic faith without harassment or molestation.

It condemns the idea, as being contrary to Sacred Scripture, that all religions have these same liberties and these same rights. For to assert such a thing would be the same as saying that a person or organization would have a right to do something wrong. But this is contrary to the natural law, and therefore contrary to the Church’s teaching. You can have a right only to do something right, and never a right to do something wrong.

Liberty is the power of electing the good. License is the freedom falsely accorded to the will to elect evil. In order that there be the exercise of true liberty, it is necessary that it not detract from any duty. For liberty does not exist for evil, but for the good. Therefore, for as often as man abuses liberty for the purpose of committing evil, it should not be called liberty but instead license.

Liberty of conscience is absolutely impious. For man is by a most strict duty bound to think correctly about God, and concerning those things which regard both speculative and practical religion. But to go against a most strict duty of nature is license, not liberty. If we are talking about a voluntary transgression of our duty toward God, the aforesaid license is impiety. Because, therefore, through liberty of conscience the right is given to man to think concerning God however he pleases, this liberty, this right, is truly an impiety.

The liberty of religions, considered in itself, is absurd. This proposition is proven by what has been already said. For the liberty of religions is inferred only from the liberty of conscience. Because liberty of conscience is absurd, it follows also that the liberty of religions is absurd. But more must be said. If one concedes the liberty of religions, one takes away from God the power of imposing a determined worship upon men, and one imposes upon God a certain obligation of accepting or at least of approving any form of worship shown to Him by human reason. But God has commanded a form of worship — the Catholic religion. Consequently He is not obliged to accept just any form of worship that human beings give Him. It follows that men cannot, without obvious irreligion and impiety reject the precepts of God, and be the arbiters of their own worship. On the other hand, it is an impiety to deny to God the faculty of determining worship, and to impose some kind of duty upon Him of approving all forms of worship indiscriminately. Therefore the liberty of religions is absurd.

Vatican II, however, teaches that liberty of religion for the individual and for religious organizations is a right which flows from the notion of human dignity. Furthermore, it says that this teaching concerning human dignity is contained in revelation, but gives no reference where in revelation God guarantees the right to believe and practice whatever religion you want.

Vatican II teaches in Dignitatis Humanæ, no. 2:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

Some try to defend the Council by saying that the only thing it means is that no one should be converted to Catholicism by the sword. The Church has always taught that conversion should not take place in such a manner, and has condemned any attempt to do so. That this is not the intention of the Council can be seen from the paragraphs subsequent to the one cited above:

The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.

Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transfer-ral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties.
Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.

Those of us who have lived in a country such as the United States, where the religious liberty described in these paragraphs is considered a normal, even sacred, civil right, fail to see the malice of these words. If we substitute “abortion” for “religion,” the point might become clearer: “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to an abortion.” “Abortion clinics are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of abortion itself.” “Provided the just demands of public order are observed, abortion clinics rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, publicly perform abortions, assist their members in the practice of abortion, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their abortion principles.”

Need I go on? It should be pointed out here that, as heinous a crime as abortion is, the profession of a false religion is far more heinous in God’s sight, being directly contrary to His solemn rights. It is not to be forgotten that in Exodus (chapter 32) God ordered the slaying of all those who had participated in the worship of the golden calf, and who had not repented of it. The number of those slain was 23,000. This momentous event was to demonstrate to the Hebrew people the necessity of adhering to the true religion, and of shunning false religions. According to Vatican II, Moses should have proclaimed religious liberty for all of the calf-worshippers.

Religious liberty, as it is taught by Vatican II, is in-deed a heresy. It is solemnly condemned by Pope Pius IX as being against the Scriptures. Furthermore, Archbishop Lefebvre considered religious liberty to be a heresy. He said exactly this to Fr. Cekada in a dinner conversation at Oyster Bay.

The third heresy of Vatican II: The new ecclesiology. By ecclesiology we mean the Church’s doctrine concerning its own nature, that is, its essence and characteristics. Vatican II teaches a heretical ecclesiology. It is contained in Lumen Gentium.

The traditional dogma of the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church, and it alone, is the one true Church of Christ, and that therefore any entity outside of itself is a false religion. This includes even those schismatic religions of the East which may have a valid priesthood and valid sacraments. If you are cut off from the center — the pope — you are nothing but a dead branch that has fallen off the vine.

Vatican II altered this doctrine in order to include other Christian denominations in the Church of Christ, saying that the Church of Christ, as an organized body, subsists in the Catholic Church.

What does it mean to subsist in? Subsistence is a perfection of a thing whereby it exists on its own, and not in something else. For example, a color cannot exist on its own, but must always exist in something else, e.g., paint, a flower, a cloth. That “something else” must have its own subsistence.

Applying this to ecclesiology, if the Church of Christ does not subsist on its own, but must subsist in something else, it means that the Church of Christ is really distinct from what it subsists in, namely that they are by nature two different things. It means that the Church of Christ is not the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. If they were by nature not two different things, then they would be the same thing, and it would be necessary to say the the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, which is precisely the dogma of the Catholic Church.

The “subsists in” doctrine also means that the Church of Christ could subsist in something else, like the Lutheran Church, for example.

While this doctrine does wonders for the heresy of ecumenism and religious liberty, it destroys the Church’s teaching that the Catholic Church is exclusively the Church of Christ, and vice versa. The Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same, and exclusively so, meaning that no other “Christian” organization can call itself the Church of Christ in any way whatsoever. The only appropriate name for them is a heretical or schismatic sect.

The fourth heresy of Vatican II: Collegiality. This doctrine, also contained in Lumen Gentium, holds that the subject (possessor) of supreme power in the Church is the college of bishops. Listen to the Council:

The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.

This is heresy. For the Catholic Church teaches that the Roman Pontiff is the head of the Catholic Church. Listen to the Council of Florence: “We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of Blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that the full power was given to him in Blessed Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.” (Decree for the Greeks, July 6, 1439)

Pope Pius VI condemned this doctrine: “All the bishops together and in one body govern the same Church, each one with full power.”

Some try to save Vatican II from heresy by saying that the Council states that the pope is the head of the college, and that it cannot act without him. But this does not save it from heresy, because the pope in that case simply becomes another member of the college of bishops, and merely a condition of their power, but not the source of their power.

Others try to save the Council by pointing out that the document asserts that the Pope is the head of the Church: “In virtue of his office, that is, as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church.” This is a futile attempt, however. No organization can have two heads, two supreme legislators. For example, it is impossible that both king and parliament be the supreme legislator. One must have the last word, to whom the other is subservient. King Charles I of England lost his head by upholding the supremacy of the king over parliament.

Yet others try to save the Council by citing the Preliminary Note of Explanation (the Nota Prævia), but this is worthless, since it is not part of the document accepted by the bishops. The modernist theologian Yves Congar was swift to point this out when he was a peritus at the Council. Besides, there is nothing in the Nota Prævia which cancels out the conciliarist heresy in the document.

The Catholic doctrine is that the pope, as supreme head of the Church, may invite the bishops into a general council, in which, by his consent, they participate in his power to rule the Church. Apart from these general councils, the authority of bishops is confined to their dioceses. The power to rule the diocese is from Christ, but comes to them through the Roman Pontiff, who may remove the power from them whenever he will. Pope Pius XII taught in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis: “Yet in exercising this office they [the bishops] are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.” (no. 42)

Bishop Fellay sells out to the Modernists on the Council. About a year ago, the Vatican told the Society of Saint Pius X that there could be no hope of reconciliation unless the SSPX accepts Vatican II and the post-Vatican II magisterium. By saying that there is no heresy in Vatican II, Bishop Fellay is saying that Vatican II is orthodox, that is, Catholic, and is not offensive to the Catholic Faith.

If that be so, then what have we been doing for the past fifty years?

Bishop Fellay also sells out on the question of the New Mass. Bishop Fellay makes this remark-able statement: “Not every New Mass is a scandal directly, but the repeated celebration of the New Mass leads to a weakening or even a loss of faith.”

Question: how could it not be a scandal if it leads to a loss of faith? How could an infallible and indefectible Church, the Church of Christ, assisted by the Holy Ghost, the pillar and ground of truth, as St.Paul calls it, promulgate to the whole world a rite which leads to the loss of faith? Bishop Fellay’s statement falls under the anathema of the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety, let him be anathema.”

Bishop Fellay states in this same interview that the traditional Mass is like a silver trumpet, whereas the New Mass is like a brass trumpet:

I say only that if you are receiving a head of State, and you have the choice between a silver trumpet and a brass trumpet, would you choose the brass trumpet? It would be an insult. You would not do it. Even the best New Masses are like trumpets of brass, in comparison to the traditional liturgy. For God, we would choose what is better.

The only conclusion to draw from this statement is that the New Mass is a Catholic Mass but it is merely inferior to the traditional Mass. After all, they are both trumpets! The silver one is merely nicer than the brass one. I think a better analogy would have been to compare the New Mass not to a brass trumpet, but to a giant elephant passing gas.

Bishop Fellay, until recently, was the head of the organization which purports to be the bulwark of tradition, the single hope of the Catholic faithful who want to be protected from Vatican II and its reforms. Yet he is all mixed up in regard to the highest guiding principles of resistance to Vatican II. On the one hand he says that the New Mass weakens or destroys your faith — which means that it is poison — and then a few lines later says that it is a brass trumpet and not a silver one, indicating that there is merely a difference of quality between the two Masses.

It is for this reason that we rejoice over our separation from the SSPX in 1983. We saw the seeds of this utter theological confusion, this theology à la Maxine Waters, and wanted no part of it.

We may be small in comparison to the SSPX, but we are not mixed up. As Garrigou-Lagrange put it: “A thousand idiots do not equal one genius.” Likewise a thousand mixed up priests do not equal one priest with his head screwed on right.

Bishop Fellay’s interview

Bouix on the “Heretical Pope”: A big Nothingburger from John Salza and Robert Siscoe

Another irrelevant argument… 

More than three years after the release of their book True or False Pope? A Refutation of Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors, John Salza and Robert Siscoe are still busy wasting everybody’s time.

On May 14, they posted on their web site an English translation of an excerpt from the 3-volume book Tractatus de Papa, ubi et de Concilio Oecumenico (“Treatise on the Pope and the Ecumenical Council”) written by the French canonist Marie Dominique Bouix (1808-1870). Bouix took the unusual position that if a Pope as a private person were to become a heretic, he would not lose the pontificate in any way, nor could anyone take it from him. In other words: If a Pope were to become manifestly heretical, he would still be Pope, and no one would be able to do anything about it.

The question of the Papa haereticus — that is, what would happen if a Pope were to become a heretic in his private capacity — was debated among theologians for centuries before the First Vatican Council (1870). Five different positions emerged in the course of the dispute:

1. That the Pope cannot become a heretic even in his private capacity, so the question is moot.
2. That a Pope who becomes a heretic even only internally (by pertinaciously assenting to heresy in his mind) would immediately and automatically fall from the pontificate.
3. That a Pope who becomes a heretic does not fall from the pontificate, regardless of how manifest his heresy is.
4. That a Pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate only after a declaration by the Church.
5. That a Pope who becomes a heretic automatically falls from the pontificate as soon as his heresy is public and manifest.

Out of all the theologians who argued in depth about this subject, so far only one has been declared a saint and, more pertinently, a Doctor of the Church. It is St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621). He was canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1930 and declared a Doctor of the Church by the same pope the following year.

In his monumental work on the Papacy, De Romano Pontifice (“On the Roman Pontiff”), St. Robert argued that “[i]t is probable and may piously be believed that not only as ‘Pope’ can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular [=private] person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith” (Book IV, Chapter 6). In other words, Bellarmine believed that out of the five opinions enumerated above, Position 1 was the most likely to be correct.

In the event, however, that Position 1 was not correct and a Pope could indeed become a heretic, Bellarmine insisted on and argued convincingly for Position 5, that such a “heretical Pope” would immediately and automatically cease to be Pope, without the need for a declaration or other ecclesiastical intervention:

• Bellarmine: “Whether a Heretical Pope Can Be Deposed?”
  Book II, Chapter 30 of De Romano Pontifice

Although Fr. Bouix, like Bellarmine, also believed that Position 1 was the most likely to be correct, he held that if it was possible for a Pope to become a heretic, then this would not affect his holding of the Papacy at all — in other words, he supported Position 3 as the correct one, although in his Tractatus de Papa it is numbered differently, namely, as Position 4. He concludes:

Certainly, just as to Suárez and many others, myself included, it seems more probable that the Pope, even as a private person, cannot fall into heresy. But in the hypothesis that the Pope could become a heretic privately, I would absolutely deny that he is ipso facto deposed, or capable of being deposed by any council.

(D. Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, vol. II [Paris: Lecoffre, 1869], p. 666, trans. by Gerardus Maiella; in “Bouix On The Question of an Heretical Pope”, True or False Pope?, May 14, 2019.)

It appears that Salza and Siscoe are now trying, as they have done in the past with other theologians, to advertise this as some kind of a “refutation” of the Sedevacantist position, which is identical to that of Bellarmine. St. Robert called the position Bouix takes “exceedingly improbable” and said that “it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd” (De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30).

But what is perhaps even more significant, Bouix seems to be the only theologian who defended Position 3. The non-sedevacant Brazilian layman Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira (1929-2018), whom Salza and Siscoe happily advertise on their site as endorsing their book, remarks: “This third opinion … is defended by one sole theologian, among 136 ancient and modern theologians whose position on this matter we could verify” (Da Silveira, Can the Pope go Bad?, trans. by John Russell Spann [Greenacres, WA: Catholic Research Institute, 1998], p. 31); and again a bit later: “…it has against it the practically unanimous Tradition of the Church” (p. 36); “We remind the reader that of 136 authors whom we consulted, only Bouix defends this opinion” (p. 36, fn. 16).

Moreover, the position Bouix takes is not even that taken by Salza and Siscoe themselves, nor does it apply to the case of the manifest heresies of “Pope” Francis, for Bouix explicitly states that he is talking only about the case of a Pope who becomes a heretic as a private individual, not a “Pope” whose private heresies become part of his magisterium, as is clearly the case with Francis:

There is no sufficient reason why Christ should be thought to have provided that a Pope heretic would be able to be deposed. Surely that reason would be the vast detriment which would come to the Church unless such a Pope were deposed. But that reason is not valid; as much because the Pope heretic is not so harmful an evil that the Church therefore must necessarily be ruined and perish; as because the remedy, the Pope’s deposition, would be a much worse evil. And firstly, the heresy of the Pope about which this question is moved, is not so grave an evil that it is necessary to think that Christ had willed the deposition of such a Pontiff. The matter is only of private heresy; not which the Pope professes as the Pastor of the Church and in his Papal decrees or acts, but to which he adheres as a private doctor, and only in his private sayings or writings. What is more, so long as the Pope, whenever he defines and speaks Pontifically, teaches the right faith, the faithful are sufficiently safe, although at the same time it would be clear that the same Pope privately adheres to some heresy. All would readily understand that the opinion argued for by the Pope as a private doctor lacks authority, and he is only to be followed when he defines and relates the faith ex officio and with Pontifical authority.

(Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, vol. II, p. 670; underlining added.)

Precisely what, then, are Salza and Siscoe attempting to accomplish by putting up Bouix’s theological argumentation concerning the Papa haereticus?

It seems they are trying to amass writings from theologians that dispute the position taken by sedevacantists regarding “heretical Popes”. There is only one problem: With one possible exception (one that we still need to investigate fully), as far as we have seen, all the “evidence” they have published in that regard comes from books that were written before the First Vatican Council, which promulgated rich teaching on the Papacy such as the following:

So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.

(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; Denz. 1837; underlining added.)

The ecclesiastical approbation given to Bouix’s Tractatus de Papa is dated Aug. 20, 1868, almost two full years before the promulgation of Pastor Aeternus. The first two volumes were published in 1869, the third in 1870. The translated excerpt published by Salza and Siscoe is from volume 2.

In addition, one should keep in mind that although Bouix was writing roughly 250 years after Bellarmine’s death, he was writing before St. Robert was canonized or declared a Doctor of the Church, or even beatified (his beatification took place in 1923). In other words, although he certainly took Bellarmine’s argumentation into consideration as coming from a most capable and renowned theologian, he did not have the privilege of learning from SaintBellarmine, Doctor of the Church.

The notion of a “heretical Pope” — at least the kind the world has seen in the Vatican II “popes” since the 1960’s — is impossible to reconcile with the teaching of Pastor Aeternus. Whoever doubts it is advised to take our special papacy test with regard to the manifest heretic Jorge Bergoglio. Our test replaces every mention of the phrase “Roman Pontiff” in the conciliar constitution with the words “Pope Francis” — and the results are… interesting:

• The Francis Papacy Test

Although Vatican I did not address the issue of the Papa haereticus directly in its dogmatic constitution on the Papacy, the question did indeed come up during the deliberations, and the deputation on the Faith responded to it. Abp. John Purcell of Cincinnati relates what happened and how the council answered:

• The Question of a Heretical Pope considered by the First Vatican Council
• Heretical Popes and Vatican I: A Follow-Up

After Vatican I, the alternatives to Position 1 and Position 5 were abandoned, and instead we find theologians in agreement that a “heretical Pope” would automatically cease to be Pope:

…it cannot be proved that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic, for example, if he contumaciously denies a dogma previously defined; this impeccability was nowhere promised to him by God. On the contrary, [Pope] Innocent III expressly admits that the case can be conceded. But if the case should take place, he falls from office by divine law, without any sentence, not even a declaratory one. For he who openly professes heresy places his very self outside the Church, and it is not probable that Christ preserves the Primacy of His Church with such an unworthy individual. Consequently, if the Roman Pontiff professes heresy, he is deprived of his authority before any whatsoever sentence, which [sentence] is impossible.

(Rev. Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, vol. I, 4th ed. [Rome: Marietti, 1950], n. 316c; our translation; underlining added.)

For more examples of what theologians writing after Vatican I have said about the scenario of a “heretical Pope”, please see our informative commentary on the recent “Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church” accusing Francis of heresy:

• The Open Letter accusing Francis of Heresy: A Sedevacantist Analysis

Quite frankly, the Bouix text Salza and Siscoe have presented is a big nothingburger: So they found a theologian writing before Vatican I who argued that a Pope cannot lose his pontificate at all, no matter how manifestly heretical he is. So what? In Church history you can find all sorts of theologians writing on disputed questions before they were settled by the Church, including a position on the Beatific Vision by St. Bernard of Clairvaux that was later declared to be heretical (see Fr. Joseph Sagüés, On the Last Things, p. 298, n. 30).

The real question is: Is it possible to affirm of the Novus Ordo “popes” everything the Catholic Church teaches about the Papacy and still remain faithful to the Catholic religion of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors? But we all know the answer to that.

By the way: Bouix’s Tractatus de Papa ends with the words: “Scripta mea omnia judicio ac correctioni Romani Pontificis subjicio” — “I subject all my writings to the judgment and correction of the Roman Pontiff” (vol. 3, p. 436).

Would John Salza and Robert Siscoe do that?

 

in Novus Ordo Wire    Arnaldo da Silveira, Dominique Bouix, John Salza, Papacy, Robert Siscoe, Sedevacantism, St. Robert Bellarmine

The Next Step in the Neo-SSPX’s Sellout to Newchurch As Fellay and Pagliarani Want to Become Baron and Baronet in the New World Order

From: Petrus, the TRADITIO Network’s Roman Correspondent

Newbishop Vitus Huonder (Right) Will Become Francis-Bergoglio’s Operative
To Push the Neo-SSPX into the Arms of the Heretical Newchurch
Huonder Isn’t even a Real Bishop
He Was Never Ordained or Consecrated in the Sacrament of Holy Orders
But the Neo-SSPX Is Now Effectively down to Just Two Bishops
So It Will Implicitly Recognize the Legitimacy of the (Invalid) Newchurch “Sacraments”
And the Heretical and Pagan Newpopes
So That Fellay and Pagliarani Can Wear Novus Ordo Purple Socks with Holes in Them

The next step has been taken in the capitulation of the Fellay/Pagliarani Neo-SSPX. It all started in 2009, when Benedict- Ratzinger pretended to lift the Novus Ordo “excommunications” that had been declared by JPII-Wojtyla in 1988. They were pretended because the 1988 declaration was void, owing to the operation of Moral Law in a state of necessity and even by the provisions of the (invalid) 1983 Newcode of Canon Law of 1983. Of course, the “excommunication” canard is the trick used in Newrome’s illusion, its “smoke and mirrors.”

Eventually, the Neo-SSPX will run out of bishops and will need more. This is what has happened by 2019. One of the original bishops (Richard Williamson) abandoned the Newsociety in 2012. A second bishop (Bernard Tissier de Mallerais) is now almost 74 and is said to be ailing. What to do? Two bishops are really not sufficient to superintend some 700 Neo-SSPX priest-presbyters.

But Francis-Bergoglio, the Marxist/Modernist heretic, has the answer. A retired Newchurch bishop, Vitus Huonder of Chur, Switzerland, will come to the rescue. Together with Neo-SSPX Bishops Bernie Fellay and Alfonso de Galarreta, Huonder will “episcopate” two of the Newsociety’s compromisers. These will likely be the new Superior-General, Davide Pagliarani, and Christian Bouchacourt, the gauleiter who dismissed the best Neo-SSPX priest-presbyters in France for being “too traditional.”

Presumably, a “consecration” affair will now be scheduled, possibly for as early as the end of June 2019, the customary time (and also because it would echo founder Archbishop Lefebvre’s co-consecrations of June 29, 1988). Of course, Newrome may drag this process out into autumn to make Fellay and Pagliarani drool for it all the more. It’s all in the bag, but leaves a question or two. First of all, Newbishop Huonder, who retired from Chur on May 20, 2019, was created a Novus Ordo presbyter in 1971 and installed as a Newbishop in 2007 — both under the invalid Protestantized New Ordinal of 1968. Yet the Novus Ordo-leaning Neo-SSPX seems now to recognize the legitimacy of the (invalid) Newchurch “sacraments” and implicitly indicates that it needs the heretical Newchurch’s permission to do anything, subject to the heretical and pagan Newpopes.

Fellay and Pagliarani are drooling for the opportunity to become part of Newchurch, Inc., the biggest real estate empire on earth. They want to manage their own bailiwick in it as the Barony of St. Pius X. They want to become, respectively, Baron and Baronet in the New World Order, complete with Novus Ordo purple socks to prove it. Traditional Catholic priests in the Neo-SSPX need to follow the example of Fr. Bröhwiller, of Switzerland, who recently defected from the Neo-SSPX to go independent. A sacrifice will be needed to defect from the compromised Newsociety, but better a small sacrifice today than a huge one tomorrow. Truly traditional Catholic priests in the Neo-SSPX are much better off giving up their chapels and salaries and pensions and dental plans now than their souls later.

Coming soon to the FSSPX?

(click images to enlarge)

 

Will Bishop Vitus Huonder bring his value$ along as he moves to the SSPX District House?

On Monday, May 20, 2019, Pope Francis relieved Bishop Vitus Huonder of his duties as Bishop of the Diocese of Chur (Switzerland), while appointing an administrator with a view to the election of his successor.

According to an intention that he stated long ago, Bishop Huonder is retiring to a house of the Society of Saint Pius X. The one sole purpose of this step is to dedicate himself to prayer and silence, to celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively, and to work for Tradition, the only way of renewing the Church.

The Society of Saint Pius X appreciates Bishop Huonder’s courageous decision and rejoices to be able to provide him with the spiritual and priestly surroundings that he desires so deeply. May this example be followed by others, so as to “restore everything in Christ”.

May 20, 2019

His Excellency Vitus Huonder – Bishop Emeritus of Chur

Don Davide Pagliarani – Superior General of the SSPX

Joint communiqué of Bishop Huonder and Father Pagliarani, FSSPXNews, 20 May 2019

Bp. Huonder is a typical Novus Ordo of the liberal strain who occasionally makes a decision which appears Catholic.  He is big fan of interreligious dialogue and a friend of Moslem and Talmudic Jew alike.  Thinks highly of ‘Nostra Aetate’, is a member of the Jewish / Roman – Catholic Dialogue Commission, implemented the ‘Day of Judaism’ in Switzerland, wrote his doctoral thesis in 1975 – Israel Sohn Gottes: Zur Deutung eines alttestamentlichen Themas in der jüdischen Exegese des Mittelalters (Israel Son of God: On the interpretation of an Old Testament theme in the Jewish exegesis of the Middle Ages), ad nauseum.

More of what Huonder value$…

 Female altar boys.

 How Catholic, how traditional!

 Nice pants.

 Interfaith fun with Anglican priestess, Adèle Kelham.

Nothing says Novus Ordo Missae like girls as altar boys!

 He should fit right in with the SSPX.

Delegating his Novus Ordo duties.

Communion in the hand and immodest dress.

The SSPX already shares a few of these value$…

 

Short immodest dress.

Novus Ordo priest presiding over marriages.

 Chapel veils and covered arms must be too rigid.

Sharing sanctuary with Novus Ordo presiders.

The American SSPX HQ is a big fan of females in pants.

Adoration of Novus Ordo host at a cathedral.

Vitus Huonder’s goal in retiring to the SSPX

20 May 2019 letter from Bp. Huonder.

Bp. Huonder, “In the spirit of Pope Francis, I will strive myself to contribute to the unity of the Church, not to marginalize, but to discern, accompany and help integrate.”

Sister Superior Leaves Fellay-Pagliarani’s Neo-SSPX She Could Not in Good Conscience Accept a Newbishop Who Blasphemously Worships with Infidels

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Heretic Newchurch Bishop Philip Egan, of Portsmouth, England
Simulates the Invalid Novus Ordo Mess
The Neo-SSPX Chiefs Bernie Fellay and Davide Pagliarani Ordered
The Sister Superior of the Local Neo-SSPX School
To Accept and Publicly Pray for Egan
After He Had Blasphemously Worshiped with Infidels
Sister Mary Elizabeth, with Her Sisters, Resigned in Conscience
And Has Now Found Sanctuary at the Mission
Of an Independent Traditional Catholic Priest

The repercussions of the Neo-SSPX’s Sister Superior resigning her post because she could not in good conscience receive the Newchurch bishop at St. Martin’s Neo-SSPX K-12 School in Berghclere, England. In addition to being a heretic bishop of the New Order, Philip Egan publicly worships on Fridays in a Mohammedans mosque. She also rejected the April 2017 “marriage deal” in which Francis-Bergoglio took control of Neo-SSPX marriages and is administering them according to Modernist principles. He had already taken control of the Neo-SSPX’s “confessions. These takeovers were approved by the Neo-SSPX leadership of Bernie Fellay and his puppet, David Pagliarani, the Neo-SSPX’s new Superior General..

Sr. Mary Elizabeth explained her resignation in an April 4, 2019, letter to parents of the Neo-SSPX school that she headed. She had been a nun in the Neo-SSPX for 25 years after having received the habit of the Oblate sisters. She has now found sanctuary at the Mission of an independent traditional Catholic priest in England. Sister Mary Elizabeth wrote to the now-tottering Neo-SSPX parents:

More and more we were told that the Catholic Church and the official Church [i.e., the Newchurch of the New Order] are one and the same thing, both being visible, whereas the profession of the true Faith is the first criterion for being a member of the Catholic Church, a criterion that Modernist bishops, for instance, do not match. I started to feel very uneasy with belonging to the [Neo-SSPX] Society, because it meant supporting these new ideas that Archbishop Lefebvre [founder of the original, traditional SSPX] had clearly refuted and against which he had warned us many times in plain language.

Sister Mary Elizabeth went on to reveal that local officials of the Neo-SSPX had been given their marching orders: Novus Ordo bishops were to be accepted if they were “friendly toward tradition” (whatever that means!). The local officials were also ordered to collaborate with such Novus Ordo personnel. They were also forced to pray publicly by name for the heretic Newchurch bishops as if they were valid. (Newchurch bishops are not valid because they have never been consecrated in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, merely “installed” under the invalid Protestantized 1968 Ordinal after the Vatican II Anti-council.)

True Catholics, not only the Sister Superior but also her nuns have turned their back on the Fellay-Pagliarani corruption of Archbishop Lefebvre’s original Society of St. Pius X. In 2019, it seems that many Newchurchers are finally beginning to get the message. That is why thousands, including a number of prominent Newchurch theologians, have now officially called on the Newchurch bishops as a group to depose Francis-Bergoglio as a “heretic” for his persistent public denial of several dogmatic Catholic teachings and his adherence to Marxism/Modernism.

Double Agent?

What do a Buddhist, a Mohammedan, a Jew, and a Vatican II “priest” all have in common? No, this isn’t the beginning of an off-color joke. The answer is to be found in the latest video put out by Mr. Bergoglio (aka “Pope” Francis); they are all “Children of God,” and they all “believe in love.” Moreover, this is the “only one certainty we have for all.” Apostasy of this magnitude (unthinkable even ten years ago) needs no comment from me. Anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge regarding the True Faith will instantly see that this video is produced from Hell. A very good analysis is provided on “Novusordowatch.org.”

The purpose of my post is to put forth a question of my own: “How can anyone not be a sedevacantist after all this ecumenical apostasy?” Robert Siscoe and John Salza (Salza being a lawyer like myself) are putting out a book entitled True or False Pope, Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors. The foreword is written by Bp. Bernard Fellay, General Superior of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The book rehashes all the same worn out, discredited arguments of the “recognize and resist” camp of pseudo-Traditionalists who hold that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, Frankie is “pope,” and we have the right to choose not to obey him when we dislike what he says ( a totally false, non-Catholic, invented principle).

Those of us who remember any part of the Cold War (circa 1945-1989), will recall that there were those who were outright Communists, “fellow travelers” (i.e., those who are not “card-carrying” Communists yet share most/all of their ideas and goals), and “useful idiots” (i.e., those  people who act as propagandists for  Communism– of whose goals they are not fully aware— and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause). Perhaps it’s time we categorize those who “recognize and resist” Begoglio in the same way.

Mr. Salza, co-author of True or False Pope claims to be a former 32nd degree Freemason who left to join the Vatican II sect. He has written several books including Why Catholics Cannot Be Masons. In his book on Masonry, Mr. Salza correctly expounds the teachings and aims of the Lodge. I will show some pertinent points regarding both Masonry and Begoglio.

 Masonry Promotes Indifferentism

 

 Freemasonry forbids prayers in the name of Jesus Christ but instead calls upon the Deistic “Great Architect of the Universe” (GAOTU). Freemason Manly Hall explains, “Christ, Buddha, or Mohammed, the name means little.” (See The Lost Keys of Freemasonry; or, The Secret of Hiram Abiff, Richmond, Virginia, Macoy, 1976, pg.65). Watch Frankie’s video again with the Buddhist, Mohammedan, Jew, and “priest.” Now read what a real pope wrote:

 Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.” A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?” (See Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos, #13)

 

Masonry Demands Strict Obedience Of Its High Ranking Members Under Penalty of Death

 

 “Moreover, to be enrolled, it is necessary that the candidates promise and undertake to be thenceforward strictly obedient to their leaders and masters with the utmost submission and fidelity, and to be in readiness to do their bidding upon the slightest expression of their will; or, if disobedient, to submit to the direst penalties and death itself. As a fact, if any are judged to have betrayed the doings of the sect or to have resisted commands given, punishment is inflicted on them not infrequently, and with so much audacity and dexterity that the assassin very often escapes the detection and penalty of his crime.” (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus # 9)

 

Masonry LOVES Mr. Bergoglio

 

“A man of the poor far away from the Curia. Fraternity and the desire to dialogue were his first concrete words. Perhaps nothing in the Church will be as it was before. Our hope is that the pontificate of Francis, the Pope who ‘comes from the end of the world’ can mark the return to the Church-Word instead of the Church-Institution, promoting an open dialogue with the contemporary world, with believers and non-believers, following the springtime of Vatican II.” — Gustavo Raffi, Grand Master of the Grand Orient Masonic Lodge of Italy, upon the “election” of Frankie in March 2013–Emphasis mine

“In the Argentine Freemasonry, based on the principles of tolerance, profound respect for personal convictions, liberty, equality and fraternity, the brothers who profess or adhere to this religious faith stand together with others who belong to other creeds, are agnostics or lack any faith. In the name of all, the Grand Lodge of Argentina greets our co-patriot Cardinal who just received such a high world distinction.” (signed) Angel Jorge Clavero, Grand Master

Summary and (Draw Your Own) Conclusion

1. Masonry, which shares the same ideology as Modernism, wants a one-world ecumenical religion devoid of dogma.

2. Jorge Begoglio has produced a video that captures that central goal of Masonry and promotes it.

3. The Masons openly praise Bergoglio.

4. The True Church has officially condemned Freemasonry (specifically) no less than seventeen (17) times

5. High ranking Masons will be the target of wrath should they disobey (or leave) Masonry, including being killed by the Lodge.

6.  We can say that there are actual Masons, “fellow travelers” who believe in Indifferentism (e.g., Modernists), and useful idiots who are led into staying with Bergoglio through propaganda books like True or False Pope

 

7. John Salza knows the teachings of the True Church rather well. He may be useful, but he’s no idiot.

8. Salza claims he was a 32nd degree Mason (one of the very highest, ruling-class levels) and claims to have left. Yet, he prospers as a lawyer and nothing has been done to him. He has even written a book entitled Masonry Unmasked; An Insider Reveals The Secrets of the Lodge,He seems unafraid of any consequences (unlike some former Masons who wrote books under pseudonyms to protect themselves).

9. Salza’s book aids Frankie (whom the Masons love) and keeps souls in union with the “Vicar of Satan.”

10. Is it possible Salza is still a Mason, with his mission to try to keep people fearing sedevacantism, and thereby help the cause of the Masonic Lodge and their master; Satan?

As people who read my blog will know very well, I’m no “conspiracy nut.” I don’t know if Mr. Salza is an actual Mason or not. One thing I do know, is that whether he’s wearing an actual Masonic apron or not, his book does the work of those condemned by Pope Pius VIII (echoing the words of Pope St. Leo the Great) because their “Law is prevarication; religion, the devil; sacrifice, disgrace.”

Introibo Ad Altare Dei at 3:07 AM

A Reader Asks: “What Is It in the ‘Mess of 1962’ That Renders That Mess Impotent?”

From: Ronald

The Neo-Society of St. Pius X Is Walking Away
From Traditional Catholicism
In Order to Embrace the Heretical Newchurch of the New Order
Its Modernized “Mess of 1962” Seems just Like a Novus Ordo Mess
The “Mess of 1962” Is the Half Novus Ordo Mess
That Was Used at the Vatican II Anti-council (1962-1965)
It Is Already Half Way to the Full-blown
Protestant-Masonic-Pagan New Order Mess of 1969
Also Fabricated by the Freemason Presbyter Hannibal Bugnini

Dear TRADITIO Fathers:

I have been going to a 1962 Mess at a Neo-Society of St. Pius X. church. There had been a Traditional Latin Mass there before, but when the Neo-SSPX took over after the traditional priest died, the Neo-SSPX started doing the 1962 Mess. Now the Neo-SSPX Mess seems just like a Novus Ordo Mess. Something changed when the Neo-SSPX took over and switched to the “modernized” 1962 Mess. Ever since, Neo-SSPX Messes seem drier and drier.

I am very upset with the Neo-SSPX now because many good people are struggling so hard to be good Catholics and are being led astray to who knows what end. What is it in the “Mess of 1962” that renders that Mass impotent? Is it the loss of the second Confiteor before Holy Communion is distributed?

THE TRADITIO FATHERS REPLY

The reason the “Mess of 1962” seems Novus Ordo is that it is! It is the Half Novus Ordo Mess that was used at the Vatican II Anti-council. It is already half way to the full-blown Protestant-Masonic-Pagan New Order Mess of 1969.

The changes in the “Mess of 1962” from the Traditional Latin Mass of 1950 and before goes far beyond the elimination of second Confiteor. It took a 203-page handbook to list and explain to priests at the time all of the changes being introduced. It includes the Freemason presbyter Hannibal Buginini’s Protestantized version of the most sacred rites of Holy Week, which, in the traditional Catholic Latin rites go back to the early Church, in some cases using Greek.

By the way, it is the standard modus operandi of the Neo-SSPX to steal churches of independent traditional Catholic priests and then “modernize” the Mess at such sites. There is no surprise in this fact. The Neo-SSPX has for years after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre been acting as an agent for the heretical Newchurch that he rejected, introducing Protestant-style “modernized” worship instead of the traditional Catholic Mass and Divine Office. All true Catholics should stay completely away from these now-corrupted Neo-SSPX sites.

New-born dictator Pagliarani adapts the school to a new heretical church

Schism Is Brewing within the Neo-SSPX against Superiors Fellay and Pagliarani
They Expelled a School’s Nuns because They Would Not Recognize the New Order Sect

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

The Neo-SSPX’s New Superior-Dictator Davide Pagliarani
Expels St. Michael School’s Nuns
Because They Wouldn’t Accept the Official Reception at the School
Of the Local Invalid Novus Ordo Bishop
The Nuns Objected to the Neo-SSPX’s Official Recognition
Of a Heretic, Unconsecrated Novus Ordo Bishop
Many of the Parents at the School Are Standing with the Nuns
And Preparing to Pull Their Children out of the Compromised School

The parents of children at the Neo-SSPX’s St. Michael’s School in Burghclere, U.K., have been informed on March 27, 2019, that Sister Mary Elizabeth, the head of the nuns at the school, has been fired, and she and her five nuns expelled from the school, given just 36 hours to get out. The Neo-SSPX’s new Superior Dictator, Davide Pagliarani, oversaw the nuns’ expulsion. The parents at the school are very upset. A climate of fear now prevails against the Neo-SSPX Superior-Dictators, who browbeat these dedicated nuns.

And what crime did this highly-respected nun, one of the best teachers at the school, and her fellow sisters commit? Did they sexually assault the students? No. She and the other nuns objected to the official reception at the school of the local invalid Novus Ordo bishop, Philip Egan. The TRADITIO Network previously covered that development, and how not only the nuns, but many of the parents, had objected to the Neo-SSPX’s official recognition of a heretic, unconsecrated Novus Ordo bishop..

Fellay and Pagliarani have gone even farther toward recognition of the heretical Newchurch of the New Order. In order to qualify for a bursary for the new school year, they have had it written into the contract with the parents that parents qualify only if they accept the Novus Ordo “hierarchy of the Catholic [sic] Church.” By this term the Neo-SSPX is referring to the Novus Ordo clergy, who are not priests and bishops, but are the unconsecrated and unordained clergy of the New Order, which has accepted the invalid Protestantized Ordinal of 1968. No wonder the traditional Catholic nuns refused to submit. Archbishop Lefebvre would have been proud of them!

The St. Michael’s parents are good traditional Catholics trying to do their best for their children. But under Fellay and Pagliarani, the Neo-SSPX is being run by the “thought police.” Pagliarani, in fact, interrogated all the nuns together and individually to make sure that their allegiance is to the Newchurch of the New Order. The history of the Neo-SSPX is that it treats its priests, religious, and laypeople like trash. If they overstep Bernie Fellay’s dictatorial edits, they are almost literally thrown out on the street. They are not given time to wrap up their affairs and some funds in light of their previous service to find new lodgings. This is not Catholic; this is not even Christian. But this is the ilk that took over the SSPX and turned it into the Neo-SSPX after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1991.

Just as the Catholic Church was replaced by the Newchurch of the New Order as the “institutional” Church (which is not the true Catholic Church), so Archbishop Lefebvre’s original traditional Catholic SSPX was replaced by the Novus Ordoized Neo-SSPX of Bernie Fellay, and now his henchman, David Pagliarani. What Fellay and Pagliarani are doing is exactly what the Archbishop spend much of his life opposing. They are rapidly turning their Neo-SSPX into a slave of the anti-Catholic New Order.

TRADITIO is practically the only independent source of information for traditional Catholics that is covering this important development, which reveals a lot about the dismal future of the Neo-SSPX under the stratagems of Bernie Fellay and his puppet, David Pagliarani, who have broken with the original traditional Catholic principles of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the original traditional Catholic Society of St. Pius X to be subsumed into the New Order. Shortly the thought police and firings of Neo-SSPX clergy and religious are going to spread to other Neo-SSPX sites around the world.

The Neo-FSSPX has lost control of its marriages

The Neo-SSPX Has Lost Control of Its Marriages
Now It Is Going to the Heretical Newchurch for “Permission” to Marry

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

In the Blink of an Eye, the Neo-SSPX’s De-facto Leader, Bernie Fellay
Has Been Selling out the Society’s Sacraments to the Novus Ordo Sect
The Neo-SSPX Is Now Actively Seeking “Permission” from Newchurch
To Perform Marriages
Now Neo-SSPXers Cannot Be Assured of a Traditional Catholic Marriage
The Neo-SSPX Is Going Full Tilt toward Becoming a Cog
In the Newchurch of the New Order
Not Being Traditional Catholic Organization

It seems that Bernie Fellay and his puppet David Pagliarani are concealing yet another dirty little secret from their members. They don’t want Neo-SSPXers to know wholesale that their Neo-SSPX is selling out its marriages to the heretical Newchurch sect. The Neo-SSPX now admits that it is not controlling its marriages, but rather defers to the Novus Ordo for “permission.” The Neo-SSPX is going full tilt toward being a cog in the Newchurch of the New Order, not being a traditional Catholic organization. Now that Neo-SSPXers cannot be assured of a traditional Catholic marriage. Similar goings-on are occurring with Confessions.

On March 21, 2019, it slipped out that in the United States the Pagliarani-Fellay dictatorship is actively seeking out Newchurch dioceses for “permission” to conduct its weddings. The Neo-SSPX has so far approached 45 Newdioceses for such “permission.” It also slipped out that in order to get the “stamp of approval” of the heretical Newchurch sect, the Pagliarani-Fellay dictatorship is actively inviting fake Newchurch bishops (Newchurch has not consecrated bishops since 1968, when Newchurch substituted the invalid, Protestantized New Ordinal for the traditional Sacrament of Holy Orders) to “pontificate” at its priories, chapels, schools, and retreats. For all intents and purposes, the Pagliarani-Fellay Neo-SSPX has already passed into the heretical New Order sect. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by the U.K. Catholic Herald.]

True Catholics, undoubtedly such sellouts by the Fellay-Pagliarani Neo-SSPX to the heretical New Order are going on in other countries around the world as well, but the Neo-SSPX doesn’t want the word to get out wholesale. If the Neo-SSPXers found out about the sellout, many of them would fall away because of the corruption, just as so many of the Newchurchers are falling away from Newchurch because of the corruption in Newchurch. The Neo-SSPXers will simply fall away without a fight because they are taught a kind of false obedience to corrupt leaders rather than to Our Lord Jesus Christ and the true Catholic Faith. The way things are going, by the time the Neo-SSPX signs the papers to be formally baptized into the heretical Newchurch, there won’t be much of Newchurch left!

Neo-FSSPX is now on the ropes one bishop is bad health: two new “consecrations” are canceled

Neo-SSPX Is Now on the Ropes
One Bishop Is Bad Health; Two New “Consecrations” Are Canceled

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Francis-Bergoglio Deputizes Newbishop Vitus Huonder
To Act a Plant with the Neo-SSPX in Switzerland
To Ensure that the Neo-SSPX Sells Out
To the Heretical Newchurch of the New Order
Providence Has Seen to It that the Plans of Corrupt Men
Have Come to Naught
Huonder Has Canceled His Plans to Inflitrate the Neo-SSPX
And His “Consecration” of Two New Bishops for the Neo-SSPX
Have Also Been Canceled

And then there were only two (Neo-SSPX bishops). The SSPX’s senior bishop Richard Williamson left. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais is in bad health. The remaining two, Bernie Fellay and Alfonso Galarreta, are on the way to selling our to the heretical Newchurch of the New Order, currently led by its Third Paedophile Newpope, Francis-Bergoglio.

But now the Neo-Society of St. Pius X has announced that the ordinations previously scheduled for April 5, 2019, have been indefinitely postponed because Tissier de Mallerais remains hospitalized from a serious infection and awaits surgery.

On the same date, Bishop Williamson revealed that Newchurch bishop Vitus Huonder had canceled his previously-announced plans to take up residence in the Neo-SSPX boys’ school in Wangs, Switzerland, near the Neo-SSPX’s principal seminary at Econe. Huonder was to be a plant from Newchurch’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the [New Order] Faith, to ensure that the Neo-SSPX sold out to the heretical Newchurch of the New Order. Now Huonder has announced that he is not going to Wangs.

Huonder was also supposed to be the principal “consecrator” (even though is powerless to consecrated, as he himself has never been consecrated as bishop, but merely “installed” as a Newbishop under the invalid New Ordinal of 1968) of two new bishops for the Neo-SSPX. However, as previously reported by TRADITIO’s Roman Correspondent in these Commentaries, the “consecrations” have been canceled.

True Catholics, it seems that once again Providence has brought to naught the stratagems of the perfidious Neo-SSPX leaders, Fellay and now Davide Pagliarani, the Neo-SSPX’s new Superior General and puppet of Fellay, to sell out to the heretical Newchurch. Meanwhile, the Neo-SSPX hobbles along with just two sellout bishops, who have already turned over their Sacraments of Matrimony and Penance to the Newchurch heretics.

The Newchurch of the New Order wants to wear out the Neo-FSSPX

Newrome Torpedoes Two New Bishops for the Neo-SSPX
The Newchurch of the New Order Wants to Wear out the Neo-SSPX

From: Petrus Romanus, the TRADITIO Network’s Roman Correspondent

Ambitions of Two Neo-SSPX Priests Were Torpedoed
Pagliarani (Left), Superior-general, and Bouchacourt, Second Assistant
Newrome Failed to Proceed with “Installing” Them as Newbishops
To Rule over the Novus Ordo-bent Neo-SSPX
Instead, Newrome Is Trying to Lead Them around by the Nose
So that The Naifs Will Eventually, out of Desperation
Take Any Sellout Deal Proposed by the Heretical Newchurch
Newrome Tried to Play the Same Game with Archbishop Lefebvre
But the Sagacious Archbishop Outsmarted Newrome Instead!

Independent traditional Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson avers that a close collaborator of two previous superiors-general of the Neo-SSPX was the source for the rumor that Newchurch Bishop Vitus Huonder would “install” two Neo-SSPX priests as (New)bishops. One of these was to be Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, Second Assistant to the Superior-general. The other would likely have been Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior-general. The two previous Superiors-general referred to would have had to have been Fr. Franz Schmidberger and Bishop Bernie Fellay, because they are the only two still living.

About a week ago, Pagliarani indicated that it would be imprudent to comment on the rumor. There is reason to suppose that his interview was given for the sole purpose of suppressing the rumor, as everything else he said on that occasion was boring and irrelevant. And why would he suppress this rumor? Because the rumor had real substance, but had thereafter been torpedoed by the Conciliar Newrome!

These Newchurch shenanigans are indeed a replay of the situation faced by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. He asked for a new bishop to seal an arrangement. A bishop was promised and promised and promised. But this promise was also delayed and delayed and delayed. Delay is deadlier than denial. The purpose of promises and following delays is to accustom the Neo-SSPX to wait and wait like a woman scorned. The waiter becomes more and more desperate until she will take anything she can get. This makes the Neo-SSPX do more and more to satisfy Newrome that the Neo-SSPX really can work co-operatively with the anti-Catholic Modernist revolutionaries. Hence Pagliarani’s action in Burghclere, England, dismissing the good nuns for the “sin” of refusing to countenance the presence of a Newbishop fox in a truly traditional school for innocent and Catholic children.

Newrome will provide a bishop for the Neo-SSPX only once it has surrendered to Newrome and its anti-Catholic Marxist pagan revolution. But true Catholics must prefer martyrdom to that. There can be no compromise with the revolution, which was hatched ultimately by the devil himself. Any attempt to infiltrate the revolution is prideful because it assumes that the pseudo-traditionalists can outsmart Satan. In fact, only God and our Lady are able to overcome the stratagems and wiles of the fallen angel. Therefore, we must rely on God and not on our own efforts. We must preach the truth of the Gospel in season and out of season, without compromise, in complete affirmation of every traditional Catholic belief and practice. As Bishop Williamson understands, instead of the Neo-SSPX’s fantasy of becoming a Trojan horse in Newchurch, the revolutionaries have put their own Trojan horse, Novus Ordo Newbishop Vitus Huonder, into the Neo-SSPX. He should not be allowed to reside at a Neo-SSPX school, as proposed. If he should ever appear on Neo-SSPX property, he should be removed by the police for trespassing.

Given what is now transpiring in the Neo-Society of St. Pius X, whatever truly Catholic priests remaining therein must now plan their own exit. Our Blessed Lord did not only reprobate all those who are against Him but also those who are neutral: “He that is not with me, is against me” (Matthew 12:30/DRV). The safest place now for a truly traditional Catholic priest is an independent traditional Catholic site. As for affiliation with the loose group known as The Resistance, such affiliation should be considered only in accordance with necessity for provision of Sacraments and only until such time as The Resistance bishops begin resolutely to condemn the Marxist-Modernist Newpope from their pulpits.

The Schizophrenic Church Of Recognize & Resist

The Schizophrenic Church Of R & R

All Traditionalists believe what has been defined and taught by the Church. One of the most basic and ancient expressions of the Faith is the Nicene Creed, composed in part and adopted at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and revised with additions by the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.). Recited at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Church proclaims, “Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.” (I believe) in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” Do the “recognize and resisters” (R&R) of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), or Bishop Richard Williamson’s St. Marcel Initiative, or their apologists (John Salza, Robert Siscoe, The Remnant, etc.) really believe it?

Of course they profess it, and would (correctly) state that the denial of such is heresy. However, upon closer inspection, their refusal to acknowledge sedevacantism has lead to a de facto ecclesiology (teaching on the nature of the Church) which denies the unity of the Church. They believe in a Schizophrenic “Church” whereby there are two distinct–and even contradictory– modes of belief and worship, yet they remain mysteriously unified. Don’t believe me? Let’s examine what the R&R camp says and see if it squares with authentic Church teaching.

The Church Teaching On Unity

 According to theologian Van Noort, “[The Church] enjoys a three-fold unity…unity of doctrine and profession, unity of communion, and unity of government.” (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:126; Emphasis in original).

1. Doctrine and Profession of Faith

“The unity of Faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office.” (Ibid:127; Emphasis in original). Furthermore, “Christ demanded faith not just in some doctrines, but in all those doctrines which authority set up by Him should teach. Consequently, any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles of belief is contrary to the mind and will of Christ…Furthermore…it is impossible to determine a sure standard for distinguishing fundamental from non-fundamental articles” (Ibid:128).

2. Communion

“Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of communion or of (social) charity which consists in this, that all members of the Church, whether as individuals or as particular groups, mutually cohere like the finely articulated parts of one moral body, one family, one single society. It follows from this that they all share the same common benefits: sacrifice [Mass], sacraments, intercession.” (Ibid:128)

3. Government

“Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of rule (hierarchical unity) which consists in this, that all members of the Church obey one and the same visible authority.” (Ibid:130)

Anticipating the objections of  the R&R (as well as Vatican II apologists), who will claim that the Mark of Unity as expressed by the Church does not apply to the sedevacantists because (1) we have different groups (SSPV, CMRI, etc.) and (2) we don’t have a visible authority to follow, a couple of responses are in order.

In a prolonged state of sedevacante, you would expect that novel theological questions would cause rifts. Nevertheless, we profess the Integral Catholic Faith. As Van Noort teaches, “[During the Great Western Schism]…hierarchical unity was onlymaterially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance.” (Ibid:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine)

According to canonist Wernz-Vidal, “… [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that She possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned…” (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454; Emphasis mine). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ.

R&R Ecclesiology

1. There exists “Eternal Rome” and “Modernist Rome,” of which the pope is the head of both. When he speaks for Eternal Rome, you obey. When he speaks for Modernist Rome, you resist.

The Society is fond of quoting from a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, which seems the starting point for their schizophrenic “Church:”

“We adhere, with all our heart, with all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the preservation of that faith, to Eternal Rome, teacher of wisdom and truth. On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendency that clearly manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that resulted from it.”

They put this into practice with disastrous results.

From “Frequently Asked Questions About The SSPX” (“FAQ”)

 (available online at http://archives.sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm):

“We are not to co-operate blindly in the destruction of the Church by tolerating the implementation of a new religion or by not doing what we can to defend the Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre was surely our model here: No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for 19 centuries.”

How can a true pope “implement a new religion”? It’s one thing to say that a pope is not without sin and can do morally evil acts. This is true and in this he is to be resisted (e.g., the pope asks someone to “murder one of my enemies for me”). However, it is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible, i.e., She cannot give that which is false or evil to Her members, such as imposing a “new religion.”

Therefore, the pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments… If She [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in Her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, She would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

“[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

“Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.”

Yet the SSPX and the other R&R recognize Bergoglio, a man they claim is “implementing a new religion” (along with the other post-Vatican II “popes” before him), can be pope over both Modernist Rome (new religion) and Eternal Rome (true religion) simultaneously. Moreover, the true and the false religion seem to “subsist” together in the same overarching “Church” (sound familiar?).

2. The Eternal Rome Can Refuse to Have Communion with Modernist Rome
The SSPX: “Now, the Novus Ordo Missae [New “mass”] assumes these heterodox elements alongside the Catholic ones to form a liturgy for a modernist religion which would marry the Church and the world, Catholicism and Protestantism, light and darkness…If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).” (See FAQ cited above).

According to theologian Szal, to be schismatic, one must meet four requirements:

• one must withdraw directly (expressly) or indirectly (by means of one’s actions) from obediance to the Roman Pontiff and separate oneself from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the faithful, even though one does not join a separate schismatic sect
• one’s withdrawal must be made with obstinacy and rebellion
• the withdrawal must be made in relation to such things by which the unity of the Church is constituted
• despite this formal disobedience the schismatic must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff

(See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 2)

The Church is thereby in schism with itself. The SSPX is part of Eternal Rome with Bergoglio as “pope” and yet they cannot participate in public worship with Modernist Rome which also has Bergoglio as “pope” because their “mass” is Modernist and evil. The idea of an evil “mass” given by a real pope would contradict the dogma of Indefectibility as stated above, and in this case, they are refusing communion in worship with members alleged to be Catholic, just as they are. Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome form the same Church, but somehow have different religions and can’t have unity in communion with each other.

3. The Magisterium of Modernist Rome Needs to be Corrected by Eternal Rome 

The teaching authority of BOTH Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome resides in Bergoglio. However, if Bergoglio (or his “bishops”) make a decision regarding, e.g. annulments and canonizations, the members of Eternal Rome (SSPX) must “correct” his teaching authority.

 A Fr. Gleize,  professor of ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe,  has written an article “Santo Subito: Is There a Problem?” in which he attempts to prove that we can decide which canonizations to accept and which to reject.  Fr. Gleize readily admits that canonizations are held to be infallible:

“Canonization is the act by which the Vicar of Christ, judging in ultimate instance and emitting a definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of the saints a servant of God previously beatified. Canonization has a triple finality and does not refer only to the worship. In first instance, the pope declares that the faithful deceased is in the celestial glory; secondly, he expresses that the faithful deceased deserved to reach this glory for having practiced heroic virtues, which set an example for the whole Church; thirdly, so as to offer more easily these virtues as an example and to thank God for having cause it, he prescribes that the faithful deceased should receive a public cult. On these three scores the canonization is a precept and obliges the entire Church, and it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act.”

Father claims…”it is clear that, by itself, the procedure does not have the rigor of the older one. It is much less exigent in matters of guarantees from Churchmen, so that the divine assistance may insure the infallibility of the canonization, and, with greater reason, the absence of error of fact in the beatification. Besides, Pope John Paul II decided not to follow the present procedure (which disposes that the beginning of the beatification process not take place before five years after the death of the candidate), by authorizing the introduction of the cause of Mother Teresa of Calcutta three years after her passing away. Benedict XVI did the same regarding the beatification of his predecessor. The doubt becomes much more legitimate when one considers the reasons the Church has to act cautiously in these matters.”

He asserts that we are justified to doubt canonizations if a certain procedure is not carried out. However, the Divine assistance of infallibility has never been held by the Church to be dependent upon following a certain preliminary set of actions. He gives no citation for this novel idea. The process of canonization has taken different forms through the centuries, but all that is needed for the declaration to be infallible (according to the First Vatican Council and the teaching of the theologians) is that the pope intends to define a matter of Faith and/or morals as Supreme Teacher of the Church, and he intends to bind the faithful. Decrees of canonization meet this requirement. To assert that canonizations may not be infallible due to some procedural misstep is to admit the possibility that the “saint” might actually be a damned soul held up to be emulated and venerated. That would mean the Church can give evil to its members, which is impossible.

Conclusion

R&R ecclesiology results in a schizophrenic “church,” with two separate faiths lead by the same “pope” in which you must decide for yourself what is good and bad, true and false. Bergoglio’s Vatican II ecclesiology just adds to the confusion by “giving jurisdiction” for SSPX priests to hear confessions and perform marriages for members of his sect. They’re in “partial communion,” after all. The SSPX bishops are also in some strange state with Bergoglio; neither excommunicated, yet without Sees or ordinary jurisdiction.

All of this cannot be reconciled with authentic Church teaching. How much longer before the SSPX seeks to go into “full communion” with Bergoglio, and end the self-created “church within a church”? How much longer can we assume good faith on the part of R&R clerics and their apologists before we can no longer look upon them as Catholics? The only way out is sedevacantism. Being a true Traditionalist means being in the ONE True Church, not some divided concoction that gives both good and evil with clerics speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

○○○

introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com