The Hidden Truth, or the Refusal to See It

The Hidden Truth, or the Refusal to See It

By Fr. Thomas Aquinas OSB
translated by Michael Fuller

source

It is astonishing to see the truth, although public, being ignored.  But what truth are we talking about? Of the most evident facts of the current crisis in Tradition in general and in particular in the Society, and within the reach of all who want to know. Truth unknown, hidden or simply not sought; ignored in all cases, if not to say despised.

Some claim, like Fr. Lourenço Fleichman OSB, that the resistance presents an “argument lacking fundamentals, based on false information" (see  Sobre a Sagração Episcopal).

If there is a need to reiterate what has already been said and to preach in season and out of season, we do not become weary in doing so, since St. Paul exhorts us to.  If there is a need to reproduce the arguments and remind others of the facts, we do not get tired of repeating them and reminding others of them.  Once more we make the diagnosis of the disease that erodes Tradition and threatens everyone with death. This evil is the Catholic Liberalism, plague of modern times, contradiction embodied in the people that embrace it. All of us who most often consider ourselves immune to this universal contagion are susceptible to be victims of this evil.

And so it is necessary to defend the work, thoughts, and intransigent Catholic line of Archbishop Lefebvre that is none other than that of St. Pius X and the entire Magisterium of the Church from its founding up unto the apostasy triggered by the Second Vatican Council.

But before this let us deal with the details; those details without which we are unable to achieve any real diagnosis of the disaster of which we are witnesses. Let us therefore begin with the movement known as GREC (Group for Reflection Among Catholics), and we shall arrive up until  this very day in a very brief review of some important facts that will point to the final cause that motivates and explains them.

In 1995, shortly before his death, the former French ambassador to the Vatican, Gilbert Pérol, wrote an article of "good offices" with the intent to promote a friendly rapprochement between the Society and the official Church.  In this project his wife, Mrs. Huguette Pérol, continued and then a first working structure was established in 1998.

Shortly after, this group took the name cited above, GREC, and reunited members of the SSPX and the progressive clergy.  Over the years this group attracted the attention of the French episcopate, no less than that of Rome.  The objective of GREC, as one of its founders, Father Michel Lelong,  explains “is the necessary reconciliation between Tradition and Rome". [i] An objective mistake, because as Archbishop Lefebvre stated: "Rome has lost the faith ... Rome is in apostasy "(cf. Conference to priests in Ecône during the retreat for priests on September 1, 1987).  

But for GREC, these words of Archbishop Lefebvre do not deserve attention. They are words spoken in a "time of distress" as one of defenders of the line of Bishop Fellay stated.  The members of GREC believe they see events from a higher point, with more serenity, thus targeting an “impossible reconciliation", as Fr. Rioult says very well, reconciliation between two opposing realities: between the true Church, eternal Rome, and the official church, modernist Rome.  The truth is that here we see the crux of the problem in the Society because Menzingen has continued since then to seek this reconciliation advocated by GREC, using its authority to stop criticism of the Holy See i.e., the modernists that occupy it. [ii] This is the reason of Bishop Fellay having asked Bishop Williamson to cease his "Eleison Comments" and not to have made strong criticisms of the last ecumenical meeting of Assisi.

Let us remember, albeit briefly, other facts:

•

Response of April 14th, 2012, by Bishop Fellay, to the other three bishops of the Society, in which he tells his brother bishops that they "lack realism and supernatural spirit";

•

Doctrinal statement of April 15^th, 2012. This statement raised a reaction such that Bishop Fellay found himself compelled to withdraw it.  But he did not retract it even to this day. The Society was and is not yet "ripe" to accept it.  

•

May 11th, 2012, Bishop Fellay gives an interview to the American television channel CNS (Catholic News Service), in which he minimizes the seriousness of the conciliar document "Dignitatis Humanae".

•

In July 2012 the General Chapter of the Society meets without the presence of Bishop Williamson, who was forbidden to be there. The result of this chapter is the abandonment of the decision of the last General Chapter (2006), which established that it would not undergo any practical agreement with Rome without a prior "doctrinal agreement”, in other words, before the conversion of Rome.

•

Shortly after the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from the Society is announced, an expulsion that he considers null; and Bishop Williamson invites Bishop Fellay to resign from his position in order to not to destroy the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.

•

On June 13, 2012 Bishop Tissier de Mallerais manifests himself against the politic of an agreement in an interview with the newspaper "Rivarol", without, however, mentioning Bishop Fellay. Note that Bishop Tissier was transferred from Ecône to a priory in the United States. That is how the seminarians had lost contact with the oldest collaborator of the Archbishop.

In the following months, several statements, public and private, expressed and reinforced the pragmatic policy of the Society in relation to Rome. "Unilateral recognition" is the suitable formula to obtain the acceptance by members of the Society. But this is the same solution accepted by Dom Gerard (Barroux - France) in 1988, as well as Campos in 2002.   A canonical recognition has been sufficient, whether unilateral or not, to create dependence on the modernist authorities and this time allow them to annihilate the whole tradition.  It is not the inferiors that make the superiors, but the superiors that make the inferiors, as Archbishop Lefebvre noted.   It's a simple matter of common sense, but common sense is no longer very common.

It is convenient to recall to mind the iniquitous trials of which Frs. Pinaud and Salenave suffered, trials described and commented on by Fr. François Pivert in the book "Quel droit pour la Tradition catholique?".

Religious communities that did not approve of the Menzingen policy had already been the subject of several measures of pressure and vexation. The list is long.  Recall the postponement of ordinations of the Dominican and Capuchin deacons in 2012. The Benedictines of Bellaigue were also threatened to have the ordinations of their candidates postponed. Now, this is explained if we consider that the superiors of these three religious houses had been in Menzingen to express their disagreement with Bishop Fellay.

However, those who support Bishop Fellay said that that is water under the bridge: the 2012 General Chapter gave a satisfactory solution to the question; which is false. Both Fr. Pflüger, first assistant of Bishop Fellay, and Fr. Alain Nely, second assistant, spoke on the subject, whether in private conversations, or in retreats, and also in public interviews.

You cannot in any way say that all that was problematic in the Society is remedied. If this were true, Bishop Williamson would have been rehabilitated, honored and listened to because that was his initiative in drafting the letter to the General Council, also signed by Bishop Tissier and Bishop de Galarreta, which saved the Society from an agreement with Rome in 2012. Three bishops against the agreement were too much for Rome. It was better to wait for more propitious times.

For Archbishop Lefebvre this opportune moment to express himself- was the conversion of Rome and acceptance of the doctrines of the papal documents Quanta Cura, Syllabus, Pascendi, Quas Primas, etc. But for Bishop Fellay, the propitious times arrived and brought with them the spirit of decreased combat on the part of the Society, i.e. the alignment ("ralliement" in French) that culminated in his statement of April 15, 2012 and continues even without the signature of an agreement.

The conclusion of all this is something amazing and tragic. These facts are public, mostly. Why is there not a greater reaction to Bishop Fellay’s policy? Apparently, it is because liberalism and apostasy already operate within Tradition itself.  Bishop Fellay, assisted by many priests, created a state of disorientation such that many faithful are no longer able to discern anything about what is happening with the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.

That's why we say that the truth about these events remain hidden even though it is public.  It would be a good time to quote the famous phrase of Chesterton, the following: "The modern world is run by a hidden force that is called publicity". What matters, as a friend of ours has said, are not the facts, but the version of the facts. Now the triumphant version is that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure are disobedient and that the superiors of the Society are the true followers of Archbishop Lefebvre. This is false, as we demonstrate. This is the heart of the problem..

"Now is your hour and the power of darkness" (Luke. XXII, 53).  Maybe the Resistance has to survive as the apostles and disciples did while scattered about during the time of the Passion. It is useful to recall a reflection from the great Brazilian thinker, Gustavo Corção: “ I do not believe in any work nowadays bringing together a large number of people". Perhaps the resistance is the  opusillus grex to what Our Lord urged not to fear because it pleased the Father to give you the kingdom. That the protection of the Blessed Virgin may keep us faithful to the end! "Ut Fidelis inveniatur".

Fr. Thomas Aquinas OSB

April 1st, 2015

_________
[i] Pour la nécéssaire réconciliation, Nouvelles Éditions Latines, 2011, p. 15.
[ii] Ibidem, p. 50.

Liberal Media Reports: Ultra-traditional Catholics rebel against pope in Brazil: ‘He is less Catholic than us’

LIBERAL MEDIA REPORTS: BISHOP FAURE STATES THAT TWO MORE BISHOPS THINK LIKE HIM AND BISHOP WILLIAMSON

 At a secluded monastery outside Nova Friburgo in Brazil, a breakaway group of ultra-traditional Catholics has gathered to participate in an act of rebellion against the pope. Photograph: Jonathan Watts for the Guardian

Hailing from around the world, a group led by an excommunicated bishop call themselves a ‘resistance’ movement against Vatican reforms. The response from the Vatican was swift and unequivocal: ‘Excommunication is automatic’

In a secluded monastery in south-eastern Brazil, a breakaway group of ultra-conservative Catholics gathered to participate in an act of rebellion against the pope.

The setting could hardly have been more tranquil: rolling green hills, purple-glory trees, palm leaves swaying in the wind and a temporary chapel made of breeze block walls and a tin roof left partially open to the elements.

But the 50 or so priests, Benedictine monks, nuns and other worshippers who file into Santa Cruz monastery on Saturday were no ordinary congregation. Hailing from Europe, the US and Latin America, they described themselves as a “resistance” movement against Vatican reforms.

In favour of Latin services – and fiercely opposed to ecumenism, freedom of religion and closer relations with Judaism – they had come to defy the authority of Rome with the ordination of a new priest by an excommunicated bishop, Jean-Michel Faure.

It was the second such ceremony in the past month: Faure was consecrated here without papal approval only two weeks ago by the Holocaust-denying British bishop Richard Williamson. In response, both clerics were automatically ejected from the church, but this has not stopped the group’s drive to build an unsanctioned clergy.

The ceremony harked back to an earlier, more conservative age. Women sat on one side of the aisle, their heads – even the youngest girls – covered in scarves. Over three hours, the liturgy was almost entirely in Latin, as were the hymns sung by a choir of monks accompanied by a nun on an electric organ.

Before his ordination, brother André Zelaya de León prostrated himself before the altar and then rose to his knees for a blessing on his tonsured head by Faure. At times, the prayers were so quiet that they almost drowned out by the cicadas and birds in the trees.

After the mass, Faure told the Guardian the Vatican was smashing tradition, and going against the teachings of Pius X, a staunch conservative who was pope between 1903 and 1914.Apart from the digital cameras, cellphones – and the electric organ – the ceremony would have been recognisable to centuries of Catholic believers before what today’s ultra-conservatives consider to be the wrong turn taken by the Catholic church with the democratising reforms of the 1962 Second Vatican Council.

“We do not follow that revolution. The current pope is preaching doctrine denied by Pius X. He is less Catholic than us,” he said. “He does not follow the doctrine of the faith that are the words of Jesus Christ.”

The Vatican’s response to the ordination was unequivocal.

“Excommunication is automatic,” a spokesman said. He added: “For the Holy See, the diocese of Santa Cruz in Nova Friburgo does not exist. Faure can say what he wants, but a Catholic, and even more so a bishop, obeys and respects the pope.”

Faure, a French cleric who has worked in Mexico and Argentina, said he did not accept this ruling.

“Canon law states that excommunication is valid if it follows a mortal sin. But ours is not a mortal sin. We’re just following our religion. To do this, we need priests, and to have priests we need bishops.”

He compared his situation to that of other Catholics in history, such as Joan of Arc, who were initially excommunicated but later recognised for their contribution to the Church. “Although we are a minority now, if you look at history, we are a majority. There all the saints, 250 popes and all the Catholics who think exactly as we think.”

FacebookTwitterPinterest

 Women sat on one side of the aisle, their heads – even the youngest girls – covered in scarves. Photograph: Jonathan Watts for the Guardian

Faure said he only reluctantly become a bishop in case Williamson died in an accident, which would leave the group without the means to ordain priests.

Though he did not say it, the French bishop may also be replacing his British counterpart as a spokesman for the movement. Williamson has repeatedly stirred up controversy with comments denying the Holocaust, praising the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, as a peacemaker, warning that Muslims are taking over Europe, and claiming that women are dominating corporations and the military because they are not fulfilling their natural role “making babies”.

Williamson was one of four bishops illegally ordained in 1988 by a French Roman Catholic archbishop called Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of St Pius X and an outspoken critic of the liberalisation of certain church practices following the Second Vatican Council, including the widespread use of vernacular language rather than Latin in mass, inter-faith dialogue and efforts to communicate with the secular world.

Lefebvre and all four bishops were immediately excommunicated for participating in the illicit ordinations, but their movement has been a thorn in the Vatican’s side ever since.

Only about one million Catholics – or 0.1% of the Catholic population – describe themselves as followers of St Pius X, but successive popes have attempted to heal the rift with them.

In 2009, Pope Benedict ignited controversy by lifting the excommunication of the four bishops and even promised the rebel group autonomy from bishops they considered too liberal.

This quickly backfired when it was revealed that Williamson had alleged that no Jews were killed in gas chambers, that the US orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks and that freemasons were conspiring to destroy Catholicism. 

The Vatican said at the time that Benedict had not been aware of Williamson’s views on the Holocaust. In 2012, Williamson was dismissed by the St Pius X fraternity in part because he disagreed with their willingness to communicate with Rome. Faure has also been ejected by the society and his ordination unrecognised.

“All the declarations of Bishop Williamson and Fr Faure prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner,” the society said in a communique issued after his ordination.

In contrast to his predecessor, Pope Francis has paid little attention to the ultra-conservatives.

Williamson has declared that he does not intend to start a new society, but the movement has now created a new bishop and a priest, and Faure claimed that there were at least two bishops in the Society of St Pius X who sympathised with the self-styled “Resistance”.

FacebookTwitterPinterest

 A ceremony at the monastery outside Nova Friburgo in south-eastern Brazil. Photograph: Jonathan Watts for the Guardian

In conversation, the traditionalists appear to be hoping for a divine and dramatic intervention. Williamson, who describes himself as a “bloody-minded Brit”, has said he expects a “gigantic chastisement” such as Noah’s flood.

Faure talks more of a coming third world war.

“It would be horrible, but it would change the world. But the day after wouldn’t be like the day before,” Faure said, pointing to the conflicts in Ukraine, Syria and Iraq. “It would change many things in the world. It would be a new approach in many aspects and why not, in religion.”

For the moment, however, their group of roughly 55 rebel clergy has to rely on stubborn faith.

René Trincado, a priest from Chile, who was expelled from the Society of St Pius X in 2013 because he opposed an accord with the Vatican, is among those at the Santa Cruz monastery, which he described as the base of the resistance operations in Brazil.

“We’re not afraid of excommunication. It has no validity,” he said

SOURCE

Dominicans of Avrillé: Honey and Gall in Menzingen

Dominicans of Avrillé:  Honey and Gall in Menzingen

By Amicus Romanus                                                     SOURCE

Translation provided by Michael Fuller from Spanish

From the same mouth spews forth bitterness and gall and sweetness and honey, but not in the same direction. 

-Towards Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure, it's all bitterness. 

-Towards conciliar Rome, it's all sweetness. 

The communiqué fromMenzingen regarding the March 19th consecration offers a truly impressive contrast. 

I. Only gall!

Joseph's brothers could not speak peaceably to him, as much as they looked on (Genesis 37:4). From Menzingen, don't expect one single kindhearted word of recognition or of charity towards Bishop Williamson or Bishop Faure, after their decades of good, loyal service.  Menzingen only thinks of denouncing them: "The SSPX denounces the episcopal consecration of Rev. Fr. Faure".  At least this is clear, but why this denunciation?  What is reprehensible in this consecration?  This is something much more sinister.  A very strong animosity is felt, but many rational arguments are not discerned.  And even worse: it tastes of bitterness!  Menzingen seems unable to speak objectively simply respecting the facts about the two bishops. At all costs, they must deform and dirty the intentions, dirty the reputation of people.  The tendency seems unstoppable. 

1. "Against any relations"

First example: the relations with Rome.  Everyone knows that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay oppose each other on this point.  The former estimates (whether he is right or not is not the question here) that the latter lacks the necessary strength to decidedly oppose -face to face- the errors of the Roman authorities; instead of impressing his interlocutors -like Archbishop Lefebvre- by frontally reminding them of the inopportune truths, he lets himself be impressed by them. 

More fundamentally, the opposition is about the finality of the negotiations. For Bishop Williamson, there is only one objective: that the Roman authorities abjure from all the modernist and liberal errors and everything that has resulted.  Meanwhile, Bishop Fellay dreams of a canonical recognition, even before the conversion of the authorities. 

All of this is notoriously public.  The question is not to know if it is necessary or not to discuss with Rome, but how and with what finality to go about with these discussions. 

Menzingen could easily say it in one word: Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson differ regarding the discussions with Rome.  This is clear, simple, true, and perfectly objective. 

But no! Menzingen could not be resolved to call it how it is.  The necessity to dirty the reputation was too violent.  Distrusting the evidence, Menzingen declared that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure are "against any relation with the Roman authorities".  But they have explicitly declared the contrary (even on the eve of the consecration), but that doesn't count.  Apparently, Menzingen knows more about what they themselves think!

2. "It is not at all comparable"

Second example: the comparison between the 1988 consecration and the 2015 consecration.  The differences and similarities can be argued a long time.[i] At least it is unarguable that the nature of the act is the same.  There was a paternal link (through Bishop Williamson, Archbishop Lefebvre is now the "grandfather in episcopacy" of Bishop Faure).  Archbishop Lefebvre himself had contemplated consecrating Jean-Michel Faure.  The state of necessity in the Church has not diminished since 1988.  Finally, Bishop Williamson has the same discourse that Archbishop Lefebvre had at the time. 

Different circumstances of times, places, or manner can always be disputed, but Menzingen doesn't even attempt it.  Their communiqué simply declares that "the episcopal consecration of Fr. Faure is not at all comparable with the consecrations of 1988".  You read that right: not at all.

Among all the ways of criticizing the 2015 consecration, Menzingen chose the most expedient, the most extreme, the most insupportable, to reject as a whole.  "It is not at all comparable."  It is integral negationism.

3. "All the declarations..."

We approach the apex.  And here finally "all the declarations of Bishop Williamson and Rev. Fr. Faure prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities".  

This is the accusation that kills: sedevacantism!  An outright accusation alleged without even a minimal, faint shadow of a doubt.  We are very far from interrogative-negative formulas or from the dimmed allusions of Bishop Fellay when he tries to emit reserves about Pope Francis (we don't understand...", "We have the impression...").  Here Menzingen understands very well and is certain.  This confession was not made once, by surprise or by halfhearted words, it's in "all the declarations" of the wicked bishops.  Yes all of the declarations!  Faith in Menzingen!

Moreover, Menzingen realizes that there might be, among the readers of the communiqué, some readers of Bishop Williamson that can be a little surprised because they have read exactly the opposite.  Not only does Bishop Williamson recognize the Roman authorities, but he has frequently argued against sedevacantism (and in a more convincing way than Bishop Fellay, who is content with presenting it as a scarecrow).

Those who have read Fr. Faure (notably the interview before his consecration) can experience the same surprise, and even think that good Bishop Fellay lies, or at least that he says just about anything.

Happily, the bile reserve has not run dry.  To prevent against any embarrassing question, it is sufficient to accuse them, Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure, of lying.  All of their declarations affirm that they recognize the Roman authorities?  It doesn't matter!  It is simply that they don't believe what they say.  They are only words in the air, empty, rhetorical spins.  And Menzingen, which really knows better than what they themselves are thinking, finishes:  "All the declarations [...] prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner".

This is what we call, in good French, a judgment of intention.  It is the preferred tactic of subversives (communists, masons, etc.), because it is very difficult to counteract.  You all can respond however you like, it matters little, because we have put forward the principle that you do not really believe what you say.  State ten times that you recognize the Roman authorities, undertake the work of refuting the sedevacantist arguments: we content ourselves with responding that your insistence on this point is suspicious and confirms, once more, that you don't absolutely recognize the mentioned authorities "except in a purely rhetorical manner".

A simple question for Bishop Fellay: conscientiously and before God, is it truly correct that this polemical procedure is in complete conformity with the Gospel?

II. Only honey!

But the most impressive is the contrast.

After all, Menzingen could be suffering from a toothache or had a bad night when they wrote up their communiqué.  This could explain the bitterness. 

But the sweetness?

Well, reread attentively: is it not evident that they have left out from this communiqué any expression that could constitute a minimal possibility of risk of displeasing conciliar Rome?

1.  “State of necessity” without an identifiable cause.

“The Society of St. Pius X still maintains that the present state of necessity renders legitimate its action throughout the world”.—But where does this state of necessity come from?  It seems to float in the air without a cause and without an explanation other than the evil of the times.  Menzingen mentions it as if it verifies the rain or the sun and does not remember even once that the harm comes firstly from the pope and the Holy See that propagate, since 50 years ago, mortal errors to souls.

-Shush! Shush! Warning! You are going to offend Rome!

2.  The limited bishops and the administering of the sacraments.

Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops so that they could ordain priests, this is certain, but also to defend the faith and combat the current errors, moreover, the modernist and liberal errors spread by the conciliar hierarchy.

Apparently, this has ended.  For Menzingen, the bishops must no longer combat the errors.  The communiqué explains that Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops in 1988 and “his sole goal was to make available to the faithful the sacraments which priests ordained by the bishops would offer”.

“[T]he sole goal”: the state of necessity in the Church is limited to the sacraments- and what about the doctrinal crisis?  What about the errors of conciliar Rome, the neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendency so frequently denounced by Archbishop Lefebvre?

-Shush! Shush! Warning! You are going to offend Rome!

3.  Errors that who knows from whence they come.

Nevertheless, there are errors. Menzingen indicates that it is necessary to oppose them.  In its martial fit of rage, the communiqué goes all the way to valiantly declaring that the Society must oppose the errors “from wherever they may come”!  And just from where do they come?  They won’t tell us anything else!

-Shush! Shush! Warning! You are going to offend Rome!

Bishop Fellay, accused by Bishop Williamson of gleaming in front of conciliar Rome, should have taken advantage of the occasion to prove otherwise.  Some words against the neo-modernist and neo-protestant Rome would have been particularly adequate.  The very situation even seemed to require it. But no!  Not a single word.  Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure are scorned, but modernist Rome is in no way denounced.

And regarding this, one of the two applies:

·         Either (a suspected plotter) whoever the newly responsible for the communiqué from Menzingen was is a secret ally of Bishop Williamson: he treacherously works to discredit Bishop Fellay publishing, in his name, communiqués crafted liberally (sickly-sweet for the enemies of the faith, bitter for its defenders).

·         Or the communiqué really expresses the way Bishop Fellay thinks, and so the joy that Archbishop Pozzo promptly directed to the SSPX for this beautiful communiqué is understood.

P.S. Secondary consideration

It is curious that Menzingen always expresses itself as if the state of necessity that afflicts the Church was its own territory or its private property.  Only the SSPX can seemingly invoke it in order to justify its apostolate.

Lastly, Menzingen seems to attribute to itself a supreme, extraordinary jurisdiction almost like the pope exercises the supreme ordinary jurisdiction.  This perspective would explain the reason that Menzingen believes it is authorized to “denounce” the consecration of Bishop Faure: an attempt against its monopoly.

If this is not the case, well then what is it?  A personal prelature already agreed upon by Rome -secretly- to Bishop Fellay?

_________________________________

[i] Regarding the differences, Menzingen emphatically underlines “some hundreds of journalists from around the world” that were present in 1988.  Visibly, for Bishop Fellay this is very important.  We need to ask him if the journalists -in his opinion- were present for the first episcopal consecration on the night of Holy Thursday.