Lefebvre Straightforward & Louie Verricchio "Highly Confused"
Response to "Will the SSPX Be More "Wonderfully Restored"
By: Eric Gajewski
Who has done the dividing in the SSPX? Answer: Bishop Fellay and the other pseudo traditionalists in the hierarchy of the Society
On the heels of yet
another astoundingly pathetic (interview) given by Bishop
Fellay we are going to take a look at another impotent attempt to try and
defend the Society over any potential unilateral recognition by Modernist Rome (without rebuttal). Modernist Rome who has admitted in times past
that the intent was to bring them under the “Conciliar tent” and essentially
modernize them! How is accepting a one sided recognition from Modernists without rebuttal or first demanding conversion "considered prudence" is beyond me. I will go through the article in question and highlight the
errors, provide related blogs for your review and attempt to provide some
further analysis.
'To seek to reconcile the faith with the modern spirit leads
much further than people think, not only to the weakening of the faith, but to
its total loss.'
First Archbishop Lefebvre:
Archbishop Lefebvre on Getting Close to Modernist Rome
I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, (isn’t that
right,) did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman
authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested
with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood,
they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed
with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated.
These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these
principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in
conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations
with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little
by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They
are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these
ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not
rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and
modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is
not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to
submit to their orientations.
You, cannot, even agree, in this case, to be recognized by churchmen not keeping the Faith. In this way if you say okay you are ultimately accepting and agreeing with them.
Archbishop Lefebvre on the Conciliar Church
“I became aware of this desire of Rome to impose on us their ideas and their way of seeing things. Cardinal Ratzinger always said to me, “But, Monsignor, there is only one Church, you must not make a parallel Church.”What is this Church for him? The Conciliar Church, this is clear! When he explicitly told us: “Obviously, if we grant you this protocol, some privileges, you will also have to accept what we do; and therefore, in the Church of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet, a New Mass will also have to be said every Sunday.”…
You see clearly that he wanted to bring us back to the Conciliar Church. This is not possible because it is clear that they want to impose these innovations on us to put an end to Tradition. They grant nothing out of esteem for the traditional liturgy, but simply to deceive those whom they give it to, and to diminish our resistance, to drive a wedge in the Traditional block to destroy it.
These are their politics, their conscious tactics! They do not make mistakes and you know the pressures they exert …”
There are still too
many who do not see the change of the SSPX on many issues. Whether it is deliberate due to pride or
ignorance (both sin) remains the only question.
First let us show the article then we will follow up:
“From AKACatholic”
Many observers of the
SSPX have been wondering why Bishop Fellay, who in 2013 said of Pope Francis,
“What we have in front of us is a genuine modernist,” has since been
comparatively guarded in his public criticism of the present pontificate.
The information relayed in a recent conference given by Bishop Alfonso
de Galarreta (as reported by DICI)
seems to have provided the answer.
In short, he said that a process has been underway wherein Rome appears to
be on the verge of shelving previous demands and granting formal canonical
recognition to the Society “as it is.”
Bishop de Galarreta even went so far as to predict that Pope Francis will
personally and unilaterally see to it that this happens if necessary:
He [Francis] is going to take his own steps towards recognizing the Society.
He has already begun; he is simply going to continue. And I am not saying what
I desire but what I foresee. I foresee, I think that the pope will lean towards
a one-sided recognition of the Society, and that by acts rather than by a legal
or canonical approach.
This, it appears, is why Bishop Fellay’s public criticism of
Francis has been relatively tempered of late:
Clearly, it would be foolish to risk disrupting a process that appears to be
leading toward what Bishop de Galarreta described as “a rather extraordinary
apostolic opening [that] would have an extraordinary effect.” (We’ll have more
to say about that extraordinary effect momentarily.)
Bishop de Galarreta described that process as one wherein “they [the
authorities in Rome] are taking away their conditions in an effort to succeed.”
This naturally leads to the question that is causing so much consternation
among those who love tradition; an effort to succeed at precisely what?
On this note, there can be no question as to the long term mission of the
Roman authorities: They are Hell bent and determined to promote the conciliar
revolution and construct the ecumenical church-of-man over and against the
Church of Christ.
In other words, they – and by this I mean the overwhelming majority of those
who occupy the highest places in Rome – wish to succeed in effecting either the
Society’s conversion to modernism, or its total demise.
And let us not be naïve; the regularization of the Society (if indeed it
takes place) isn’t going to change that, which is exactly why so many find the
thought so very concerning.
Equally as certain, however, is the mission of the Society as
described in Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration:
We hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith,
morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and
institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as
codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the
Council.
There is likewise no reason to believe that this will change in the
aftermath of formal recognition either.
Bishop de Galarreta did, however, say:
There would then be two risks: that of creating an internal division and
that of conditioning our preaching in certain circumstances.
Let’s consider these points individually.
Internal division is already a fact of life. There’s no doubt that the
“resisters” will make hay over the Society receiving formal recognition, and
may perhaps even succeed in swelling their ranks in the process.
The fact of the matter is, however, division is created by sin and
confusion; not by embracing “an extraordinary apostolic opening,” even if the
latter is leveraged by those who choose to divide.
As for the priests and bishops of the Society conditioning their preaching,
I suspect that Bishop de Galarreta has in mind conciliatory and fearful
silence, like refraining from criticism of the Council, the dangerous words and
deeds of the pope, the dangers associated with the new Mass, etc.
This is an understandable concern, but I think it’s more reasonable to
expect the opposite.
Where prudence currently seems to be leading Bishop Fellay to temper his
speech as the process of recognition continues; once it is completed, I would
expect him to speak all the more loudly and clearly.
Bishop de Galarreta indicated that the Superior General is prepared to
preemptively make this known:
Bishop Fellay told us, ‘before answering this proposal from the Congregation
of the Faith, I am going to write them an exhaustive explanation to make it
very clear how we are and how we act, what we preach, what we do, what we do
not do, and what we are not ready to do’,” – in order to find out if the
Society really is accepted ‘as it is’.
Another concern being widely expressed has to do with the Society finding
itself under the authority of the pope and others who hold official positions
in the Church.
According to the DICI report, Bishop de Galarreta said, “There is always, in
one way or another, a submission to the Roman dicasteries or to the bishops
[attached to Rome’s canonical proposals]. For me, an agreement with today’s
Rome is out of the question.”
What follows is critical:
He added that this is a prudential refusal, dictated by the circumstances –
in the absence of the necessary warrantees for the life of the Society – and he
was careful to distinguish himself from those who make this refusal an absolute.
It remains to be seen exactly what sort of warrantees will be attached to
the Society’s recognition, but I trust that Bishop Fellay will do his part to
secure them.
It would seem to me that the freedom to operate (i.e., to open chapels,
schools and seminaries) apart from the approval of the local ordinary is going
to be a crucial part of any future arrangement, as will some treatment
concerning the consecration of bishops.
Matters of incardination will also need to be addressed; e.g., how will Rome
handle requests from diocesan or religious priests who wish to incardinate in
the Society? (Note: In 1971, Rome readily released secular and regular priests
from their bishops and their religious orders; allowing them to incardinate
with the SSPX. This attitude would later change as hostility toward the Society
grew in the early 1970’s.)
In any case, one has every reason to expect the Society to remain true to
Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1974 statement in the face of any abuse of authority that
puts at risk the future of the Society and the salvation of souls:
No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon
or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the
Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.
As Bishop de Galarreta said, there is nothing to fear. Even so, the
perspective of history may help.
At one time, the International Priestly Society of St. Pius X enjoyed
official recognition and even encouragement from Rome, only to later suffer
unjust treatment at the hands of the Roman authorities, including popes, in
return for their tenacious defense of Catholic tradition.
But what if the Society had never been so punished for its faithfulness?
What would its status be today?
It would arguably be just as it was in 1971, an international priestly
society of common life beholden in any number of ways to the jurisdiction and
pleasure of local ordinaries; e.g., with respect to the establishment of local
houses, chapels, and schools.
As things currently stand, after having been unjustly persecuted, there is
reason to entertain the possibility that the Society may be granted a canonical
arrangement that restores it more wonderfully still; with even greater freedom
of operation than it previously had.
As for the effects such an “extraordinary apostolic opening” might have,
provided the SSPX continues to boldly defend the truth as I fully expect that
it will, the ones that immediately come to my mind are the following:
– Those who hurl accusations of schism against the SSPX will have to find
another means of shameless self-promotion.
– Unsavory collared characters who currently refuse to engage the Society
directly, ostensibly for fear that vulnerable faithful may “leave the Church”
to join them, will have their cowardice plainly exposed.
– Laity who are genuinely confused as to the Society’s status will have
reason to be so no longer.
– Bishops who have cautioned the faithful to stay away from the SSPX on the
grounds that their sacraments lack validity will be without ammunition.
– The Society’s positions with respect to the errors of the Council and the
dangers associated with the Novus Ordo will be legitimized.
This final point is hugely important. As of this moment, I am aware of any
number of priests that agree with the Society’s position on key points, but
dare not say so publicly since lockstep acceptance of Vatican II whole and
entire has historically been treated as the litmus test for so-called “full
communion.” If this prerequisite is removed, public criticism of the Council
will only grow among their ranks.
In spite of all of this, as Fr. Gruner never tired of saying, nothing short
of a pope carrying out the consecration of Russia as requested by Our Lady of
Fatima will bring about the peace we desire.
Even so, who knows? Maybe the Society’s recognition will set in motion the
process that in time will give rise to just such a pope.
Many questions remain, but we can be certain that Satan will redouble his
efforts to prevent any of this from happening, and you know what that means:
It’s time for us to redouble our own efforts with prayer and fasting.
End-
End-
Does this sound like the Archbishop Lefebvre the NeoSSPX tries to pass him off as?
TradCatKnight commentary:
The
first and most obvious problem outside of Bishop Fellay not knowing Catholic
doctrine (Jews are enemies of the Church/Christ) is the admittance of going
quiet, soft and often silent altogether in the mess we call “Bergoglio” (and on other general
matters). To not speak up on these
important matters is sinful. It does not
matter how you want to try and rationalize it. It is sin, period! Louie states
that it would be “clearly foolish to disrupt the process”. This has to be one of the more profoundly absurd
comments by Louie in the article. So… remain quiet in an hour when so many are already
so highly confused all in an effort to be called “ok” by church men who aren’t “ok”. These types of comments by “highly confused”
individuals is part of the problem we find ourselves in these days.
True Charity, for these modernists, would dictate, a preaching of total conversion
on their behalf (removal of the Revolution). True charity would declare a public
renunciation of all the evils coming out of the Vatican..... but not to the
Neo-SSPX, Bishop Fellay and apparently Mr. Louie.
Who
has changed? Louie states, “And let us not be naïve; the regularization
of the Society (if indeed it takes place) isn’t going to change that
(commitment to Tradition), which is exactly why so many find the thought so
very concerning.” Excuse me my good friends
but the Society, as is, right now (before any regularization) has already changed. How does one say they are
committed to Tradition and accept the Council?
That is like saying I am avoiding crack while you see me rubbing off all
the residue on my nose. Please see the evidence in the links provided below (just some of the evidence) which the Neo-SSPX and other pseudo
traditionalists would have you to believe is “internet rumors” but why? Because in reality it is factual and they
cannot argue against it. They can only make rudimentary comments because we can prove without question they have left
Archbishop Lefebvre’s position. Further
their demonizing of the “resistance” helps them to gain the “ignorant” still
searching for a position to hold on to. There are always constant excuses for the behavior's of Fellay and NeoSSPX. I
really do not even need to get into the other areas of the blatant lies and
lack of transparency (http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/03/msgr-pozzo-fellay-is-working-for-us.html)
during these “negotiation’s”.
The glaring change of the Neo-SSPX is their acceptance of Vatican II (which is the pastoral implementation of the Novus Ordo Religion) which Archbishop Lefebvre (as He left things) said we could not do as Catholics.
The glaring change of the Neo-SSPX is their acceptance of Vatican II (which is the pastoral implementation of the Novus Ordo Religion) which Archbishop Lefebvre (as He left things) said we could not do as Catholics.
The question of “internal division”.
Louie makes the implication that it is the Resistance who has caused the
division. And that those who would bail on Fellay's state of grace are divisive. This is pure delusion and
lunacy on his part. Why do we keep
reiterating what Archbishop Lefebvre left behind and the NeoSSPX still try to
conceal it? Why do they use old quotes
from 1933 (sarcasm) on the Archbishop for their defense? Answer:
To try and convince the ignorant who Lefebvre really was (which is not how he left things). The fact is the NeoSSPX misleads greatly
which is in part why I don’t take them seriously any longer. Who puts copyrights on Lefebvre’s work so it
cant be used against them? (see here) Yes, that really has happened. It is only
logical my friends that it is Fellay and his cohorts who have..... and Louie seems
to be another “cheerleader” for the gang much like the “Remnant”.
Embracing an extraordinary apostolic opening. An opening into what you may ask? Answer: The
Conciliar Church which objectively speaking does not house the Catholic
Faith. Yes please leave that door open
so I can join in with all hell’s minions! Sounds great to me how about you? Recently, a high ranking priest of the
Society stated positively that the Society could be used for the new
evangelization! Now, Mr. Verricchio who has caused the confusion? Be honest
next time in your writing. Do us all a
favor…
“We cannot work together with these enemies of Our Lord’s reign.
“We cannot follow these people. They’re in apostasy, they do not believe in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ who must reign. What is the use in waiting? Let’s do the consecration! I suggest the date of the feast of Christ the King, October 25 [1987].”(Archbishop Lefebvre, “Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography” by Bishop Tissier, pp. 548-549)
“We cannot follow these people. They’re in apostasy, they do not believe in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ who must reign. What is the use in waiting? Let’s do the consecration! I suggest the date of the feast of Christ the King, October 25 [1987].”(Archbishop Lefebvre, “Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography” by Bishop Tissier, pp. 548-549)
Continued silence. As if the
sinful silence wasn’t bad enough even one of the Bishops in the Neo-SSPX
recognizes it will probably continue! But not "half glass full Louie". Delusional. They are mainly silent now
and a majority of them are cowards now yet you expect this to get better after a
unilateral recognition. Oh goodness! Furthermore he continues by adding that only "after a
recognition" Bishop Fellay will then open his mouth. Okay let me get this
straight. The NeoSSPX was once
recognized canonically (which many canonists say still remains btw) then
when they spoke up it was “taken away”.
Now this time will be different because the modernists have changed
(insert sarcasm anywhere you would like).
This is beyond confused ladies and gentlemen this is delusional with a capital
D. Besides, given how poorly Bishop
Fellay has been “defending” the Faith as of late, I would just assume him be
more quiet and not speak up. He makes
the Society look foolish more often than the pseudo trads are willing to admit due to pride.
Canonical agreement for a more glorious restoration! None such is needed from Modernists who do
not have the Faith. One "needs not" to be
recognized by those who are openly destroying the Faith. Then once they convert a canonical recognition
would follow (Lefebvre taught Felaly does not). It is complete
illogicality (accepting a unilateral recognition) and wishful thinking by those who try to fit themselves into the
mainstream wilst at the same time say "they are defending Tradition". Pseudo traditionalism is very much an “on the
fence” position. Louie thinks the
NeoSSPX is still boldly defending the truth. Yet the NeoSSPX accepts untruth by
accepting the Council; they claim the New Mass is legitimately promulgated (it
is not); Bishop Fellay has even said the New hybrid Latin Novus Ordo Mass is good! Louie is highly confused to say the least.
"Louie’s effects" from this new apostolic opening: (Pay attention to how “interior
problems” are at the root cause of his impotent suggestions)
~Those who hurl accusations of schism against the SSPX will have to
find another means of shameless self-promotion.
(Who the heck cares the heretics call us names? Self Love much?)
~Unsavory collared characters who currently refuse to engage the
Society directly, ostensibly for fear that vulnerable faithful may “leave the
Church” to join them, will have their cowardice plainly exposed. (Who cared in the first place?)
~ Laity who are genuinely
confused as to the Society’s status will have reason to be so no longer. (Don’t
need a status to be Catholic ask St. Athanasius; no recognition is needed by
modernists this is what needs to be taught as Archbishop Lefebvre did)
~ Bishops who have cautioned the faithful to stay away from the SSPX on
the grounds that their sacraments lack validity will be without ammunition. (They were and still would be without ammo
because they don’t hold the faith. Now add the modernist refugee crisis into the equation. They will flock assuredly)
~ The Society’s positions with respect to the errors of the Council and
the dangers associated with the Novus Ordo will be legitimized. (They
already are on the basis of what Lefebvre said not what Modernist Rome deceptively will overlook. Further one could still argue it is merely
only a trap; the floodgates of the modernists will flock to Society chapels.... as
if there not getting worse already without being recognized.)
~As of this moment, I am aware of any number of priests that agree with
the Society’s position on key points, but dare not say so publicly since
lockstep acceptance of Vatican II whole and entire has historically been
treated as the litmus test for so-called “full communion.” If this prerequisite
is removed, public criticism of the Council will only grow among their ranks.
(The cowardly priests who refuse to open their mouths is a side issue to what
Lefebvre stood for. He said we cant work with them. By being recognized by them
(and SSPX saying thank you) we can say that we are working with them and the
evidence above is glaring already. Oil
does not mix with water. The solution to
the crisis will come from the hand of God not the mouth of SSPX. Chastisements cometh. In the end Archbishop
Lefebvre was clear as to the road to take with Modernist Rome wilst Bishop
Fellay and Louie Verricchio remain “highly confused”.
If your ex-girlfriend was a proven/known rat, cheat and liar why would you consent to her calling you her boyfriend "without rebuttal".... ? I don't want the modernists calling me Catholic. I will let them know I do not accept that and I will still remain Catholic without any nonsensical recognition or agreement. No unilateral recognition, no canonical agreement nor my picture on their latest box of Modernist O's cereal will convince me nor work for me. Convert Modernist Rome, convert!....
Sidenote: I happen to like a decent amount of what Louie writes...
Related on Pseudo Traditionalism:
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2016/01/7-reasons-to-abandon-or-avoid-pitfall.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/01/against-pseudo-traditionalism.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/09/exposing-pseudo-traditionalism.html