"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven,
saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Saturday, February 10, 2018



Father Dominique Bourmaud, a priest with more than 35 years of ordination by Bishop Lefebvre in 1981, is the last of a growing group of SSPX priests who are trying poorly to find fault with the legitimate principles of the Resistance.
In an article entitled "A Deceptive Dilemma," published in the November and December issue of The Angelus, we find Father Bourmaud accusing the Resistance of harboring a schismic mentality or tendency. In this brief post, we will explain the manifest failures of its position and that this accusation is no more than a regurgitation and neopropagation of the broken "prudence" of the FSSP.
Father Bourmaud begins his article by presenting the question of obedience, and rightly points out that much is at stake:
We are dealing with the glory of God and the salvation of souls. This is the dilemma that this article wishes to address. The Church, a society of the faithful founded by Christ, is divine and human. Being divine, it is endowed with papal infallibility and infallibility and even with the mark of holiness. However, being human, the Church itself is composed of fallible men who, often, have failed in their duties given by God ... the unity of government, which rests on the Pope, is at the service of the unity of faith and of the sacraments, and not the other way around.
Nothing to discuss until now. He is absolutely right. And it is precisely for the glory of God and the salvation of souls that we, with sadness, have not only had to disobey Pope Francis, but now we also have to resist and disobey Bishop Fellay and other superiors of the SSPX, because "the unity of government ... is at the service of faith".
Father Bourmaud also exposes this solid teaching:
The superiors have authority over the members of the Church in everything that concerns the spiritual good of the faithful and stimulates their faith and sacramental practice. This privilege and duty belongs to him correlative the rights and duties of his subordinates. The latter, in fact, are obliged to render with respect and obedience their legitimate superiors in spiritual matters. They also enjoy the right to be properly governed by the superiors, whose office is-we can never emphasize this enough-to teach them the faith, morals and correct sacraments. Along with this, subordinates have the right - no, duty! - to resist superiors who fail them in their position. In effect, what should we say of a prelate who would be exercising his God-given authority to alter the sacraments and denigrate the faith? Even worse if, under the protection of his supreme infallible authority, the Pope supposedly taught the opposite of what he has always believed and practiced everywhere. Not only must he not be followed, but he must be publicly reprimanded for publicly deceiving the flock.
We could not agree more. We have the duty to resist superiors who fail us in their positions.
Moreover, we agree that a Pope who teaches the opposite of faith "must be publicly reprimanded." So, why has not the Fraternity, and more specifically Bishop Fellay, reprimanded Pope Francis? Should we believe that it is because there is no just cause? Certainly not.
No, we know the real reason. Bishop Fellay does not believe that it is his duty, he does not believe it is necessary. He himself admitted that he had just saved Amoris Laetitia's correction in his drawer after the "Big Dubia" was broadcast. And yet, even now, with two of the four dead Cardinals (RIP) and the other two staggering and seemingly without value or order, the most that Bishop Fellay could achieve was to sign a papal correction that is of questionable integrity due to the multiple references to Vatican II to justify. But nothing public and exclusively with his name.

Bourmaud continues describing a long line of potatoes that behave badly:
The history of the Church has been long enough to reveal to us these common human weaknesses, especially among high-ranking men, including the Popes, acting more like Machiavellian politicians than like holy pastors.
This is certainly true for Pope Francis today. What also saddens us is that Bishop Fellay also gives us the strong impression of being more of a "Machiavellian politician" than a "holy pastor". The agreement with Rome, although under the guise of "ensuring our preservation as we are", is the key mission.
Father Bourmaud continues:
This right of Catholics to ask a frank discussion of a superior, suspected of failing in his religious duties, is like walking on an alpine ridge. If the superior fails in his authoritarian duty, how can that society maintain the proper order? On the other hand, with what authority can a subject scold his failed superior? This was the delicate situation that Archbishop Lefebvre faced in 1976. This is the situation that traditionalists still face today.
We have requested innumerable times, in private and in public, explanations, clarifications and justifications to Bishop Fellay. The situation that Monsignor Lefebvre faced with Rome is the one we still face today, and we must add a parallel situation with Bishop Fellay himself. He is failing in his duties, so "how can the Fraternity maintain the proper order?" There is no order. Many priests have been expelled. Others have left voluntarily. And even more they have continued protesting from within. But all this seems to mean very little to Bishop Fellay. He will not listen to the reprimands of his subjects.
Bourmaud clarifies the definition of the schism:
The traditionalist movement has been constantly accused of being a sect, a schismatic group ... What then, we ask ourselves, is a schism proper? Canon Law defines it as the stubborn rejection of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. This supposes the recognition that the man on the throne of Peter is legitimately considered as Pope but, along with that, the schismatics stubbornly refuse to recognize their papal authority over them ... Can we call schismatic someone who accepts papal power but refuses to obey him in a given case? No, because the schism consists in the absolute rejection of papal authority, and not only partially.
Good explanation. Keep going...
A bishop said one day to Bishop Lefebvre: "I prefer to be mistaken with the Pope than to be in the truth against him". He answered that Christ is the truth, and then, he preferred to be well with Christ rather than evil with the Pope. Faced with the formidable dilemma that was presented to him: join modernist Rome or separate from Rome, always the line held by the archbishop was "neither heretic nor schismatic." This is not a comfortable position: recognizing a superior who fails is like consulting a doctor with a contagious disease that only he can cure. You want to honor their authority and good advice and, nevertheless, preserve yourself from their lethal virus. Hence, Bishop Bernard Fellay, following in the footsteps of our founder, has always responded to the call of Rome, while making clear demands to protect our traditional identity.
Two important notes of this paragraph before we get to the essence of your article.
1.      Traditionalist Catholics of the Fraternity today face a new dilemma: join the modernist Rome by staying in the FSSPX full of liberalism, or leave the SSPX and remain in many cases without Mass and Sacraments?
2.      "This is not a comfortable position." Recognizing and confronting a wrong superior is not "comfortable". However, we will see below that Father Bourmaud contradicts himself not once, but twice.
P. Bourmaud:
There is a real danger for us as traditionalist Catholics, to ignore, at least practically, the divinely constituted authority of the Pope and the bishops, because we feel comfortable in our current situation and consider it inconvenient to accept even the legitimate mandates of our ecclesiastical superiors.
So it is not comfortable to legitimately resist a superior, but is it because they are too comfortable that we resist excessively? Do you really think it is to avoid an "awkwardness" that we are fighting this fight?
The danger of turning our small communities into religious ghettos lurks on the horizon, and this danger prevails within the so-called resistance movement.
This is the same argument poorly developed by Fr. Schmidberger a few years ago. The threat of developing a "ghetto mentality" by persisting in a strict defense of the Tradition and by not wanting to put ourselves on a voluntary occasion of sin through the assiduous dealings with the modernists. This idea does not even deserve refutation because it refutes itself.
What we can say is that there is a "ghetto mentality" that prevails in the chapels of the Fraternity but not as Fr. Bourmaud suggests. Rather, we see in many chapels a serious lack of hospitality and Christian reception, especially towards the people who visit the parish for the first time. How many women have run to the back not to greet a newly arrived woman, but to promptly notify her of our strict dress code and the need to wear a mantilla before daring to return? How many families have entered and have sat in the back, have they come out into the atrium afterwards to be ignored by every person passing by, leaving sadly and never coming back? Yes, the faithful of the Fraternity love the exclusivity and protection of their rural chapels, often hidden. And they encourage their ghetto mentalities for their general lack of any corporal work of mercy. We are proud to come and have processions for Corpus Christi or the statue of Our Lady of Fatima, but are we going to visit cancer patients in hospitals? Work in the food bank? Are we going to the soup kitchen? To the jails ?! Who has time for these things?
Father Bourmaud would do a better service by writing a corrective exhortation on these predominant themes of the "ghetto," than trying to evoke false ones.
Of course, we can never cooperate in the errors that multiply in the modern Church. However, at the same time, if we hesitate to recognize the authority of the Pope as head of the universal Church, if we refuse to show due respect, reverence and obedience to our ecclesiastical superiors; Do not we practically deny our links with the Roman hierarchy to seek our own loneliness and personal convenience? Does not this attitude approach a schismatic attitude in its own right?
At some point, excessive "respect" becomes more a vain formality and a display of false courtesy than a true respect or reverence. Obedience is subject to justice and is a vehicle of charity, none of which has an indefinite tolerance for Francisco's unbridled modernist doctrine. True charity would address them formally but firmly, and would do so implacably and publicly for the good of the entire world.
As for the question of denying "our ties with the Roman hierarchy", this is a problematic assertion / issue for two reasons:
1.      What agreement can there be between Christ and Belial? Francis is preaching the gospel of the Antichrist. It really is. What ties do we have with him? What ties can we desire?
2.      Again with that idea that we somehow do this for "ease" (or comfort) or "personal convenience". Thousands of faithful traveling for hours each Sunday to access the Sacraments give the impression of ease and convenience? Moreover, we would say that this is not true for the faithful of the Resistance, many of whom have endured not only the persecution of the world and the Novus Ordo, but also the persecution of the faithful of the SSPX, who ridicule and look with contempt, without even understanding a shadow of what the Archbishop taught, nor why he fought. Those who now want to have visible "ties" with Francisco are those who want personal comfort and ease. They want the comfort of an agreement with Rome. Once the personal prelature is signed, no one will be allowed to call us unpleasant "schismatics" anymore.
And finally, to the question of whether or not we are developing a schismatic attitude ... No. We do not. We have a right, firmly rooted in the rights of Christ the King and in the rights of the Mystical Body of Christ, to INSIST unequivocally that the Pope really teaches Catholic doctrine. Resisting a modernist Pope is not a schismatic act, but is our duty and our right. To suggest otherwise is stupid.
And, closer to home, the attitude of examining every word that comes from the mouth of a Superior General, can only raise suspicion and the spirit of criticism among subordinates. Does this promote peace and harmony among souls? Is this really harmonizing the simplicity of the dove with the prudence of the serpent? Is not this rather to ruin the vital channels of grace for each one of us?
If every word that comes out of the mouth of Bishop Fellay is being scrutinized, it is because he himself has provoked it: first with the quasi-suicide of the Fraternity in 2012, and since then with his problematic and weak comments that often contradict not only to the Archbishop, but also to himself in previous years. In the face of such contradiction, we remember the Holy Scripture: "Test all things, hold fast the good, abstain from all appearance of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5: 21-22)
It is not this scrutiny of his words that steals our peace or what creates discord. The recurrent and public desire of Bishop Fellay to formally link us to modern Rome through a personal prelature is what robs us of our peace of soul and is what has led to a lack of concord with the Resistance. It was he who expelled Bishop Williamson, and it is he who departs from the last wishes of the holy Archbishop.
Another weak piece of SSPX propaganda. Three Hail Marys for Father Bourmaud so he can see more clearly.