"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, June 30, 2018

The SSPX Debacle…

The SSPX Debacle…
By:  Eric Gajewski
Analyzing the latest from Neo-trad Zionist Bishop Fellay.  An agreement coming?

Still red-light on the Neo-SSPX.  Resistance to Fellay and the False Trad world is more than justified!  The reality is this.  You will not get the truth about Lefebvre from the Society and their false trad affiliates like the Remnant.  They paint a very different Lefebvre that truly didn’t exist (but only in their minds so as to be accepted by heretics).  Well those awake in the true “traditional” world knew it wouldn’t be long before Bishop Fellay would make headlines yet again for the wrong reasons.  Those in the Resistance (and even Sedevacantists) have been highlighting the errors coming from the Society for quite some time with the latest being Zionism that obviously has “run over” their chapels.  More on that later though.  Just a few days ago Fellay gave another interview and it was another “doozy”  which further exposed him for being the false trad that he is.  Upon posting a few comments this morning on social media I had the Neo-SSPX’ers responding to me saying I am the one causing the division.  These people have their heads so far up Fellay’s rear end that these people unfortunately cannot see clearly.  It is pride that keeps them from ever analyzing the situation objectively.  The “SSPX can do no wrong” mentality because it is guided by the Holy Ghost one lady told me this morning.  You cant help these people largely just like you cant with those following Vatican II sadly.  Let me discuss and break down this latest disaster from Fellay and reiterate why I am “red-light” on the Neo-SSPX.

Before diving into the interview someone had recently asked me if the Neo-SSPX has formally adopted Salza heresy in relations to a “heretical Pope” still being Pope until removed.  The fact that the Neo-SSPX and the other false trad websites like the Remnant stand behind his work is proof they are complicit in this heresy in the very least.  I do not recall seeing any direct article on the SSPX website promoting this “Salzaian” heresy (like the Remnant and other false trad websites do) however virtually all their “theologians” have signed off on it including Fellay.  This alone makes them heretics Fellay included as Fr. Kramer points out.  Heresy is rampant these days in so called traditional land which in reality only constitutes the “false right” that the New World Order controls.

Second, on the basis that it is very clear SSPX are now full-blown Zionists we can say they must be avoided.  This is another reason to be red light on the Neo-SSPX.  Not properly teaching on the Jews and condemning Zionism will land you a spot in hell.  For those who missed my video please see below.  The Neo-SSPX gets worse by the day and I saw this coming many years ago before I left their churches.  And please don’t give me “they are the best I got around me routine.” You know how I’m going to respond to that.  We are an “all in” religion.  You are either for the truth or not the Society doesn’t hold the truth anymore and continues to move in the wrong direction.  They cant even properly identify heresy coming from the “Council” anymore.  That is one of the next topics.

"Zionist-NeoSSPX (False Right) Connection"  

The good news is this.  More and more people are beginning to see how I have been right all along (even in the Resistance) over the question of being “red- light” on the Neo-SSPX.  As I am writing this several people have commented on facebook as to how they can’t believe Fellay is saying such things.  Well, I can and it was just a matter of time before his own foot would be caught in his mouth yet again.

No heresy in Vatican II?  I have covered this topic in years past.  The Neo-SSPX and their ilk like suspected Mason John Salza do their best to have you believe there is no heresy in Vatican II.  Just mere mistakes if you will.  But is this the case?  Is this what Lefebvre taught his followers of whom Fellay was one of them?  How could they possibly mess this area up?  Is it any wonder why Fr. Hesse had problems with a lot of these neo-trads like Salza while he was alive?  Is it any wonder why Louie Verrecchio, Ann Barnhardt, Fr. Kramer and myself all get the “axe” from these false trad websites?  They think they are “the monopoly” on Tradition but the reality is they are not leading anyone who is truly Catholic.  They are not even real traditionalist’s.  They are false trads to be avoided.  Salza, Siscoe and Gaspers telling people to fall in line with the pseudo trad status quo and even threats to those who don’t.  They live in a delusional world where they gather with other "persons of poison" and think they are “leading the masses”.  Not hardly.  As Our Lady of LaSalette said of these times it would be FEW who saw clearly and the false trads slip further and further away from truth on a daily basis.  Thank God for His Justice program coming to level the playing field in the days ahead.

Error is not heresy?  Novelty is not heresy?  As these pseudo theologians and intellectuals continue to open their mouth on this crisis the more we realize just how unsound they are.  Look at this,We never said that the council directly made heretical statements.” And the wall of protection against error has been removed, and in this way error has arisen. The faithful need protection.”  What is worse is that Fellay now uses heretic Michael Matt’s own verbiage, the “Council of the Media!”  “But not all those who criticize the "Council of the Media", including the emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, are making it a conflict at the point of bring excommunicated.”  The reality is there is heresy coming from the Council itself which Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out.  “This Second Vatican Council Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.”  Fellay now contradicts Lefebvre by saying the “Council” is a legit Catholic Council.  My goodness yet another reason to be red light on the Society these days.  Take a look at the quotes below from Lefebvre on Vatican II:

On the Vatican II Council

-“The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism… A wholly different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy! Very grave! A total perversion! How we are going to get out of all this, I have no idea, but in any case it is a fact, and as this German theologian shows (who has, I believe, another two parts of his book to write on the Holy Father's thought), it is truly frightening. So, they are no small errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)

-“…it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy, despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.” (from I Accuse the Council)

-“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

-“It is stupefying to read in the Documentation Catholique that the Lutheran-Catholic Commission of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and thus an official Roman commission, said in effect that numerous points in the Council were drawn from the teachings of Luther…” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)

-“Some say the Council was good and has good, but only the reform is bad. But that is not true! Why? Because when Rome gave the reform, they always say the reforms they do, they do in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council! It is evident that all reform came from the Council, and if the reform is bad, it is impossible that the Council is good and all reforms are bad. Because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome!” (Conference, May 11, 1976)

-“This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth! That is impossible.” (Conference, May 11, 1976)

-“This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt. It comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform.” (Declaration of Faith, November 21, 1974)

-“We can think that there is Rome and Rome: [on one hand,] there is the Rome which is eternal in Her Faith, Her Dogmas, Her concept of the Sacrifice of the Mass; [on the other hand,] there is the temporal Rome which is influenced by the ideas of the modern world, an influence which the Council itself did not escape.” (October 13, 1974)

-“The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is religious freedom, it is ecumenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)


I wont even get into how Fellay makes it seem how the “excommunications” were valid and licit from this article.  I have covered that enough as well.  The slippery slide down the ride called pseudo traditionalism continues.

Is Fellay a Masonic plant?  Some of you are asking this.  I have seen the photos as I’m sure you have of Fellay giving a masonic handshake.  Or Is he just bending to human respect?  Or maybe bending to the almighty pocketbook just like the other false trad websites do?  It has to be something for how can so many in the Society including himself fall from the position Lefebvre left behind?  He might be a plant just like John Salza.  I don’t know but even if one suspects another of being a plant or holding some type of Masonic/Zionist affiliation (as you should by now) we are told to avoid them.  Yet another reason to be red-light.

Why didn’t Ratzinger support Lefebvre’s suspicions of Masonic Rome?  Fellay fails here in this section by making it seem Lefebvre didn’t know Ratzinger was a rat.  He flat out called him one.  Furthermore, look at all these quotes!  Does this sound like the same SSPX to you anymore wherein Fellay is now suggesting that Rome and Francis can be trusted?  Have things not got worse my friends?  You don’t find all these quotes I leave behind anymore on the Neo-SSPX website or on their false trad affiliates for obvious reason.  They don’t want you to know the truth.  It is simple.

  Rome Cannot be Trusted

-“For fifteen years we dialogued to try to put the tradition back in its place of honour, in that place in the Church which it has by right. We ran up against a continual refusal. What Rome grants in favour of this tradition at present is nothing but a purely political gesture, a piece of diplomacy so as to force people into compromise. But it is not a conviction of the benefits of Tradition.” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)

- “When they say they [Dom Gerard and the Fraternity of St. Peter] don’t have to give anything up, that’s false. They have given up the ability to oppose Rome. They cannot say anything anymore. They must remain silent given the favours that have been granted them. It is now impossible for them to expose the errors of the Conciliar Church. Softly, softly they adhere, even be it only by their Profession of Faith that is requested by Cardinal Ratzinger. I think Dom Gérard is about to publish a small book written by one of his monks on Religious Liberty and which will try to justify it. From the point of view of ideas, they begin to slide ever so slowly and end up by admitting the false ideas of the Council, because Rome has granted them some favours of Tradition. It’s a very dangerous situation” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)

-“The bishops concerned - the supposedly conservative bishops - are wholly supportive of the Council and of the post-Conciliar reforms, of ecumenism and of the charismatic movement. Apparently, they are being a little more moderate and showing slightly more traditional religious sentiment, but it does not go deep. The great fundamental principles of the Council, the errors of the Council, they accept them and put them into practice. That is no problem for them. On the contrary, I would go so far as to say that it is these conservative bishops who treat us the worst. It is they who would the most insistently demand that we submit to the principles of the Council.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“For them there is no question of abandoning the New Mass. On the contrary. That is obvious. That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“I admit that the optimism I showed regarding the Council and the Pope was ill-founded.” (Letter to Andre Cagnon, January 6, 1988, Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography, p.331)

-“There will be possibly other manifestations of putting the brakes on by the Vatican; and it is very, very dangerous for us to "rally" ourselves now. No rallying, no rallying to the liberals; no rallying to the ecclesiastics who are governing in the Church now and who are liberals; there is no rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us on the Mass of St. Pius V - certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually... They must give us back everything. They must give up their liberalism, they must come back to the real truth of the Church, to the faith of the Church, to the basic principles of the Church, of this total dependence of society, of families, of individuals on Our Lord Jesus Christ! At that moment when they give us the Mass of all times, very well, then, we are completely in agreement. Then there will be a perfect understanding, we will be able to be recognized, and we will have no more scruples. But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas.” (Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre to the priests of the District of France. Dec. 13, 1984)

-“That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.” (Sermon June 30, 1988)

-“For them, their goal is to divide Tradition. They already have Dom Augustin, they have de Blignièreres, and now they have Dom Gérard. This weakens our position still further. It is their goal: divide to make us disappear.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)

-“These are fabrications. If ever there were a willingness from Rome to resume discussions, this time, I will be the one to set down the conditions. As Cardinal Oddi said, “Archbishop Lefebvre is in a strong position.That is why I will demand that the discussions concern doctrinal points. They have to stop with their ecumenism, they have to bring back the true meaning of the Mass, restore the true definition of the Church, bring back the Catholic meaning of collegiality, and so on. I expect from them a Catholic, and not a liberal, definition of religious liberty. They must accept the encyclical Quas Primas on Christ the King, and the Syllabus (Pius IX). They must accept all this, because this is from now on the condition determining all new discussions between us and them.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)

-“It is imperative to know that today Rome is at the service of the revolution and therefore terribly anti-traditional. That is why I refused to put myself in their hands. They only wanted that, by recognizing my mistakes, I help them continue their revolution in the Church – no more, no less. All those who have left us are not aware of the situation and believe in the good will and the rectitude of thought of the bishops or cardinals in Rome. Nothing is further from the truth! ‘It is not possible for them to lead us into the revolution,’ say those who agree with the Pope and his bishops. Well, that is exactly what will happen.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)

-“And I even wrote to him [Dom Gerard]. We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council; we must not have relations with them. Dom Gérard replied that his case was different and that he would try anyway. I do not approve.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)

-“It is time to take a second decision to face up to this Rome. What else can we do? And if they insist that it is worse this time round, because this time it could mean excommunication, well, I reply that the basic problem remains unchanged: Rome means to exterminate Tradition.” (Recommendations to the Four Bishops-Elect, June 12, 1988)

-“I think that it is that outlook that should guide us in our present situation. Let us not deceive ourselves by believing that by these little braking actions that are given on the right and on the left, in the excesses of the present situation, that we are seeing a complete return to Tradition. That is not true, that is not true. They remain always liberal minds. It is always the liberals who rule Rome, and they remain liberal. But, as the Cardinal says, they have gone a bit too far; they have to find a little balance.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)

-“Upon reflection, it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion during these meetings.” (Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 24, 1988)

-“It is obvious that by putting themselves in the hands of the present conciliar authorities, they [Ecclesia Dei priests] implicitly accept the Council and the reforms that came from it, even if they receive privileges which remain exceptional and provisional. Their acceptance stops them saying anything. The bishops are watching them.” (Letter to Fr. Daniel Couture, March 18, 1989)

-“Then there are some who would be ready to sacrifice the fight for the Faith, by saying: Let us first re-enter the Church! Let us do everything to re-enter in the official public structure of the Church. Let us be silent about our dogmatic problem. Let us be silent about our fight. Let us not speak about the malice of the [new] Mass anymore. Let us close our mouths and say nothing anymore. Let’s not be opposed to that. Let’s not say anything anymore about the issues of religious liberty, of human rights and of ecumenism. Let’s be silent. Let’s be silent and like that we will be able to re-enter into the structure of the Church. We will please those who are in the Church. We are going to re-enter like that into the Church, and once we will be inside the Church, you will see, we will be able to fight, we will be able to do this, we will be able to do that… This is absolutely false! You don’t enter into a structure and under superiors, saying that you will overthrow everything as soon as you are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They have all the authority.” (Conference December 21, 1984)

--“We cannot place ourselves under an authority which has liberal ideas, which will necessarily lead us, little by little, by force of circumstances, to accept liberal ideas and all the consequences of these liberal ideas, which are the new Mass, the changes in the liturgy, the changes in the Bible, the changes in the catechism – all the changes… We say: But they fought against the catechism!... This is simply ‘putting on the brakes’ because it goes so far that it was necessary to ‘put on the brakes’ a bit. And the same for the theology of liberation, the same for all that is happening now in the Church and which, of course, frightens them a bit. The consequences of their own principles frighten them. So they ‘put on the brakes’ on the right and on the left, but they are determined to keep liberal ideas. There is no question of changing the liberal ideas.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)

Although Conciliar Rome’s lying has often been proven to be a fact, it is never useless [for them] to try, since they will always find some who will take the bait.(Letter to Mgr. de Galarreta and priests, seminarians and faithful in South America, July 16, 1989)

“Most of our priests, seminarians and faithful do not delude themselves and are convinced that it is impossible to trust the authorities of the Conciliar Church for as long as they profess such errors.”(Letter to Mgr. de Galarreta and priests, seminarians and faithful in South America, July 16, 1989)

- Fideliter: Since the Episcopal Consecrations in June of 1988 there have been no more contacts with Rome, however, as you told us, Cardinal Oddi telephoned you saying: “We must come to an agreement. Make a little apology to the Pope and he is ready to welcome you”. Then why not try this final step, and why does it seem impossible to you?
Archbishop Lefebvre: It is absolutely impossible in the present climate in Rome which is becoming worse and worse. We must be under no illusions. The principles now directing the Conciliar Church are more and more openly contrary to Catholic doctrine. … Lastly, the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. All the false ideas of the Council are continuing to develop and to be re-stated with ever more clarity. They are more and more coming out into the open. It is therefore absolutely unthinkable that we should accept to collaborate with such a hierarchy. (Fideliter no. 79 January – February 1991)

- FideliterBut there are traditionalists who have made an agreement with Rome without conceding anything.
Archbishop Lefebvre:   "That is false. They have waived their opportunity to oppose Rome. They must remain silent because of the favors that have been granted. Then they start to slip ever so slowly until they end up admitting the errors of Vatican II. It is a very dangerous situation. Such concessions Roma aim only to get the break with the SSPX traditionalists and submit to Rome." (Fideliter No. 79, January 1991, shortly before his death in March 1991)

-“… supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put in conditions. I shall not accept being in the position I was put in during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo X III, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Qua Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communionwith the popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti- Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of the these popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless. Thus, the positions will be clear.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview with Fideliter Magazine, Nov.-Dec. 1988)

-“No, I shall not give the Church’s destroyers an easy conscience by handing over the them what belongs only to God, to the Faithful, to the Church of all time. This is what makes our situation with the Vatican appear deadlocked. The time will come when the Church will triumph as she has always done. What are a few years, or a few tens of years, compared with eternity? As I said to you a little while ago, all we need do is wait.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Stock, Paris)

-The Enduring Dilemma – Archbishop Lefebvre perceived the dilemma: either capitulate to tyranny under pretext of obedience, or else resist tyranny by rejecting false obedience.   “If this government [the conciliar church] abandons its duty and turns against the Faith, what ought we to do? Remain attached to the government, or attached to the Faith? We have a choice. Does the Faith take precedence? Or is it the government that takes precedence? We are faced with a dilemma and we are indeed obliged to make a choice.”   The choice was made and the defense of the Faith prevailed over false obedience. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Homily at Econe for the Chrismal Mass of Holy Thursday, March 27, 1986)

-“Let us keep the Faith above all else it is for this that our Lord died, because He affirmed His divinity. It is for this that all the martyrs died. It is by this that all the elect are sanctified. Let us flee from those who make us lose the Faith or diminish it.” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, from his book Spiritual Journey)

-“We are told, ‘You are alone and isolated.’ Not at all! We have on our side all the Church’s past, hundreds of Popes, all the saints and all those who did what we are doing… We should have no fear, we are built on a rock which does not depend on us. If it depended on us, we might be afraid: then it would be me and my ideas. I would have invented something; I would have given rise to something new. But that is not so. That is not the case with us… If we ever abandoned the Faith, we would abandon them.” (Archbishop Lefebvre. September 1988)

-“And so the question arose to know what I should do. I went to Richenbach to see the Superior General [Fr. Franz Schmidberger] and his assistants to ask them: What do you think? Should we accept the hand being offered to us? Or do we refuse it? “for myself, personally”, I said, “I have no confidence in them.” […] However, I do not wish people within the Society and Traditional circles to be able to say afterwards, you could easily have tried, it would have cost you nothing to enter into discussion and dialogue.” That was the opinion of the Superior General and his assistants. They said, “You must take into consideration the offer which is being made and not neglect it. It’s still worthwhile to talk with them.” Lefebvre concluded: “We cannot follow those 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.” (pg. 549, Marcel Lefebvre by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais)

-“When I asked why he [Lefebvre] had signed the agreement in the first place, he said: That’s what they [the chief SSPX priests] all wanted. But then when I was by myself, alone, I realized that we couldn’t trust it. (Dom Gerard Calvert, Abbot of Le Barraoux, close friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, interview with “30 Days”, Winter 1995)

Q&A –  Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991
Fideliter: Since the coronations there is no more contact with Rome; however, Cardinal Oddi who phoned you and said, “You must work it out. Have a little forgiveness to the Pope and he is ready to welcome you” So why not try the ultimate approach and why do you think it impossible?

Archbishop Lefebvre: “It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome which is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. Principles who now run the conciliar church are increasingly, openly, contrary to Catholic doctrine. Finally the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with [such] a hierarchy.

Fideliter: Do you think the situation has deteriorated further since you had – before the consecrations – engaged in conversations that led to the drafting of the Protocal of May 5, 1988?

Archbishop Lefebvre: “Oh yes! For example the fact that the profession of faith which is now [pushed] by Cardinal Ratzinger since the beginning of 1989. This is a very serious matter. Because it asks all those who joined or could do, to make a profession of faith in the documents of the Council and the post-conciliar reforms. For us it is impossible. For my part, I believe that only God can intervene as humanly we do not see opportunities to Rome to redress the current.”

Fideliter: You said, pointing to Dom Gerard and others: “They betrayed us. They now give a hand to those who demolish the Church, the liberals, the modernists.” Is not that a bit harsh?

Archbishop Lefebvre: “But no! […] It is with a heavy heart that we have trouble with Rome. It’s not with pleasure that we had to fight. We did it for principles, to keep the Catholic Faith. And they were to agree with us. They cooperated with us. And then Suddenly they abandon the true combat to ally with the demolishers on the pretext that they be given some privileges. This is unacceptable. They have virtually abandoned the fight of the faith. They cannot attack Rome.”

Fideliter: What can you say to those of the faithful who still hope in the possibility of an agreement with Rome?

Archbishop Lefebvre: “Our true believers, those who have understood the problem and that we have just worked to continue straight and firm on tradition and faith, feared the efforts I made to Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute Rome [would show] a little bit of loyalty to what we testify. You cannot blame me for not having done the maximum. So now, [there are] those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I think I can say that I went even further that I should have.”

(Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)
-“Truth is not made by numbers: numbers do not make the truth. Even if I am alone, and even if I am abandoned by the whole of public opinion, it is all the same to me. I am attached to my catechism, my credo, attached to Tradition which sanctified all the saints in Heaven. What matters is fidelity to our Faith. We should have that conviction and stay calm.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon)

-“We want to remain untied to Jesus Christ, as the Vatican has dethroned the Lord. We want to remain faithful to our Lord King, Prince and Ruler of the world. We cannot change anything in this line of conduct.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Flavigny, conference, Dec. 1988)

-“So, when we raise the question of when there will be an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: When Rome again crowns our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot agree with those who dethrone the Lord. The day they again recognize our Lord as King of peoples and nations, it is not us who will join them, but they who will come back to the Catholic Church in which we remain.”   (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 68, March 1989)

- "Rome is in Apostasy!  We cannot have any confidence in them!  They have lost the faith!"  (Archbishop Lefebvre)

- “Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign [the May 5, 1988 Protocol] that you accept everything; and then you can continue as before!’ No! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!”…To ask this of us is to ask us to collaborate in the disappearance of the Faith. Impossible!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “They Have Uncrowned Him” Abp. Lefebvre, ch. 31, p. 230).

-“Even if at the moment he is keeping quiet, one or another of these bishops will receive from the Holy Ghost the courage needed to arise in his turn. If my work is of God, He will guard it and use it for the good of the Church. Our Lord has promised us, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.
This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this: At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me, “What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?” I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words, “You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”, chapter 23)

-  "Do not be surprised if we do not understand with Rome. This is not possible while Rome will not return to faith in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ ... We crashed at a point of the Catholic faith." (Sierre Conference on November 27, 1988; Fideliter No 89)

"Archbishop Lefebvre Warns Us Not To Compromise With Masonic Rome"  

Not every New Mass is a “direct scandal” according to Fellay!  Yikes this has to be one of the worst/absurd statements of this interview.  “The New Mass has shortcomings and risks. Of course, not every New Mass is a direct scandal” ~ Fellay… Every New Mass offered is illicit and schismatic folks!  It is representative of the modernist’s new faith as Lefebvre said.  This was the position of Lefebvre and Fr. Hesse. This means that even when it is offered “normally” with piety it offends God each and every time.  As Fr. Hesse said you cannot fulfill your Sunday duty in the Conciliar Church.  This is more watering down of the true position of Lefebvre yet again in this area.  See the quotes below:

-“And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)

-“I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass." (Conference April 11, 1990)

-“The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.” (Spiritual Journey, p. ix)

-“It is the new Mass in itself. It is not the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the new rite changes. It doesn’t change anything in the rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new rite is a rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants. That is clear! (April 11, 1990)

-“This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)

-“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.…All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.” (The New Mass and the Pope, November, 8, 1979)

-“… this [new] rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here: "It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically a neighbor to Protestantism,” and thus, which attacks our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist! It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecumenist.” (Conference, April 11, 1990)

-"This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union — adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. ... The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests." (Homily preached at Lille, August29, 1976)

-“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)

-“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and Canon Law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Ch. 4)

-“The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August 1972, priestly retreat)

-“We must not forget that the conciliar reforms of the liturgy, the reforms of the Bible, the changes in the internal structure of the Church, of the constitution of the Church—all these things are a result of the ecumenical spirit. That is clear, since Protestants were present for the changes in the Mass—six Protestant ministers were photographed with Pope Paul VI who thanked them for having come to participate in the liturgical commission, which transformed our Catholic Mass! Everything was done in this ecumenical spirit: liturgical reforms, catechetical reforms, an ecumenical Bible—which is sold in the bookstore at the Vatican. There was then, a considerable Protestant influence.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)

-“…if they are going to the New Mass—slowly, slowly they change their mind and become, slowly, slowly Protestant. It is very dangerous to go to the New Mass regularly, each week, because the New Mass is not some accidental change, but it is a whole orientation, a new definition of the Mass. It has not the same definition as the True Mass.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)

“… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go." (Spiritual Conference at Econe, June 25, 1981)

“The consequences of this state of mind or spirit spread within the Church, inside the Church, are deplorable, and are ruining and sapping the spiritual vitality of the Church. In conscience, all we can do is turn priests and faithful away from using the Novus Ordo Missae if we wish that the complete and whole Catholic Faith remains still living.” (Letter to John Paul II, April 5, 1983 - Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference #1, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, April 24, 1983)

“…that the evil in the New Mass is truly intrinsic, in the text … and not only something purely extrinsic, [in the abuses], this is certain. Precisely by this general effect which diminishes the proclamation of our faith, this diminution is present everywhere, in the words and in the actions. They wanted to be ecumenical to such a point, to bring themselves closer to the Protestants in order to pray with them, that in the end they no longer affirm the Faith. And that is very grave. This diminution is excessively grave for our faith, how can it be otherwise? … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.” (Conference at Econe, June 24, 1981)


Fellay is optimistic for an agreement!  So what is the problem?  First Lefebvre said no agreement without Rome’s conversion.  This is another breach from Neo-Society.  But hey I don’t want to be too principally minded;) Lefebvre basically said for the Society to re- enter the Conciliar Church to make it Catholic was not only delusional but it was outright idiotic.  This is exactly what Fellay and his fallen compadres are trying to do.   

An even greater problem perhaps though is this.  FRANCIS IS NOT THE TRUE POPE.  YOU CANT MAKE ANY DEAL WITH A FALSE POPE AND HAVE IT HOLD UP IN THE END.  I stated this is why the pseudo trad goons Salza and Siscoe have been really active as of late even threatening resistant minded folk.  They have to keep the illusion Francis is the true Pope.  If most “traddies” say Francis is an antipope then more will leave the Society altogether, This, by the way, is the trend, that is, that Francis is an antipope.  They will see a good amount of their patrons leave the Society on this question alone.  Can’t strike deals with false popes who have no jurisdiction.

Does it make sense?  The Masonic Vatican embraces everyone but real catholics.  Why would you want the label of Catholic from these heretics as the false trads do!  If Francis said I was Catholic according to his theology I would not be happy and yet the false trads are. Make no mistake if the Society makes an agreement the false trad world will probably mark that day off as a national holiday.  The problem is…is that God is shaking his head saying what am I going to do with these blind people…..

Catholics don’t trust Rome yet Fellay does.  But goodness is there, benevolence. For years, we have been working with Rome to rebuild trust. (LEFEBVRE SAID THESE MODERNISTS COULDN'T BE TRUSTED FELLAY THINKS OTHERWISE)” Even if they give the Society a great package do you Catholic trust Rome these days?  Fellay does now let that sink in.  Only a fool trusts Rome these days.  He trusts Muller who is the same person who said the Society would cave in on Vatican II!  Run away from these sspx churches!  Maybe then more sspx priests will decide to leave and quit being so fearful.  Do you personally trust the Holy Father Pope Francis?  We have a very good relationship. (YIKES! GOOD RELATIONS WITH THE FREEMASON ANTIPOPE?)
We are literally a few years away from the formal One World Church of Apostasy and we are supposed to trust?  Idiots!  But then again its only idiots who want to continue to make excuses for Fellay and the Society these days.

If they make an agreement FEW will leave the Society?  HOGWASH!  If we come to a reasonable agreement with normal conditions, very few will stay away. I am not afraid of a new split in Tradition if the right thing is found with Rome.(LEFEBVRE SAID NO AGREEMENT WITH MODERNIST ROME UNTIL IT CONVERTS FELLAY DOES NOT BELIEVE THIS) There are many leaving the Society as we speak and ANY TYPE OF AGREEMENT WOULD CAUSE QUITE A FEW MORE PERSONS TO LEAVE.  HE IS ONLY SAYING THIS IN HIS USED CAR SALESMAN APPROACH TO GET PEOPLE TO THINK THAT A LARGE NUMBER WOULDN’T LEAVE.  AS IF TO SAY ALL IS GOOD HERE.  HOGWASH ACROSS THE BOARD.  I have already heard from quite a few neo-sspxer’s personally via email or phone who have told me they would leave once an agreement or prelature was reached.

Of course, the only thing these compromisers and heretics can do is run to the ad hominem arguments in return.  Eric is a “this or that”.  He is not nice or even crazy.  Typical communist tactics now employed by the false trad world.  Smart people?. No.  People of grace who are of good will can see something really wrong with these false trad groups/apologists but sadly FEW have this grace these days.  Buckle up the Storm is coming and buildings wont matter.  There will be no more pseudo trad conferences and places of meeting out in the public.  God’s wrath has a funny way of “leveling the playing field” so that truth can once again flourish in a world of heresy and compromise.  Ave Maria!

Stick with TRADCATKNIGHT you are in the right place for the days ahead!  Share this article as I continue to call a spade a spade….

Some of your comments coming already from my social media:

Raymond Cataldus If there's no heresy in Vatican 2 then everything the Archbishop did was unnecessary? What about the philosophical law of noncontradiction? Is that thrown out the window too?

Laurie-Anne Lavallee Why do they keep electing him?

Frederick Evardo these words can only be found in a freemason's mouth.

Mary Labonte What??? What???? Really??? As far as this person goes, V2 let in EVIL and it has become a church I don't recognize anymore.

Abba John Mark Fellay has sold out long time ago, he is not going home to roost, just as is expected.

Karen Karwowski The wolf in sheep's clothing in the SSPX, dragging souls to Hell.

Boltoph Osb The only heresy that occurs in Vatican II is everything between the very first word of the document and the very last word.

Paul John Perla Until Rome comes back to tradition there can be no agreement. This would have been the position of a devout holy man like Archbishop Lefebvre.

Rich Griffin have so many people neglected Holy Scriptures on those who pretend to be jews??? "I know thy tribulation and thy poverty, but thou art rich: and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." [Apocalypse (Revelation) 2:9]

Kevin Petersen But don't expect a large group of SSPX faithful to "disobey" and go running to Fr. Pfeiffer. It's like N.O. Catholics who may hear Pope Francis say some pretty weird stuff but they will ALWAYS remain faithful to Rome. 
And the message from SSPX pulpits has been very controlled over the past 5 years: "The 'Resistance' is evil incarnate. You can't leave the SSPX because where would you go? You don't want to go back to the old hotel conference room Masses like you did in the 70s! We've got the Mass in nice churches now with beautiful stations of the cross on the walls."

Donations:  Please get in the fight with a financial contribution for this is an information war.  Please click the paypal button and get behind TradCatKnight financially.  I appreciate all your prayers and support!  For CASH, CHECK or MONEY ORDER contributions please email me at apostleofmary@hotmail.com for the mailing address.

For Contact: Questions and comments or to become a special guest on TradCatKnight Radio OR to have me on your own show please contact me at apostleofmary@hotmail.com