(NeoSSPX Watch) P. SIMOULIN: FEW ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE TRAITOR AGREEMENT
Fellay and Fr. Simoulin
Fr. Simoulin, currently based at the St. Joseph College of Carmes in France, is one of the most notorious accords of the Neo-FSSPX. Since he was Superior of the District of Italy, when negotiations with Rome began in 2001, Father Simoulin did not hide his desire to reach an agreement:
If
tomorrow the conciliar church, by mistake or even by calculation, but
always by providential disposition, gave us the means, without having to
deny anything, change nothing, promise nothing, but serve the Church
and the truth - serve The Catholic Church buried beneath it to help
revive it with all its supernatural forces (Mass, sacraments, doctrine,
moral discipline) and gradually get rid of the spirit of the council,
are we really obliged to refuse to contact and consider the arrangement
of Our situation, under the pretext that they are all criminals? ... They also tell me: that Rome is converted and then we will see. My answer is identical; It is not Catholic to depend on a miracle. Rome
will not be converted if no one works in it, if no one is recognized as
"valid interlocutor", in a true theological debate to return the truth
to his throne. ( Rome Felix , February 2001)
In June 2012, Fr. Simoulin stated : I
think that if the possibility of continuing "legally" our action and
our preaching without hindrance and without compromise is offered, it
would be a fault to reject it. If that is to be "accordant" ... then yes, I accept to be, and I pity those who are not ...
This new agreement article of Fr. Simoulin has been published in the last edition of July of his magazine Le Seignadou :
THE CALM OF THE OLD TROOPS
Again I will talk about myself a little, but rest assured, it will be the last time. In fact, the "friends" tell me that I have aged! It is true that my age has doubled since my ordination! But as we all age at the same pace, I do not see the interest in stopping aging! I
might perhaps take it as a compliment, as wine improves with age ...
but I do not think that's what these friends mean, and I rather think
that they have lost my first vigor: I no longer say What I said before, I
have softened, my speech is different now! This would then be good news: I do not always repeat the same thing, so I'm not raving! But then have I aged?
In
fact, I believe that the underlying reproach is the same as it is
sometimes done to Bishop Fellay, who would have softened because he does
not spend his time repeating what he has already said, and condemning
all that is condemnable! [The truth is that Bishop Fellay keeps an accomplice silence before the worst pope in all history. Simple: if you say what you owe, the agreement is prevented] They even tell you that you are isolated or that you are a minority! He himself has explained himself, and I would simply add that it is normal for him not to always intervene ["always" ... The truth is that Bishop Fellay has almost never criticized the demolisher Francisco. In 2013 he said that Francisco was a modernist (something more than obvious). Within a few days he partially recanted. After that he has repeatedly praised it] , whether because the cardinals have done it or because our theologians do it sufficiently. I am thinking, among others, of Fr Gleize's excellent article "For a doctrinal agreement" , and a more recent text: The letter on marriages: clarifications and clarifications. In
addition, it is not necessary to be a wise person to realize that,
since 2000, the situation is no longer the same: The Church remains " Semper dídem"
, but the popes pass and will continue to pass, people are different
and it is not possible to treat With Pope Francis as with John Paul II,
not Cardinal Müller as Cardinal Ratzinger. This is so evident that I do not know why I waste my time in pointing it out! [The
truth of the matter is that while everything is getting worse in the
Church, the SSPX is increasingly silent and bland towards modernist
heretics]
But no one among us can expect Fellay to teach, encourage or exemplify insubordination. [Mgr. Lefebvre was insubordinate lawfully and holy before the pope. Why not Mons Fellay? Because the new priority is to reach an agreement with apostate Rome]
No more than Monsignor Lefebvre, who, in the strongest of his
questions, always proclaimed his fidelity to Rome and his refusal to
break with her, no matter who the Pope and anyone who Were his actions,
whatever the true master of this modernist thought that has penetrated
to the viscera of the Church ... No one among us can expect Fellay to respect the primacy of Peter [this has never been the point. The SSPX never questioned the primacy of Peter nor incurred the sedevacantist error] , even if evidently, Peter does not walk righteously according to the truth of the Gospel (Galatians, II, 14).
As
for me, I have always spoken and written when I was in a position of
authority, and it is enough to refer to them to know my way of thinking
about John XXIII or the Council, about John Paul II, the new catechism,
Assisi and other news Councils. The
articles, studies, interventions I have published are quite numerous
and are available to all and, on these issues, I have not changed. I do not withdraw any of this, but, being no longer in the position of authority, I now let those who have this function speak.
But that's not important. I
read again these days the booklet made by the family about the
admirable Captain Jean Botet de Lacaze, who died on the camp of honor on
May 3, 1917. After the disaster of the Nivelle operation, he wanted to
raise the morale of his surroundings: Why want to play strategists? We are the executors. The major states have no doubt conceptions that will not spread among the troops. His job is to think. Ours is to keep our stomach in good condition, to cultivate some general ideas. With this luggage war is done honestly. [And what is done if the general staff tries to negotiate a treacherous peace with the enemy?] Well, first of all, we must make war, without which it is vainly cruel to plunge our families into restlessness. But to do war well, you must first believe in victory, even ignoring the odds. If
we are not the ones who pick up the laurels, this has only one relative
importance ... The country does not go to war so that we have fun with
it ... but so that it can carry out this war, it is necessary that we
Let us do with a faith that is at the base of fruitful actions and,
also, an act of humility before ignoring our reasonings and other
tactical forecasters. Our duty is to feed our horses and fine tune our physical balance. " [Put another way: follow blindly Bishop Fellay, he knows what he does. The
same say the liberals regarding the liberal popes: "the pope knows what
he does, he has thanks of state, he is the Vicar of Christ!"]
The analogy is clear, it is easy to transpose these reflections to the situation in which we find ourselves. To
continue with this analogy, what would we say of a captain who
proclaimed to his troops that there is a great personal plan of
maneuver, better than that of the general? [The
decision of the 2006 chapter, which did not accept the possibility of a
practical agreement without the prior conversion of Rome; Was not "the plan of the captain", but that of the entire SSPX. But that decision was violated by the chancellors]
And what would we also say if he did so in such a way that the
adversary realizes this disagreement and knows that the front is not
united? Even
if his plan were better, he would have seriously endangered the union
of hearts necessary for those who carry out the combat, and give weapons
to his adversaries. It would simply deserve to be passed by guns! [The
truth is that those who deserve punishment are the compromisers who
violate the decision of 2006, betray Monsignor Lefebvre and destroy the
SSPX. These are the causes of the division in the SSPX, not those that react against the traitor agreement]
In
addition, I do not know who launches these false news incessantly about
the imminence of an agreement and even announces dates, etc ... For
years this has happened, and every time, some bite the hook and the
reactions create confusion and agitation! [The
agreement always seems imminent because it is evident that, since 2012,
Bishop Fellay has not stopped wanting to reach an agreement with Rome
and because it is clearly advancing towards him] This is the old tactic: divide to reign. [He said to Lefebvre: "You divide the Church, you work for the devil."] St. John tells us that it is the Antichrist's duty to try to divide Jesus: Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum, est antichristus (1Juan, IV, 3). Divide Jesus, is to break the bond that unites the members of his mystical Body. It is the work of the spirit of error.
But, they will tell me, Mons. Lefebvre criticized authority publicly! Certainly,
but it should be noted that after his action at the Council, he began
to act in silence, to give the Church the weapon capable of responding
to errors by founding the Fraternity; And
that it was not until ten years after Council that he began to speak of
him: he did not speak publicly until after he was publicly targeted and
attacked by the French bishops in 1975-1976. The
initiative of the public debate was a fact of the Roman authorities,
and afterwards, it seems to me that the challenge was different. It is too easy to clothe with fidelity to Monsignor Lefebvre to do what he never did. It is not Monsignor Lefebvre who wants it! [Incredible:
we must now believe that Monsignor Lefebvre would not have said
anything publicly against the Roman heretics had he not been attacked by
them ... Unbelievable. And now we must believe that it is not advisable to publicly criticize the demolishers of the Church. Amazing]
Finally,
I confess that, in the present confusion, I am not impressed by the
questions, however important they may seem, and I know that Bishop
Fellay is less a minority than the questioners of all kinds. I am rather impressed by the calm of the old troops! Yes,
honor our old marshals, those of the first years and of the first
combats that went through all kinds of storms and stand as faithful
witnesses to the vigor of the initial graces! I
would like to quote them all - I think of those who preceded me in the
seminary, which is almost thirty - because they act in silence and
without pretending to give lessons to our superiors. The crises have not been lacking: 1975, 1977, sedevacantismo, 1988, 2004, etc. Or more simply or continuously: the spirit of independence! The
loyalty and vigor of the old troops are perhaps one of the most
convincing arguments to quell the fears of the younger generation! This impresses me much more than the noise that is made around some resistant, declared or not. ["Old troops in silence"? Monsignor Williamson, of the Resistance, is 77 years old and ordained in 1976. Bishop Faure of the Resistance is 75 years old and was ordained in June 1977. Father Simoulin, a chancellor, is 74 years old and ordained December 1977]
What stupidities do not we hear? The
fattest is perhaps the one that I heard the other day from the mouth of
an ecclesiastic (ancient among us!), Namely that the priests of the
Fraternity are divided between resistance and agreement! This good priest has become the champion of the art of dialectics! Whatever
you say, there is simply a majority of priests who are neither
accordive nor resistant, who do their work without noise and have
confidence in their superiors who do theirs. [The
truth is that those who are willing to trust superiors who They want to
put the SSPX in the clutches of the modernists, they are accordants] .
