Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

[Stone]

Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

N.B.: Normally, The Catacombs treats information obtained from Cathinfo with the same reservations as information obtained from say, a sedevacantist site or a Conciliar site. But there are occasions when a good article is published on a sedevacantist or Conciliar site that is shared here - an article that doesn't promoted those particular errors but perhaps does shed light on some other aspects of the crisis of our times.

Similarly, we are sharing here a Cathinfo member's work that has begun collecting a centralized 'data bank' of evidence of the SSPX's steady progression into the Conciliar Church.

This 'Catalog' is rather long so it will be posted in segments for ease of reading.

✠ ✠ ✠

Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

[Slight formatting changes from the original - all emphasis in the original.]

#1: Change (New Mass Participation Sinful or Not?)

All the SSPX faithful should be well familiar with the little blue book, Christian Warfare, published by the SSPX and promoted and used on their Ignatian retreats. In the section on the Examination of Conscience, under the third commandment (page 289 in the 2006 edition) we find the following:

Have you attended and actively participated in the "New Mass"? Have you received Holy Communion in the hand?

Yet, in the new edition, this sentence was replaced with:

Have you received Holy Communion in the hand knowing that it leads to Sacrilege and loss of faith in the Real Presence?

Have you attended and actively participated in non-Catholic religious services? tradcatresist.blogspot.com/2018/06/lastweek-fr-morgan-celebrated-his.htm

Clearly the SSPX no longer wishes to suggest attending the Novus Ordo is sinful.



#2: Contradiction (SSPX’ers Married by Conciliarists?)

In the US District, the old SSPX Marriage Form M-2(a) required a signature of the marriage parties before a Society priest would consent to perform the wedding. That form includes the following passage:

"Moreover, I insist on my right to receive all the sacraments in an entirely traditional way, and consequently refuse to have my wedding celebrated by a priest who celebrates the new Mass, or in a church in which the new Mass is celebrated.”

Today, however, the SSPX has accepted to be bound by the April 4, 2017 "Pastoral Guidelines" of Cardinal Mueller (authorized by Pope Francis) which state, among other things:
"Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary [that is, normally the local Diocesan Bishop] is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully

regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite..." rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/04/step-by-step-vatican-issues-marriage.html

This is a clear and direct contradiction to SSPX Marriage Form M-2(a) of the US District (which presumably has either subsequently been edited to bring itself into compliance with this new norm, or discarded altogether).

(SSPX Faithful married by a Conciliar priest in a Conciliar church in Canada)

#3: Contradiction (Trap vs No Trap)

One year after the episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre warned the faithful that any overtures from modernist Rome were nothing but a trap:

"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." sspx.org/en/one-year-after-consecrations

Bishop Fellay (under the most anti-traditional Pope in history) thinks otherwise. In his 8/24/16 Australian conference, he said:

"But in itself, you cannot imagine anything better than what is offered there. And such a thing that you cannot think ‘That’s a trap.’ It’s not a trap. And if somebody is offering something like that, we are offered something like that, it can be only because he wants good to us. He wants the good of Tradition, he wants Tradition to spread within the Church.”

NB: As the YouTube video of this conference was removed for obvious reasons, we will divert the reader to Issue #37 of The Recusant, where he may find a transcription of the quoted passage, posted here: Recusant #37



#4: Contradiction (A strict right to know?)

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism." www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-07-06.htm

vs.

Neo-SSPX:

"Non-SSPX members [i.e., the faithful] do not have a strict right to be kept informed about the internal affairs of the SSPX, which is a religious congregation." sspx.org/en/news-events/news/%E2%80%9Cneed%E2%80%9D-know-all-vs-peace-soul-3073

#5: Contradiction (Bishop de Galarreta vs Bishop de Galarreta)

On the matter of a practical accord with unconverted Rome, Bishop de Galarreta contradicted himself in only one years' time. Initially ruling out a merely practical accord, the bishop in 2011 said:

"Following the Roman proposal, the real question, crucial, is: should we, can we, we take the path of a "possible" practical agreement first? Is it prudent and appropriate to maintain contacts with Rome leading to such an agreement? As far as I am concerned, the answer is clear: we must refuse this path because we cannot do something evil so that a good (a good which is, moreover, uncertain) can come from it, and also because this would necessarily bring about evils (very certain) for the common good that we possess, namely that of the Society and of the family of Tradition. [...] How then does this not go against the defence and public confession of faith, against the public need to protect the faithful and the Church? In this regard, if we make a purely practical agreement we are, in the present circumstances, already engaging in duplicity and ambiguity. The very fact is a public testimony and a message: we cannot be in "full communion" with the authorities who remain modernists." www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/reflections-on-a-roman-proposal-(full-text)/

Very good!

But only one year later, the exact opposite:

"The Society’s position is much more precise and clear now than it was six months ago; it is much better, for we do not exclude the possibility of Providence choosing to bring about a return to the Faith through conversion [on the Part of Rome, presumably – Ed.] We have simply said: if there is not firstly a return on the part of Rome or of the next Pope to Tradition [...] but if this Pope wishes simply to allow Tradition, what are the conditions that would allow us to accept a canonical normalization, in view of the good that we could do in the Church and this good is considerable? We must not deny this possibility.” archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/bishop_de_galarreta_conference_10-13-2012.htm

The SSPX had "recovered its profound unity" at the chapter, putting the company ahead of the Faith.



#6: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay Suicidal?)

From a February/2009 interview with The Remnant regarding autonomy from the diocesan bishops:

Brian Mershon: Do you foresee any oversight by territorial diocesan bishops once the Society is regularized?

Bp. Fellay: That would be our death.” www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-mershon-interview-fellay.htm

Three years later, Bishop Fellay had apparently lost his fear of death:

Bishop Fellay: "It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties?" archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/bishop_fellay_dici_interview_about_rome_6-8-2012.htm

#7: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay vs Archbishop Lefebvre on Vatican II)

Archbishop Lefebvre blames the Council:

"Without rejecting this Council wholesale, I think that it is the greatest disaster of this century and of all the past centuries, since the founding of the Church." www.angelus.online/en_US/8362/120253/a_matter_of_principle.html

Bishop Fellay excuses or downplays the Council:

"I think, we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the council are in fact not from the council, but the common understanding of it." https://youtu.be/DdnJigNzTuY

#8: Contradiction: (A Deal with Unconverted and Modernist Rome?)

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” (Spiritual Journey, p. 13)

vs.

Bishop Fellay (speaking of his discussions with modernist Rome in his 2/2/12 Winona sermon):

"We told them very clearly, if you accept us as is, without change, without obliging us to accept these things, then we are ready." archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/bishop_fellay_sermon_february_2_2012.htm

This very thread will suffice to demonstrate that the SSPX has not been accepted as they are, but has instead undergone a radical transformation in pursuit of a canonical regularization.



#9: Change (Is Vatican II Part of Tradition?)

Archbishop Lefebvre commenting on a statement of Cardinal Suenens:

"It was Cardinal Suenens who exclaimed, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church” and among other unguarded declarations he added
“One cannot understand the French or the Russian revolutions unless one knows something of the old regimes which they brought to an end… It is the same in church affairs: a reaction can only be judged in relation to the state of things that preceded it”.

What preceded, and what he considered due for abolition, was that wonderful hierarchical construction culminating in the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth. He continued: “The Second Vatican Council marked the end of an epoch; and if we stand back from it a little more we see it marked the end of a series of epochs, the end of an age”.

vs.

Bishop Fellay in response to a question from the CNS as to whether Vatican II formed part of Catholic Tradition:

"I would hope so,” he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition...The pope says that . . . the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,” the bishop said. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/0...holic.html

NB: As we shall see later, this same response from Bishop Fellay evinces an acceptance of the "hermeneutic of continuity."



#10: Contradiction (More on Vatican II and Tradition)

In March/2013, Fr. de Cacqueray (then District Superior of France) wrote the following in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors:

"Be that as it may, the Society strongly refuses to admit that Vatican Council II belongs to the Tradition of the Church. We claim on the contrary, that in many points this Council is diametrically opposed to it." sspx.org/en/sspxs-treatment-profound-injustice

Yes, that was surely the SSPX's traditional position.

However, was Fr. de Cacqueray unaware that only 9 months prior, Bishop Fellay had made the following statement?:

"Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition -- a position which many in the society have vocally disputed -- Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said." rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/fellay-speaks-to-usbishopss-catholic.html

Do you find Bishop Fellay's response to be a strong "refusal to admit that Vatican II belongs to the Tradition of the Church?"