SSPX's 2012 Doctrinal Declaration

[Stone]

Reply from the Archived Catacombs:


Moreover,  here is another timed piece, the SSPX Internal Document: "Cor Unum" June 2017

This is another manifesto and ralliement of Bishop Fellay towards modern rome and punishment for any dissenters in the ranks rings loud and clear.

Below is the contents written in June 2017 by Bishop Fellay to all of the 600 sspx priests in every country, to every priest friends, and every friendly communities tied to Menzingen. In no uncertain terms, says Bishop Fellay, no priest or bishop will dissent or contradict the superior General; no priest or bishop will announce or pronounce on their own without permission any relation of the sspx and rome on-goings. It is forbidden with pain of expulsion...do not cross or contradict the superior.  This too is set in the minds of their seminarians.

Tough talk. But when priests are buffered when asking simple questions following the proper channels and are cast as reprobates...the water boils.

Too bad Bishop Fellay wasn't on the right side of the debate. He spends more combative energy attacking his brother priests and bishops to be silent than he does against the modernists.

In addition, Bishop Fellay also made the precedent they MUST accept everything from rome less they are "unfaithful" sons of the Church.  So you see how these tidbits and acceptances from rome is the real agenda for full assimilation going around the one document idea everyone is expecting.

There is a lot to flush out; ending the same, betrayal.

Mind you, this was written in June 2017, and Bishop Fellay has been making bolder moves with the Vatican over following months thereafter...to the shackles and silence of his priests.

[I have made some editing in bold highlighting with my comments in [bold].]

SSPX Internal Document: "Cor Unum" June 2017

A Word from the Superior General

Dear members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X,

A few troubles have broken out in our dear Fraternity in recent months. Some members felt that they had to take a position publicly to express their point of view, using the pulpit or their bulletins for that purpose. In this they have acted in disregard of the elementary rules of every organized society, and also of our internal statutes and rules which require that relations with Rome be reserved for the Superior General. This is a provision of our venerated founder. Any article on this subject must therefore receive the approval of the Superior General, after being presented to the judgment of the Superior of the district. [This is a false representation and a distortion of the context.  The sspx priests have been clearly suppressed from their superiors and the superior general within their private pleas and are now informing their faithful from the pulpit what the grave representation, compromises and motives are of the superiors towards modern rome.  This too is in statue and a commandment by the faith to warn of false accounts against the faith.]

We therefore condemn these untimely initiatives, the most serious of which have been sanctioned. Is it necessary to recall that the General Chapter of 2006 included among the grounds for dismissal of the Brotherhood the rebellion and the public dissemination of a dispute with the authority? Let this warning be taken seriously .

As always, these confreres imagine they are defending Tradition. But in fact, the means they use weaken it by seriously attacking the unity of our fraternity, sowing weeds and causing confusion among the members and the faithful. Moreover, they pretend to dictate to the authority what should be its conduct. Whatever the good intention or the quality of the arguments, it is impossible to use an evil and unlawful means without causing damage to the common good. [sic.  Bishop Fellay is essentially saying he is the authority of "tradition" what can be and cannot be "interpreted" as a true content.  If only Peter had done this prior to St. Paul's public rebuke, we would not know the principle to use by God to rebuke our errant superiors.  Moreover, Bishop Fellay is fighting to set the basis of unity is on the superior general and not on the faith.  As with, he has just put a nail in the coffin of Archbishop Lefebvre and the continual resistance against this mindset the old-sspx freely spoke on its pulpits.]

Once again, we take this opportunity to recall the nature of our relations with Rome, since that is what it is all about.

1. The Church is experiencing one of the most terrible crises in its history, both in its intensity and in the extent of the errors spread at all levels of the hierarchy and the Catholic universe. This internal crisis began well before the Second Vatican Council; it goes back at least to the pontificate of Leo XIII and was strongly denounced by Saint Pius X under the name of modernism . It is experiencing a dazzling development on the occasion of the last Council which introduced a number of new principles and "pastoral" attitudes in order to open up to the world. The latter was able to diffuse its spirit in the favor of compliant texts which were matured. If today voices are heard to deplore a false reception of the Council, speaking of a para-council, a council of the media, we must note that the door open to these errors, called false interpretations, is found in the texts and the very atmosphere of the Council. If it is difficult to define exactly "the spirit of the Council", it is in his name that the Church has been seriously wounded a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis ...

2. Faced with this terrible reality, Archbishop Lefebvre reacted by taking the means that had to be used to get out of it. He was able to form priests, while rejecting the new orientations, faithful to all the truths and all that had been transmitted by our Mother the Holy Church;

3. That's what saved us! Moreover, it is this firmness which has allowed us to develop and manifest to the world and to the Church that attachment to Tradition is not a nostalgia for the past; but on the contrary a prodigious manifestation of the action of grace today;

4. Obviously, this way of acting contrasts with the general spirit which reigns in the Church. The Roman sanctions as well as the will of the authorities to impose the post-conciliar reforms, have forced us to live in a certain autarchy. This is the meaning of the survival operation of Tradition ...

5. Monseigneur Lefebvre, however, never wanted to separate himself from the Church . It is with great precaution that in the sermon of the consecrations and in other writings he manifested our attachment to the Church by refusing any schismatic spirit. Both his actions before the consecrations and his remarks afterwards show that for him there was no alternative: the pope remains the pope, the bishops of the bishops, with their prerogatives, even if they make mistakes , even heresies. That is why he always demanded that we appoint them to the Canon of the Mass .

Here we touch on the crux of the problem that affects us all, for it involves our future, and even our existence. How can we concretely hold the principle of obedience to the Church when in the very name of obedience we must reject everything from the errors that destroy it?  [How can Bishop Fellay re-question the Catholic answer in this fight "We ought to obey God than man" as he was consecrated based on that principle and practice as a bishop from ABL?  Unless he is now going to alter it with a neo-answer; as he will do in the following paragraphs.]

A line of action has been defined, in particular at the Chapters of 2006 and 2012. It emerges from a set of principles and practical applications. The principles do not change, but the circumstances in which they must be applied change and require adjustments or clarifications, which was done in 2012 or last year in Anzère . [Here is applied the will of "living tradition" and evolved truth that can change with the times. The Document of 2006 and 2012 is in direct opposition to each other. One (2006) is based on firm doctrinal clarifications and the other (2012) based on canonical favors.  The new injection here is the "practice" that was deliberately changed in 2012.  Interesting this 2012 Chapter document is held by Bishop Fellay as the "light" of tradition as the modernist hold "Vatican II" as their light of tradition.]

The fundamental principle that we follow from the beginning is that of fidelity to the Church and its perennial teaching. For the Church can not change either the faith or the commandments of God. The accidental modifications, the new dispositions which it applies prudently throughout the centuries, must correspond to this first principle: " nihil novi nisi quod traditum est ". That is why we cry out loud and clear that we remain Catholic even if we do not follow the reforms of the last fifty years and refuse to follow the ecclesiastical authorities whenever they wish to impose them. [Ahem..."not following the reforms of Vatican II"? Acceptance and promotion of the 1983 code of canon law, hybrid masses, and legitimacy of the novus ordo mass, etc to name a few is only a literary canard?]This Bishop Fellay contradicts and is betrayed by his new submissions from modern rome creating the sspx-civil war.]  For nothing in the world we do not want to distance ourselves from this line of conduct. [There is the fate of the new-sspx. Bishop Fellay also said in a letter to pope Benedict on June 17, 2012, five years to the date, "I committed myself in this perspective despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path to reach the necessary clarifications."]

This may give the impression of a certain contradiction: we affirm our submission to the legitimate authority and we almost systematically refuse to follow it. However, with the help of time and human nature being what it is, some of us adopt erroneous attitudes, either by exaggeration, by simplicity, or by intellectual laziness. If we are to remain in the Truth, we must also respect the Reality and verify that our affirmations of the moment really correspond to the facts as they unfold before our eyes. [So in the words of Bishop Fellay...]

It is imperative that the justification of our line of conduct strictly respects all Catholic principles. We can not free ourselves from it. For example, it is false and very dangerous estimations to say : " We do not need a delegation for marriages "; " The substitute jurisdiction for confessions is enough for us ... "; " The acceptance of a delegation for marriages signifies acceptance of the novelties of the Council, " etc. I am afraid that some will end up "dogmatising" prudential action. It is not because we are struggling in an interminable crisis that we should a priori refuse any advance in favor of Tradition [neo-tradition?], free ourselves from any rule, was it established at the Council of Trent, or disregard power of keys given to the successor of Peter. We have never refused in principle to recognize the acts of the Pope when they are legitimate. [Here the question returns, what is "legitimate", from the Eternal Church or "legitimate" from the conciliar church?   Bishop Fellay did not distinguish which one, or was that on purpose?   Instead he made a general admission to be the rule for all advances for "tradition".  Which raises the other burning question, what type of tradition are you speaking about: Perennial tradition or neo-tradition?]

Much good, much work to bring priests or faithful to the Tradition, are thus prevented by cerebral and abstract reasoning that does not correspond to reality. I wonder how some consider the " conversion of Rome ", the return of the Church to its Tradition, while they carefully avoid any action, any contact with the official Church, not to mention the Ecclesia Dei mobility.  [There is the identifier "the Ecclesia Dei mobility" = his intention and living variants of neo-tradition.  This statment reminds us also of the extreme scathing letter Bishop Fellay and Frs. Pfluger and Nely sent to the three other sspx bishops on April 14, 2012.]  Saint Francis de Sales already understood that one did not catch flies with vinegar ...

It is a fundamental mistake to think that there is nothing better to expect from the official Church, purely and simply identified with the modernist or conciliar Church. While we receive everything from the Church even today. All the means of sanctification, all that we bring to the faithful, we have from this Church with its hierarchy, its pope, its bishops, a very real and concrete Church, the one we have before us. To want to identify it with the conciliar Church inevitably leads to a sterile refusal of all initiative, even good, under the false pretext that it would corrupt our work. It is like wanting to convert sinners while avoiding them! [Classic modernism!  Bishop Fellay identified the Official Church as the existence and modality of the conciliar church for his Raison d'etre; which is his foundational error against God in all his relations he does forward.  Archbishop Lefebvre distinguished this error very clearly condemned it: 

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church." (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)

"It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church." (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976)

“It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)

“What could be clearer? We must henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)

- “I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (Interview July 30 1976, published in Minute, no. 747)

-“Such things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church - what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects. Amongst the whole Roman Curia, amongst all the world's bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing...” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“That is no longer the Catholic Church: that is the Conciliar Church with all its unpleasant consequences.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August 1989)

-“Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)


-“But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, p.547)

“How can one avoid the conclusion: there where the faith of the Church is, there also is her sanctity, and there where the sanctity of the Church is, there is the Catholic Church. A Church which no longer brings forth good fruits, a Church which is sterile, is not the Catholic Church.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 8, 1978)

-“I remark, first of all, that the expression "Conciliar Church" comes not from me but from H.E. Mgr. Benelli who, in an official letter, asked that our priests and seminarians should submit themselves to the "Conciliar Church." I consider that a spirit tending to Modernism and Protestantism shows itself in the conception of the new Mass and in all the Liturgical Reform as well. Protestants themselves say that it is so, and Mgr. Bugnini himself admits it implicitly when he states that this Liturgical Reform was conceived in an ecumenical spirit.” (Conference, January 11, 1979)

-“The magisterium of today is not sufficient by itself to be called Catholic unless it is the transmission of the Deposit of Faith, that is, of Tradition. A new magisterium without roots in the past, and all the more if it is opposed to the magisterium of all times, can only be schismatic and heretical.” (Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, July 8, 1987)

-“Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible' - these things we do not accept.” (Sermon, July 29, 1976)

-“…since they have put us out of an official Church which is not the real Church, [but] an official Church which has been infested with Modernism; and so we believed in the duty of disobedience, if indeed it was disobedience! To obey, but to obey the immemorial Church, to obey all the popes, to obey the whole Catholic Church…” (Ordination Sermon, June 27, 1980)

-“It is easy to think that whoever opposes the Council and its new Gospel would be considered as excommunicated, as outside communion with the Church. But one may well ask them, communion with what Church? They would answer, no doubt, with the Conciliar Church.” (I Accuse the Council, p. xiii)

-“Henceforth, the Church no longer accepts the one true Church, the only way of eternal salvation. It recognizes the other religions as “sister religions”. It recognizes as a right derived from the nature of the human person that “man is free to choose his religion,” and consequently the Catholic State is no longer admissible. Once this new principle is admitted, then all the doctrine of the Church must change: its worship, its priesthood, its institutions. For until now, everything in the Church manifested that she alone possesses the Truth, the Way, the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom she possesses in person in the Holy Eucharist, present, thanks to the continuation of His Sacrifice. The complete overthrow of the entire tradition and teaching of the Church has been brought about since the Council by the Council. All those who operate in the implementation of this overthrow accept and adhere to this new “Conciliar Church”, as His Excellency Bishop Benelli designates it in the letter he addressed to me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25th, and enter into schism.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)

What more can be said except the present Superior General of his SSPX is sinning gravely against the Catholic Rule and constitution of the Order of St. Pius X!  The punishment and resulting consequence of the sspx-civil war is the manifestation...]

We must maintain the principle according to which we receive from the Catholic hierarchy, especially from the pope, but also from the bishops, the means of sanctification.  [Here Bishop Fellay is stating coyly the sanctification comes from the conciliar church.  (sic) ]  The axiom Ecclesia supplet is valid only in the event of failure of the authorities for various reasons, the main one being the salus animarum , the transmission of integral faith, the communication of grace through sacraments certainly valid. Even in cases where it is outside the normal exercise of authority, the principle of legislative intent must nevertheless be carefully preserved. We are not free to do what we want in the regime of the Church's substitution of jurisdiction - and I fear that we have taken a liking to this false appearance of freedom .

We mistrust the official Church because of the grave deficiencies of disastrous reforms for the good of souls, and rightly so. But to come to the conclusion that " everything is bad " is necessarily exaggerated and false. Especially since it exists today, though imperfectly, a movement of resistance and reaction to the conciliar disaster. [Here again he admits the conciliar church is the Official Church not identifying the abuses are distinct because of conciliarism and not the Official Church's oneness to Christ.]

For several years now, we have witnessed a slow evolution in conservative circles. There is today a real realization of the gravity of the widespread errors, a questioning of certain reforms of the Council. In liturgy as in theology, there is a real desire for a return to much more seriousness. The fact that the dominant line remains strongly progressive and does its utmost to neutralize conservative efforts no longer allows universal assertions such as " everything is corrupt ", " they are all modernists ", and so on.

The same is true of the Ecclesia Dei movements , including in the Fraternity of St. Peter, where there are a number of Nicodemus, convinced that the analysis of Bishop Lefebvre on Vatican II is the right one.

This does not mean that all the prerequisites and requirements for canonical recognition are already met. Nevertheless, progress in this direction is undeniable. Here is, for example, what Pozzo wrote to me in March 2017 :

" I underlined  that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X longs to preserve the spiritual, theological, disciplinary and pastoral identity desired by Archbishop Lefebvre, that is, experience and life of the Catholic Tradition prior to the reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council. The pope has not expressed any reservation on this subject. Similarly, with regard to the two points discussed (the possibility of consecrating auxiliary bishops among the clergy of the Prelature and recognition of the clerical state from tonsure and commitment to celibacy as early as sub-diaconate) , His Holiness stated that he had no objection to this .

In conclusion, we believe that it is right to say that we are gradually seeing an improvement in the conditions imposed on us by Rome, [This is a necessary distinction Bishop Fellay just made.  He said improvement in rome is whether how they treat Bishop Fellay and his exploitation and his views into neo-traditon.  NO!  ABL made clear rome must come back to the FAITH; not to the subjective cries of political order.  Where is the pope and rome now in April 2018: with real tradition or fake tradition?]  that this is part of a more general reaction to the objectively more serious situation of the Church in his outfit. But as far as Rome and ourselves are concerned, this situation is not yet satisfactory to conclude. After a short period of exaggerated optimism on the part of Bishop Pozzo, who was pushing, even probable, the date of recognition to May 13 this year [And yet Bishop Fellay condemned anyone with having "rumors" who said the same.], we heard in turn and Pope Francis and Cardinal Müller announce that things would still take time. " To walk, to walk, and then we shall see " the papal will of not rushing. In the same way Cardinal Müller: " We must take the time, (...) we need a deeper heart conversion ".   [And what is not said is the new-sspx will be under complete control within the Vatican II conciliar structure obeying each and every dictum and ecclesiastical discipline if they go against their orders. Who in their right mind makes a contract with an ecumenist thinking they will remain catholic?]

In the present phase, therefore, we need to know whether the Roman authorities will confirm the "revitalization" of the Council in spite of the pressure of the Progressives, and whether the Pope is prepared to make specific or universal laws. which was reported to us by Bishop Pozzo. [BINGO!  Bishop Fellay just declared his intention of "revitalization" is based on the Vatican II council -- NOT the perennial teaching of the Church!]

As for us, we see no other option than to continue to treat with great caution with the Roman authorities, who for the moment have shown benevolence. We have much to gain, both Tradition and the whole Church. [Is that a errant distinction on purpose or his matter of thinking?  Tradition is one with the Church.  It is NOT separate as he just declared.  Again, that is conciliarism...]  Time works for us, and we discern every day in an evident way the hand of Divine Providence .  [And time works for the superior romans -the "carrot and the stick"- the "Walrus and The Carpenter" who is heartfelt to the little oysters.]

Let us look at the history of the Fraternity sub specie aeternitatis. And then the serene and all-powerful protection of the God of peace which it has enjoyed hitherto, should calm the minds of the troubled people of the Church.

May Our Lady, her Immaculate Heart, grant all the members of the Fraternity peace of hearts under her benevolent protection.


On the Feast of the Holy Trinity, Menzingen, June 11, 2017
+ Bernard Fellay