10 hours ago
The following is taken from The Recusant - Issue 63 Easter 2025:
Fr Udressy defects to the conciliar church and says the new Mass.
Readers from the early years of the Resistance will remember Fr. Firmin Udressy as one of Bishop Fellay’s loyal liberals. As District Superior of Germany, he was a zealous persecutor of any faithful whom he perceived had a “bad spirit” regardless of whether they had actually done anything, as in the case of an 89-year-old man for instance, who had used his savings to help purchase the very chapel from which he was banned (See Recusant 17, p.35). The same Fr. Udressy seemed very friendly towards Ecclesia Dei and Novus Ordo priests and even attended an Una Voce conference (see Recusant 26, p.34). Prior to being District Superior he was prior of Munich, arguably the most prominent German priory, and was responsible for them advertising their Mass as being “in the extraordinary form” (see Recusant 13, p.34).
Thus it may not come as any great surprise to hear that in September 2024 he left the SSPX and began offering the New Mass. According to some very joyful, upbeat articles on more than one conciliar website, Udressy has joined the ‘conservative Novus Ordo’ French-based ‘Community of St. Martin’ which says “the Mass of St. Paul VI” and not “the Mass of St. Pius V.” Will the German SSPX learn an important lesson from this or draw the right conclusions, or are they going to pretend that they didn’t see any signs going back years? Will Fr. Udressy’s actions as District Superior be looked at again? Will anyone draw a causal link between his liberalism then and his joining the Novus Ordo now? Of course not. And yet, is not Fr. Udressy at least being more honest than his (former) superiors? They are the ones who ought to have left and haven’t. If all priests who felt like Fr. Udressy had made the move like him, there would have been plenty of high-level departures over the past twenty years, one suspects, and the events of 2012 would never have taken place.
Is the SSPX “Semper Idem”..?
In late November last year, the SSPX General House released a statement marking the fiftieth anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre’s November 1974 Declaration, entitled “1974-2024 Semper Idem.” You may look in vain for anything openly liberal in this statement - these are words written to satisfy everyone that the SSPX hasn’t changed, after all. But don’t be fooled! The problem is not what the words say, but that the words and the reality do not match.
For example, Archbishop Lefebvre complains about a “naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechetics.” Take a look at the evolutionist cosmology being pushed by Fr. Paul Robinson (now in charge of Angelus Press, if you please!), complete with billions-of-years-old timeline, Noah’s flood not being worldwide and the days of creation presented by Genesis in the wrong order, and then tell me about naturalist and Teilhardian teaching going on in seminaries and schools! Archbishop Lefebvre also says that the Vatican II revolution “is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.”
True, but then how does that square with declaring that the same Vatican II “enlightens and deepens our understanding of Tradition; or that “we accept” the conciliar code of canon law and also the “legitimately promulgated” New Mass? How does it fit with promoting conciliar devotions such as the Divine Mercy among the faithful (see Recusant 29, p.33)? We could go on. If the SSPX really stood by the 1974 Declaration and wanted to make those words its own again, to be the same as always (“semper idem”), it would retract those declarations named above, apologise and clean up all the many other dalliances with conciliarism.
“No authority,” says the Archbishop, “not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.” True. That is why the expulsion of Resistance priests from the SSPX is of no consequence and why they were and are right to defy their SSPX superiors. Yes, in reality the 1974 declaration is a charter for the Resistance. This statement’s title should have been not “semper idem” but “adhuc decipientes.” In fact, may I suggest a motto for the SSPX, from Genesis? “et abiit, parvipendens quod primogenita vendidisset.”
Fr. Pagliarani’s Angelus Interview: admitting more than he perhaps realises...
Shortly before Christmas, The Angelus carried an interview with the Superior General, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, (also reproduced in the January British District newsletter). In his answer to the first question, he says that the SSPX has become “de-demonised” in the eyes of many and is no longer seen as “schismatic” or as “reacting against modernity. Hmm. Doubtless true, but what might the reason for that be, and is it not something that ought to prompt some soul-searching? Is the modern world less evil than twenty-odd years ago? Ought you not rather to be seen as more at war with it, and not less?
In Question 2 he is asked: “What does the Society of Saint Pius X have to offer to Catholics today that is not provided by the Ecclesia Dei communities?” His answer is little more than that the SSPX have greater “liberty,” that the Ecclesia Dei communities are in a “precarious” position which leads to them “persistently remaining silent” about liberal errors (but increasingly, whether he will admit it or not, the SSPX does too, witness for instance their failure to speak out against covid vaccines or their steady embrace of evolutionist cosmology) and he presents this silence as merely a sort of handicap which means that “Tradition cannot be defended effectively” and not as something wrong in itself, much less the “betrayal” which Archbishop Lefebvre quite rightly named it.
He also is careful to point out that: “Of course, we are not judging here the good that this or that priest may be doing in this or that situation…” Oh thank God for that! Above all, we mustn’t be judgemental! He ends his answer to this question by saying that Archbishop Lefebvre stood for “the true liberty of working entirely and unconditionally for the restoration of the Faith, the priesthood and the Mass.” This talk of “true liberty” may be true in its own way, but it sins by omission. Archbishop Lefebvre also said some far more hard-hitting things about betrayal, about shaking hands with the very people who are destroying the Church, about doing the work of the devil, and so forth. But perhaps that is the Archbishop Lefebvre who we’d rather forget? So much for his answer.
Now what is the real answer? What does distinguish the SSPX for the Ecclesia Dei priests? Not much. They are even more compromised, having been left marinating in compromise for much longer their teaching is even more laced with Vatican II and conciliar Popes. And of course they don’t have a bishop. They are ‘ahead of the curve,’ that is all. The SSPX will no doubt catch them up at some point.
To his credit, he does admit there is a danger of SSPX faithful “falling asleep in a comfortable situation that was acquired by the efforts of their elders.” In our experience this is true of SSPX faithful to a very great extent, far more than anyone has been prepared to admit so far, outside of the Resistance that is. It is even true of SSPX priests too.
The rest of the interview is boilerplate. He says that SSPX show “generosity in their apostolate” (do they, compared to twenty or thirty years ago?); he praises the late Bishop Tissier de Mallerais; he manages to sound like Bishop Fellay when talking about “Providence”; and he says we all need to pray more. True, but hardly a great revelation. As above, talk is cheap.
SSPX Watch!
Fr Udressy defects to the conciliar church and says the new Mass.
Readers from the early years of the Resistance will remember Fr. Firmin Udressy as one of Bishop Fellay’s loyal liberals. As District Superior of Germany, he was a zealous persecutor of any faithful whom he perceived had a “bad spirit” regardless of whether they had actually done anything, as in the case of an 89-year-old man for instance, who had used his savings to help purchase the very chapel from which he was banned (See Recusant 17, p.35). The same Fr. Udressy seemed very friendly towards Ecclesia Dei and Novus Ordo priests and even attended an Una Voce conference (see Recusant 26, p.34). Prior to being District Superior he was prior of Munich, arguably the most prominent German priory, and was responsible for them advertising their Mass as being “in the extraordinary form” (see Recusant 13, p.34).
Thus it may not come as any great surprise to hear that in September 2024 he left the SSPX and began offering the New Mass. According to some very joyful, upbeat articles on more than one conciliar website, Udressy has joined the ‘conservative Novus Ordo’ French-based ‘Community of St. Martin’ which says “the Mass of St. Paul VI” and not “the Mass of St. Pius V.” Will the German SSPX learn an important lesson from this or draw the right conclusions, or are they going to pretend that they didn’t see any signs going back years? Will Fr. Udressy’s actions as District Superior be looked at again? Will anyone draw a causal link between his liberalism then and his joining the Novus Ordo now? Of course not. And yet, is not Fr. Udressy at least being more honest than his (former) superiors? They are the ones who ought to have left and haven’t. If all priests who felt like Fr. Udressy had made the move like him, there would have been plenty of high-level departures over the past twenty years, one suspects, and the events of 2012 would never have taken place.
Is the SSPX “Semper Idem”..?
In late November last year, the SSPX General House released a statement marking the fiftieth anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre’s November 1974 Declaration, entitled “1974-2024 Semper Idem.” You may look in vain for anything openly liberal in this statement - these are words written to satisfy everyone that the SSPX hasn’t changed, after all. But don’t be fooled! The problem is not what the words say, but that the words and the reality do not match.
For example, Archbishop Lefebvre complains about a “naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechetics.” Take a look at the evolutionist cosmology being pushed by Fr. Paul Robinson (now in charge of Angelus Press, if you please!), complete with billions-of-years-old timeline, Noah’s flood not being worldwide and the days of creation presented by Genesis in the wrong order, and then tell me about naturalist and Teilhardian teaching going on in seminaries and schools! Archbishop Lefebvre also says that the Vatican II revolution “is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.”
True, but then how does that square with declaring that the same Vatican II “enlightens and deepens our understanding of Tradition; or that “we accept” the conciliar code of canon law and also the “legitimately promulgated” New Mass? How does it fit with promoting conciliar devotions such as the Divine Mercy among the faithful (see Recusant 29, p.33)? We could go on. If the SSPX really stood by the 1974 Declaration and wanted to make those words its own again, to be the same as always (“semper idem”), it would retract those declarations named above, apologise and clean up all the many other dalliances with conciliarism.
“No authority,” says the Archbishop, “not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.” True. That is why the expulsion of Resistance priests from the SSPX is of no consequence and why they were and are right to defy their SSPX superiors. Yes, in reality the 1974 declaration is a charter for the Resistance. This statement’s title should have been not “semper idem” but “adhuc decipientes.” In fact, may I suggest a motto for the SSPX, from Genesis? “et abiit, parvipendens quod primogenita vendidisset.”
Fr. Pagliarani’s Angelus Interview: admitting more than he perhaps realises...
Shortly before Christmas, The Angelus carried an interview with the Superior General, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, (also reproduced in the January British District newsletter). In his answer to the first question, he says that the SSPX has become “de-demonised” in the eyes of many and is no longer seen as “schismatic” or as “reacting against modernity. Hmm. Doubtless true, but what might the reason for that be, and is it not something that ought to prompt some soul-searching? Is the modern world less evil than twenty-odd years ago? Ought you not rather to be seen as more at war with it, and not less?
In Question 2 he is asked: “What does the Society of Saint Pius X have to offer to Catholics today that is not provided by the Ecclesia Dei communities?” His answer is little more than that the SSPX have greater “liberty,” that the Ecclesia Dei communities are in a “precarious” position which leads to them “persistently remaining silent” about liberal errors (but increasingly, whether he will admit it or not, the SSPX does too, witness for instance their failure to speak out against covid vaccines or their steady embrace of evolutionist cosmology) and he presents this silence as merely a sort of handicap which means that “Tradition cannot be defended effectively” and not as something wrong in itself, much less the “betrayal” which Archbishop Lefebvre quite rightly named it.
He also is careful to point out that: “Of course, we are not judging here the good that this or that priest may be doing in this or that situation…” Oh thank God for that! Above all, we mustn’t be judgemental! He ends his answer to this question by saying that Archbishop Lefebvre stood for “the true liberty of working entirely and unconditionally for the restoration of the Faith, the priesthood and the Mass.” This talk of “true liberty” may be true in its own way, but it sins by omission. Archbishop Lefebvre also said some far more hard-hitting things about betrayal, about shaking hands with the very people who are destroying the Church, about doing the work of the devil, and so forth. But perhaps that is the Archbishop Lefebvre who we’d rather forget? So much for his answer.
Now what is the real answer? What does distinguish the SSPX for the Ecclesia Dei priests? Not much. They are even more compromised, having been left marinating in compromise for much longer their teaching is even more laced with Vatican II and conciliar Popes. And of course they don’t have a bishop. They are ‘ahead of the curve,’ that is all. The SSPX will no doubt catch them up at some point.
To his credit, he does admit there is a danger of SSPX faithful “falling asleep in a comfortable situation that was acquired by the efforts of their elders.” In our experience this is true of SSPX faithful to a very great extent, far more than anyone has been prepared to admit so far, outside of the Resistance that is. It is even true of SSPX priests too.
The rest of the interview is boilerplate. He says that SSPX show “generosity in their apostolate” (do they, compared to twenty or thirty years ago?); he praises the late Bishop Tissier de Mallerais; he manages to sound like Bishop Fellay when talking about “Providence”; and he says we all need to pray more. True, but hardly a great revelation. As above, talk is cheap.
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre