Fr. Ruiz [2017]: Necessary Precisions to Those who Resist the Conciliar Fury and It's Errors
Taken from The Recusant - Issue 41 [May/June 2017]: Some minor adjustments to he English were necessary, but as far as possible we have tried to keep the original ‘flavor’. God bless Fr. Ruiz…

February 4th 2017

Catholic Priests - who do their best in order to preserve the authentic inheritance of the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church, that is, the bi-millennial Catholic Tradition - try to remain faithful to the teachings and directives that Mons. Lefebvre gave us with this precise objective. That is why every day we need to make new alerts and precisions, where required.

We are living times of demonic disorientation, of deep crisis in the Catholic Church, as well as in her members. It is not enough just knowing about this. We should not forget that evil is also seductive and is capable of adopting new appearances to better achieve its goals.

That is the reason why true Catholics need to be cautious. (“Watch and pray so that you do not fall into temptation”. St. Mc., XIV, 38). Through the increasing disorientation, due to the crisis of authority in the Church, (“I will hurt the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered”. St. Mc. XIV, 27) It happens that even in those who have the sincere intention to save the Holy Tradition in the Catholic Church, there are gaps towards the attitude to be taken on certain matters and particularly in regard to certain situations.

The modern world of liberal nature has no qualms about mixing; furthermore, it loves mixtures. On the contrary, our Holy Religion asks us to flee away from evil, as well as the occasions of sin, which may be more than varied. As far as I am concerned, as I said before, I try to conform myself to the directives that our Catholic and Saintly Bishop Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre gave us, also the directives of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (F.S.S.P.X.), which he founded, as well as his Teachings and authentic Catholic attitude of the F.S.S.P.X. until the new-fraternity gradually started to separate himself from the spirit of its founder.

Amongst some so-called “resistance”, they begin to give advice to the parishioners, which no longer corresponds to those of our Bishop Mgr. Lefebvre, our faithful Bishop. This is the main reason, why I want to point out various matters, which are of main importance, although nowadays, they seem to be less clear to some. At the end, I have added a commentary in relation to the recent announcement given by Mgr. Fellay about the imminence of an official agreement of the (new)-FSSPX with the conciliar Rome:

1st Point: About the morality of the new mass and attendance at it.

As we know, Pope Paul VI ordered the elaboration of the new mass (novus ordo) with such an ecumenical criteria, thus worst of all, to six protestant pastors(1), who participated in creating it. For this and other reasons, Paul VI artificially produced a new mass, copied from the protestant mass. However, it was ambiguous enough so as to be neither formally heretical, nor formally Catholic. An ambiguous rite was created, but one which was no less unavoidably poisoned by a protestant spirit.

The conclusion is that the new mass, due to its ambiguity, is not formally heretical; nevertheless because of his errors, it is indeed favourable to heresy. This is the reason why it can not
be called either a Catholic Rite, nor good in itself, because those are intrinsic characteristics.

From all this we can deduce that:

►Assistance at the new mass is not permissible. It is not licit. (Those who are aware of what the new mass is, morally we can no longer attend it).

►No one can ever be advised directly to go to the new mass. Although for serious reasons of prudence, one can simply leave someone in his ignorance or good will.

►Holy Communion is the most perfect Way to participate in the Holy Mass. This is the reason why one must not receive communion from consecrated hosts in the new mass.

This is in short the thought and the attitude that Mons. Lefebvre taught us to have towards the new mass.

2nd Point: On attendance at the masses of the “indult”.

Conciliar Rome has always tried to recuperate those Catholics who, defending their Faith, have set themselves apart (without intention of schism) from the ecclesiastical environments,
which are infected by modernism and by the mistakes of Vatican II. Nevertheless, conciliar Rome in her eagerness to put them under their control has proposed to them new “solutions” and “pardons”, which would give an apparent opportunity to continue preserving their convictions, but within the official structure of the conciliar church. Those who have fallen into these nests have been cruelly disillusioned by the pressures and even because of the drastic measures, which are always focused on limiting Catholic Tradition and its practice more and more. It is indeed a terrible contradiction the fact of putting the Sacred Tradition under the guardianship and “protection” of those, who are exactly the same enemies of the Sacred Tradition…

Mgr. Lefebvre, in his time, has made us understand that the Traditional Mass is not the whole Tradition, but there also exists the Teaching of Faith and its practice. It is not enough to have the Traditional Holy Mass, when next to it, the preaching and the practice of the Faith are not consistent. Particularly, when next to the Holy Mass, the whole Faith is not taught anymore, whether directly nor indirectly. It is about forcing the parishioners to accept Vatican II. (For instance, by omitting the clear and firm denunciation of the mistakes of Vatican II in order to weaken and exterminate our defense and fight for the true Catholic Faith and Sacred Tradition). In such a case, the souls of those parishioners are already in greatest danger. Therefore, it is better to renounce those masses because of the danger of infection, which is more or less camouflaged around them. The Holy Priest of Ars in his youth, preferred to stay without the Holy Mass, rather than to assist to those masses said by priests who were sworn to the liberal government of his time.

The attitude, which was before requested of parishioners of the F.S.S.P.X. towards the “indult” masses was:

►Never to assist to those masses of “indult”. (It is better to pray the Holy Rosary at home, and when it is possible, to go to the Holy Mass celebrated by priests who are not committed to the conciliar church.)

►Do not attend any pastoral service of the mass of “indult” (whether conferences, nor pilgrims, etc.) It is indeed better to stay without Mass than be exposed to that danger of being gradually influenced by that committed mentality of the conciliar church.

3rd point: On attendance nowadays at the Masses of the new F.S.S.P.X.

The present day superiors of the new F.S.S.P.X. in their eagerness to come closer to conciliar Rome, have already placed the new-F.S.S.P.X. in a similar situation or even the same one, which we previously reproached to the agreement-groups as the Fraternity Saint Peter, haven’t they? And in this case, do not the old instructions that were given to us regarding the agreement-people already apply to the (new) F.S.S.P.X, as well?

The spirit that nowadays rules within the new-F.S.S.P.X. is that of coming closer and having an agreement with the conciliar Rome, which is undeniable. Mgr. Fellay already affirms it openly and publicly. Besides, it is not always necessary for an agreement to be written and official in order to be a true one; because tacit agreements may also exist based on “friendly chats” and significant “facts”.

Pope Francis had recently given the jurisdiction to confess to the priests of the new F.S.S.P.X., isn’t this a real fact? In fact, in the Catholic Church one can not have jurisdiction, if one is not first incardinated (even if it were directly by the Pope). It is true, as Mgr. Fellay shamelessly said in an agreed interview on the 29th of January 2017, “...only the seal is missing”.

All the pressures and persecutions which have been being made for a long time, not only on the priests but also the parishioners, in order to fold them into this surrendered policy. Are they not arguments to confirm that the new-F.S.S.P.X. is in a frankly agreement attitude? And each time the increasingly notorious false shyness in not being willing to denounce openly the mistakes of Vatican II and specifically the noisy scandals from Pope Francis, are they not a worrying sign?

It is obvious that all this dangerous environment, which we denounced in the “Ecclesia Dei” societies. (Before, our same superiors we were constantly putting us on guard against this danger.) Nowadays this dangerous environment is already present inside the new-F.S.S.P.X. It is a fact for all these reasons that the present day environments of the new-F.S.S.P.X. have become dangerous. This constant insistence on blind obedience, even when there are more than legitimate reasons to be worried about. So, Faith has passed to a second level in respect to blind obedience; when it should be the opposite.

According to my personal experience, all the priests as well as the parishioners who have not wanted to disconnect themselves from the new-F.S.S.P.X., as a result, they have been folding hands one after another. Not only have they abandoned the fight against modernism, but due to those intolerable moral pressures they are suffering from, they have been changing and watering-down their thoughts.

►For all these reasons, I advise the Priests as well as the parishioners, DEFINITELY, to walk away from all the environments of the new-F.S.S.P.X. This is in accordance with the spirit of prudential attitude that Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre had previously advised us in relation to the “Ecclesia Dei” societies, which nowadays all already applies perfectly to the new-F.S.S.P.X.

4th point: On attendance to the “Vacancy of Peter’s Seat” Masses (‘Sedevacantist’ Masses).

As for those who affirm today the “vacancy of the Apostolic Seat,” I do not doubt that many of them have a sincere attachment and great veneration for the person of Mgr. Lefebvre. However, they are not always willing to accept all the recommendations and directives that he gave us.

In fact, Mgr. Lefebvre himself spoke very clearly about the possibility of this question. Nevertheless, what he always and emphatically refused to do, was definitively to define this issue. You can not make a doctrine, out of a historical fact, a strictly doctrinal point. The Truths of the Faith are necessary for our Salvation, whereas a historical fact may be controversial. The danger is that if one day God wants to raise a true Catholic Pope, then one no longer wants to recognize the legitimacy of the Apostolic Succession.

Mons. Lefebvre wrote an article in the traditional magazine “Roma” (number 67, from the year 1981):

Quote:“Our Fraternity absolutely rejects sharing these reasonings. We want to remain attached to Rome, to Saint Peter’s Successor; even though we reject his liberalism because of the Fidelity to their Predecessors. We are not afraid today to say it respectfully but firmly, as Saint Paul did in front of Saint Peter.

That is why, far from rejecting the prayers for the Pope, the more we increase our prayers and we plead the Holy Spirit to illuminate him and strengthen him in the support and defense of the Faith.

In consequence, it cannot be tolerated that the members, priests, brothers, sisters, oblates of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (F.S.S.P.X.) reject praying for the Pope and assert that all the masses of the Novus Ordo are invalid”.

On another occasion, commenting on this article, he added:
Quote: “I wanted to write this article so that everybody knows, including the parishioners, what is the position of the Fraternity. So the parishioners know that if one of our priests preaches that there is no Pope, he does not preach in accordance to what the Fraternity thinks”.

Mons. Lefebvre said in the “Fideliter” magazine (number 79, January-February 1991):
Quote:“I have always put on guard the parishioners about the vacancy of the Seat of Peter, for instance. Then they say, if the Mass is good, then we can go to Mass. Of course there is the Mass. This is a good thing; although one has to consider that there is also the preaching, there is also the environment, the conversations, before and after, the contacts. All of which makes one gently and gradually changes ones thought. All this is then a real danger and that is why in a general way, I estimate that all this forms one whole. One does not only go to Mass, in fact, one attends the whole environment”.

A well known blog of the [Fake] Resistance (“Non Possumus”), on the 12th of January 2017, published an article which says:
Quote:“It is licit to the parishioners to go to all traditional Masses (also celebrated “non una cum”) because it is the Minister who answers to God about his decisions, meanwhile the parishioners must only answer if they have observed the Third Commandment: “Sanctify the Feasts”.”

(The expression “Non una cum” means that in that Mass the legitimacy of the actual Pope is not recognized.) According to this principle it would then be justified to attend not only the Sedevacantist Masses, but also those of the Indult and with no doubt those of the new-F.S.S.P.X. !

5th point: The “suicide operation” or the “agreements” of the new F.S.S.P.X.

Plenty of times Mgr. Fellay vehemently declared even not long ago, that he did not want to make any agreements. And now this past 29th January 2017 in a TV interview, Mgr. Fellay commented in such an “unworried” way, that: “only the seal is missing” in order to have consummated the agreement with Rome. Mgr. Fellay then recognizes the existence of all this work of preparation and flirtation with Rome (for which he is responsible), which was in fact a practical agreement already, to which only this one “small” formality was missing: “the seal.”

Mgr. Fellay, with such an ambiguous language full of unverified and unverifiable suggestions has been weaving his web around the unsuspecting. Has been preparing for years the spirits of the priests and parishioners towards this agreement. Mgr. Fellay has always suggested in his “conferences” and preaches about “beautiful horizons” and the “serious probability” that Rome is “already” converting. In fact, Mgr. Fellay is dragging the flock that had been entrusted to him by Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre. (Priests, parishioners, seminaries, priories, schools, etc.) into the conciliar pot! Yes, all of Monsignor Lefebvre's great work of rescue of Tradition is now falling down into the conciliar (Vatican II) pot!

All of Pope Francis’ indecent statements and gestures are not a statement of his intention, are they? Mgr. Fellay putting himself under his jurisdiction, does not imply obeying him, does it? “Francis,” as he nowadays likes to be called, does he not try to govern the church according to the intention which he himself has previously expressed, does he? And if that is his intention, those who now direct the F.S.S.P.X are not falling down into a colossal trap, that they themselves have sought, are they? The far-fetched, falsely educated and above all ambiguous language of Mons. Fellay matters little, in fact he is trying to justify not only a great imposture, but also an error of historical dimensions.

His Excellence Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre stated in his sermon of Episcopal Consecrations in 1988, that if he had continued the agreements with Rome it would have been a “suicide operation.” Even worse, the facts ended up convincing the faithful Archbishop Lefebvre that these agreements were a great chimera, due to the lack of honesty of the conciliars (from Vatican II). It is for this reason that Archbishop Lefebvre himself, after the failed approach with Rome, made clear the new profile of what would be in the future the position of the Fraternity (F.S.S.P.X.) in regard to Rome occupied by modernists:
Quote:“If I went to discuss to Rome, it was because I wanted to prove, if we could make an agreement with the ecclesiastical authorities, while at the same time, looking forward to sheltering ourselves from its liberalism and protecting Holy Tradition. But the strength of the facts has forced me to confirm that no agreement could be made at all, which could give us both, all the guarantee, and at the same time the conviction that Rome would sincerely attend to the preservation of the Holy Tradition.” Monsignor Lefebvre “Fideliter” magazine No. 68, 1988.

Quote:“Our true parishioners, those who have truly understood the problem and who have helped us to continue the straight and steady line of Holy Tradition and the Faith, feared beforehand the meetings for possible agreement that I had in Rome. They told me it was indeed dangerous and that I wasted my time on it. Of course, I had waited until the last moment to see if Rome could show a little honesty. I can not be blamed for not having done everything I could. But now, however, to those who come to tell me: ‘You come to an understanding with Rome,’ I think I can tell them with certainty that I went farther than what I should have gone.” ‘Fideliter’ magazine No. 79, 1991.

And referring to the Romans, Mgr. Lefebvre told them on another occasion:
Quote:“If you do not accept the Doctrine of your Predecessors, it is useless to talk. As long as you do not accept to reform the Council taking into account the Doctrine of the Popes, who have preceded you, there is no possible dialogue, it is useless.” (‘Fideliter’ No. 66 Nov. 1988).

And on the same occasion, talking about the “traditionalists” who had already made agreements with Rome, Mgr. Lefebvre said:
Quote:“When they affirm that they have not given up anything, it is false. They have given up the possibility of contradicting Rome. They cannot say anything now. They must remain silent because of the favors they have received, and it is now impossible for them to denounce the errors of the conciliar church. Very slowly they accept, even if it were only the profession of faith that Cardinal Ratzinger has imposed on them ... From the point of view of ideas. They turn very gently and end up admitting the false ideas of the Council Vatican II. This is because Rome has granted them some favors for Tradition. This is a very dangerous situation.”

In his Book “Spiritual Journey,” which he considered as being his spiritual Testament addressed to his own priests, Mgr. Lefebvre says:
Quote:“It is then a strict duty for every Priest who wishes to remain a Catholic one, to separate himself from this conciliar church, as long as it has not returned to the Holy Tradition of the Magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.”

There is a supine “forgotten” in the new F.S.S.P.X. of the last teachings of Monsignor Lefebvre on the issue of the agreements ...

The “apostolate of penetration,” which means the tactic of trying to convert the wrong environments “from the inside,” is an activist mistake that has always led to many disasters (It is a bad tactic to enter the communist party to convert the communist party, as well as to enter the cave of Alibabá and the 40 thieves to convert Alibabá and the 40 thieves, etc.).

What the conciliar catholics really need is, above all, the example that Holy Tradition gives them. All mixtures violate the nature of things. The process of silencing (any criticism of Rome, the Council and its errors, the attitudes and scandalous words of Pope Francis, etc.) began long ago inside the F.S.S.P.X. Since it began to please conciliar Rome, it was an inevitable consequence. Can the destroyers of the Catholic Church be pleased in any other better way? 

In questions of Faith for those who have a public function as pastors, a public profession is necessary. It is not enough to over-understand (in fact, not all understand them ...) in a public society such as the Catholic Church, what is not publicly said, generally it does not have practical validity. After silence follows pusillanimity, fear, commitment. But commitment in things of Faith is a sin.


This year, 2017, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Apparitions of Our Lady in Fatima. The crisis of the Faith, which was spoken of in the Third Secret given by Our Lady, has not been taken into account by the men of Church. 

Furthermore, considering this corruption of Faith each time deeper, we can only entrust ourselves to and implore the faithful protection of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to preserve us and to remain always faithful in the Faith of the True Holy Church of Christ our Lord and God.


1. The new mass was written as a protestant and not sacred at all:, it means a desacralized one. It was elaborated by one mason and 6 protestants. The mason was: card. Annibale
Bugnini; as well as by 6 protestants, such as Rev. Ronald CD Jasper (anglican), Rev. Dr. H. Massey Pastor Jr. (methodist), A. Raymond George (methodist), Pastor Friedrich-Wilhelm
Künneth, (calvinist), Rev. Eugene L. Brand, (methodist) and Pastor Max Thurian, (Thaizé Comunity).
"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

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)