Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Tuesday of the Third Week of Lent - March 5, 2024

[Stone]

Tuesday of Third Week of Lent - March 5, 2024 - "Letter of Fr. Basilio Meramo" (NH)

[Stone]

The following is the Letter of Fr. Meramo read by Fr. Hewko in the above sermon. RIP Fr. Meramo.

Fr. Méramo: Bishop Fellay Accepted 95% of Vatican II

TIA | April 22, 2009


As TIA has promised its readers, today it posts Fr. Basilio Méramo’s reply to his expulsion by Bishop Bernard Fellay. Many accusations were made against him, and he presents a strong defense, appealing the sentence to Eternal Rome. It is a manly defense, elevated and very worthy of reading.

The principal point of his letter and the best thrust in his defense/counter-attack is the revelation of the 2001 statement of Bishop Fellay affirming that already at that time he accepted 95% of Vatican Council II. Since it is well known that the SSPX superior has often said the opposite, it becomes evident that the Bishop is duplicitous – a fact Fr. Méramo does not hesitate to stress.

In this counter-charge he includes all four SSPX Bishops. With the supposition that Fellays’s declaration that 95% of Vatican II would be accepted by the directors, he analyzes the consequences in order to demonstrate that his expulsion is unjust.

This sentence of expulsion is a good example of how the SSPX heads are “cleaning” its ranks, sweeping out any priest who takes a true position of resistance. It seems the house is being prepared to receive new owners - and everything needs to be arranged according to their taste…

Below are the main excerpts of Fr. Basilio Méramo’s last letter. TIA translated it from the Spanish. The subtitles are ours. The complete text of the original is here.

- The Editor

Letter to Bishop Fellay Replying to My Expulsion from the SSPX
by Fr. Basilio Méramo

On April 7, I received a hand-delivered notification of my expulsion - a thing to be expected after two canonical admonitions. It is, let me say at once, unjust and invalid both juridically and theologically since the two admonitions were per se inconsistent, and were immediately acknowledged as such by me in my two letters of response.

I appeal to Eternal Rome against the decree of my expulsion, according to Canon Law (can 647 § 2 n. 4), which suspends any decree. Thus, juridically my expulsion would be suspended, lacking juridical effect until the appeal is judged, that is, indefinitely. Indeed, this is because today Eternal Rome has been invaded by unworthy prelates who do not fulfill their duty of confirming the faithful in the Faith.

On the contrary, they corrupt and prostitute the Faith, cult and morals, and violate the truth, whose rule they abhor like antichrists. … Never has a greater abomination and desolation been seen in the holy place. They promote adoration of themselves as God, invoking the divine power, which they pervert and invert. For this reason Msgr. Lefebvre said that “Rome is occupied by antichrists” in his June 30, 1988 declaration. Ironically, the topic [of my expulsion] remains suspended until the parousia of Christ.

Open arms to those who accept Vatican II

Notwithstanding, it falls to me to bear with patience and integrity this injury, remaining firm as a Catholic priest in the front lines against Modernism in the Antichrist-Rome. This is what Msgr. Lefebvre in that same document called the modernist and liberal Rome that persecutes the holy and infallible Catholic Tradition. It is to this Rome that you, along with the direction of SSPX and the three Bishops, cowardly deliver us under the appearance of a making a good action - [throwing yourselves] into the arms of Benedict XVI who was able to tempt you into a skillful trap.


Accepting the Council is accepting the French Revolution in the Church

Now, if you permit me, I will go on to refute the most serious of your fulminating but absurd charges in their theological-doctrinal context.

I was charged with making false and grave accusations against the general superior of the SSPX, of causing serious damage by opposing him, of being obstinate, rebelling against authority, causing scandal, etc.

I would like to know, Most Reverend Bishop, what exactly are these false accusations you said I have made. My accusations are grave, I agree, but not false. If falseness exists, it cannot be justly said to be on my part, but rather - forgive me - on yours, since you have been using a double language for a long time. Not because you are bilingual, but because of your great dilemma: How to enter into an accord without allowing the treason to be noticed, covering it under a false appearance of good?

How is it possible to accept what you stated eight years ago (in an interview to the daily La Liberté on May 11, 2001, published by DICI n. 6, on May 18, 2001), that is, that “we go along with about 95% of the Second Vatican Council,” without being a liberal and modernist? The liberals and modernists themselves acknowledge that Council Vatican II was “the 1789 in the Church,” according to Card. Suenens, that is, the French Revolution of 1789 inside the Church.

Or as then Card. Ratzinger (today Benedict XVI) said: “The problem of the Council was to assimilate the values of centuries of liberal culture” (Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Dethroned Him, introduction). Thus, it is clear that whoever accepts 95% of Vatican Council II, accepts 95% of the French Revolution inside de Church, and also assimilates centuries of liberal culture in the Church. And 95% is a very high percentage.

Then comes the great question: What are you saying when you affirm that you are going to dialogue with Rome on doctrinal issues? What are you going to discuss? The remaining 5%? This alone bluntly demonstrates the parody, deception, lie and falsity [of your position], all executed with the great appearance of seriousness while in fact everything was becoming increasingly rotten.

No longer a resistance, but a pact with Masonry and Ecumenism

What, then, remains of the SSPX, of resistance against Modernism, when one accepts, goes along with or sustains 95% of that nefarious and atypical Council Vatican II? Indeed, its pretense to not be dogmatic is as absurd as imagining a square circle … [as theologian Marin Sola and Msgr. Lefebvre have proved].

Msgr. Lefebvre denounced the pact of non-aggression between the Church and Masonry veiled under the names of aggiornamento and openness to the world (cf. Un Évèque Parle, p. 97). You, however, are willing to enter into that pact. Regarding such pact he adds: “Further, the Church no longer accepts being the one true religion, the only road of eternal salvation” (ibid. p. 97).

Card. Ratzinger (today Benedict XVI) recognizes the false religions as extraordinary roads of salvation, as one can note in this text that, despite its conservative bent, is deeply heretical: “The values of the non-Christian religions have been excessively emphasized to the point that some theologians present them as ordinary roads of salvation, instead of extraordinary” (Informe sobre la Fé, BAC Popular, Madrid, p. 220).


Acceptance of a schismatic Conciliar Church

Further, Msgr. Lefebvre stressed that “in the eyes of the Roman authorities as well as our own, this Council represents a new Church that they call the ‘Conciliar Church’” (ibid., p. 97). He also affirmed that this Council was schismatic. Notwithstanding, you can uphold 95% of it. Doing so, you become 95% schismatic.

Here are his words: “In view of an external and internal analysis of Vatican II, that is, analyzing its texts and the details of this Council, we believe that we can affirm it is a schismatic council because it rejects Tradition and breaks with the Church of the past. It is by the fruits that one judges the tree” (ibid. p. 97).

Thus, we have the paradoxical and absurd situation of you accepting 95% of the schismatic and apostate post-conciliar New Church. Hence you would be 95% schismatic and apostate – not an insignificant percentage! And you still pretend to be a faithful and worthy successor of Msgr. Lefebvre. If this is not falseness and treason, then I don’t know what it is.


Nefarious consequences of an accord

Msgr. Lefebvre considers that “all those who cooperate in the application of this inversion of values, accepting and adhering to the new ‘conciliar Church’ … enter into schism” (ibid. p. 98). Yet today you intend to reach an accord with this schismatic new conciliar Church.

Ecumenism represents the universal apostasy

Further, you want the SSPX to be recognized and regularized by modernist Rome, which practices an apostate ecumenism. This is how Msgr. Lefebvre described it: “Those who, motivated by laicism and apostate ecumenism, either minimize or deny these [traditional] riches can only condemn these Bishops [of SSPX]. Doing so, they confirm their schism and their separation from Our Lord and His Reign” (Itinéraire spiritual, p. 9).

Yes, it is an apostate ecumenism - this is the language of Scriptures, which calls it the Great Apostasy, that is, the universal or ecumenical apostasy. Yet you would bring us closer to this ecumenical apostasy. You want, then, to make us adulterous and schismatic, for according to Msgr. Lefebvre’s words: “This apostasy transforms those members into adulterers and schismatics, opposed to tradition and in rupture with the past of the Church, and hence with the Church that remains faithful to the Church of Our Lord. Those who continue to be faithful to the true Church are the object of savage and continuous persecutions” (ibid. pp 70-71).


Duplicity also in the reply to Benedict’s letter

In his letter to the Bishops of March 10, 2009, Benedict XVI, after referring to the “remission of the excommunication” called his invitation to the four Bishops of the SSPX to return as if they were prodigal sons a gesture of goodness and paternal mercy.

A smile that expresses the absence of obstacles

However, he clearly and explicitly reminded them that “they do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church,” given that they lack canonical mission or status. Their suspension a divinis remains in effect as long as they do not accept Vatican Council II.

Benedict XVI spelled it out in clear terms …: “This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature, and concern primarily the acceptance of the Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. … The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 - this must be quite clear to the Society.”

With this we see the objective of modernist and apostate Rome. But you and the other three Bishops of SSPX tell us that you are going to Rome to preach the truth and convert it, etc. … On March 12, 2009 - only two days later - in your quick response to Benedict XVI’s letter, you reached the apex [of shame] when you used his words to say: “Far from wanting to stop Tradition in 1962, we wish to consider Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar teaching.” This statement shows - forgive me, Bishop Fellay - your duplicity of language, a modernist and liberal language that manifests your falseness and betrayal.


My expulsion is an abuse of authority that only favors the enemies

Therefore, Bishop Fellay, it is absurd and unjust for you to expel me from SSPX for publicly and openly resisting your sinister politics of merging with [Vatican II], the landmark of the New Conciliar Church and its schismatic and apostate ecumenism. In an abusive exercise of your authority, compromising with the worst and principal enemies of the Church, you dare to falsely and injuriously accuse me of being a rebel, insubordinate, disobedient, obstinate, scandalous, subversive, in need of correction, harmful and dangerous to the common good of the SSPX. I could launch these same accusations against you to your face, but [I will not because] the Divine Judge will do so when He will come to judge the living and the dead. I leave it for then, when I expect to meet you.

However, I pray for you, that God will forgive you because you know not what you do – either with the SSPX or with me, whom you throw into the street like a vile delinquent – the same fate suffered by so many priests who opposed the innovations at the time of the Council. You expel me at the age of 55, after having giving myself with a complete and generous commitment to the service of the SSPX, which I served for 29 years, leaving behind everything, renouncing everything to serve Holy Mother Church in the SSPX, resisting and combating that apostate and heretical Modernism which today you lead us toward – softly and sweetly, but surely.


A New SSPX is being shaped in the likeness of the New Church

Today you expel me for a New Society [SSPX], recycled at the feet of the New Conciliar Church. I have never belonged, and I never want to belong to this New SSPX and New Church. I will continue to be part of the true Church and the true SSPX. You expel me, better said, you excommunicate me from your New SSPX, but I don’t care, just as Msgr. Lefebvre didn’t care when he was excommunicated from the New Church. This punishment, far from being a stigma or affront, is a true mark of decoration and proof of orthodoxy.

He was not like you, the four Bishops, who shamefully asked the excommunication to be lifted before the eyes of the world, refusing to bear the weight of the cross, considering it an ignominy. Christ did nothing of this sort. He did not step down from His Cross (the greatest instrument of shame and suffering). He preferred to die crucified, ridiculed, spat upon, scourged, stripped of His clothes and abandoned by all. This is how He founded His Divine Church, leaving her as inheritance His Blood shed on the Cross.


The apocalyptic significance of accepting the New Mass

This inheritance signed with His Divine Blood, His whole Body immolated, is the Holy Mass. The same Mass that today you do no longer recognize as being the one, exclusive Mass when you accept the spurious, bastard New Mass … considering it the legitimate and principal (ordinary) rite, while the Tridentine Mass becomes an occasional (extraordinary) rite of the New Church, which is – or will be – the see of the Antichrist and the False Prophet, as Our Lady of La Salette predicted: “Rome will lose the faith and become the see of the Antichrist.”

Let him who has eyes see, and let him who has ears listen.

Ironically, today you chop off my head, without remembering that it was thanks to my intervention in the General Chapter of 1994 asking that Fr. Schmidberger not be re-elected that you accepted the position of General Superior. Indeed, for two years he had been arranging everything for his reelection. He was at the very point of achieving his aim when surprisingly, contrary to his plans, you were elected. I stood up to tell you to accept that position as a cross, following the example of St. Pius X …


Association of this punishment with the Passion of the Church

This entire apocalyptical drama the Church is living is prophetically encompassed in the Lenten liturgy in a special and solemn way during Holy Week and in the Sacred Triduum, which shows us the desolate Church, the stripped altar and the empty tabernacle. It is a clear depiction of what happened 2,000 years ago with the Passion and Death of Christ. It is also a symbol of what would happen to the Church, the mystical body of Chirst, during the apocalyptic end times …

I ask God to forgive you, Msgr., along with the Chapter that - like a Sanhedrin - condemned me and expelled me. It reminds me of what the then elect people did to Our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the words of the liturgy: “The impious ones said, let us destroy the just man for he is against our works” (5th antiphony of Lauds of Holy Saturday).

But the words of the Prophet also come to mind: “The Lord God is my helper, therefore I am not confounded: and I have set my face as a hard stone, knowing that I will not be confounded” (Is 50:7).

Thus, since my alternative was either to be silent in a vile silence before what I see or to clearly and firmly speak out at the price of my expulsion, I fulfilled my priestly duty without betraying God or my conscience. Now, my only choice is to wander carrying my head in my hands, as St. Denis did before he fell and died.

I bid you farewell during this tragic and expressive Sacred Tridium of Holy Week, filled with mentions of what would happen to the Church in the last apocalyptic times, which is, nonetheless, the necessary prelude for the future Easter and Resurrection.

Fr. Basilio Méramo
Orizaba, Good Friday, April 9, 2009

[Stone]

Fr. Hewko points out in this sermon that it is true charity to point out the wolves, even by name, as the Confessors of the Church have always done, as Archbishop Lefebvre did, etc.

Fr. Felix Sarday Salvany's book, Liberalism is a Sin, also shows plainly and clearly that true charity consist of rejecting errors and often publicly rebuking those who promote or tolerate error!

It is a good reminder that even those professing to be traditional Catholics but who rather show tolerance for error (e.g. the Indult groups, the new SSPX, the False Resistance, etc.) are rightly corrected - out of true charity.

Chapter 19 Charity and Liberalism

Narrow! Intolerant! Uncompromising! These are the epithets of odium hurled by Liberal votaries of all degrees at us [...] Are not Liberals our neighbors like other men? Do we not owe to them the same charity we apply to others? Are not your vigorous denunciations, it is urged against us, harsh and uncharitable and in the very teeth of the teaching of Christianity, which is essentially a religion of love? Such is the accusation continually flung in our face. Let us see what its value is. Let us see all that the word "Charity" signifies.

The Catechism [of the Council of Trent], that popular and most authoritative epitome of Catholic theology, gives us the most complete and succinct definition of charity; it is full of wisdom and philosophy. Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus, after God we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not just in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now, what is it to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher. "To love is to wish good to him whom we love." To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only, but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good, then goods of the natural order which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase "for the love of God."

It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury, and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life; in short, all is reduced to this: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose, or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.

If it is shown that in displeasing or offending our neighbor we act for his good, it is evident that we love him, even when opposing or crossing him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may nonetheless love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them, we do nonetheless love them. This is charity—and perfect charity.

It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for defense. Such would be the case should one see a highwayman attacking a traveler. In this instance, to kill, wound, or at least take such measures as to render the aggressor impotent, would be an act of true charity.

The good of all good is the divine Good, just as God is for all men the Neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence, the love due to a man, inasmuch as he is our neighbor, ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to Him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God's sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore, to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.

Modern Liberalism reverses this order; it imposes a false notion of charity: our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards. By its reiterated and trite accusations toward us of intolerance, it has succeeded in disconcerting even some staunch Catholics. But our rule is too plain and too concrete to admit of misconception. It is this: Sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when, in his own interest, he is crossed, humiliated, and chastised. It is practiced in relation to a third party when he is defended from the unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror, and execration of all. It is practiced in relation to God when, for His glory and in His service, it becomes necessary to silence all human considerations, to trample under foot all human respect, to sacrifice all human interests—and even life itself—to attain this highest of all ends. All this is Catholic inflexibility and inflexible Catholicity in the practice of that pure love which constitutes sovereign charity. The Saints are the types of this unswerving and sovereign fidelity to God, the heroes of charity and religion. Because in our times there are so few true inflexibles in the love of God, so also are there few uncompromisers in the order of charity. Liberal charity is condescending, affectionate, even tender in appearance, but at bottom it is an essential contempt for the true good of men, of the supreme interests of truth and [ultimately] of God. It is human self-love, usurping the throne of the Most High and demanding that worship which belongs to God alone.