Interview with Bishop Jean-Michel FAURE – March 25, 2015

Interview with Bishop Jean-Michel FAURE

March 25, 2015

Your Excellency, there are some who are asking what the reasons are that led to your consecration having been done with so much discretion.  Wouldn’t it have been better to have given greater publicity to such a joyous event?

The consecration had to be done this way so as not to have been hindered. Bishop Williamson’s situation remains delicate.  We chose this monastery because it is a little distant and provides certain measures of security.  Moreover, there is adequate space here which makes it easy for liturgical ministers.  Overall, there was a need to avoid any type of disturbance, and this was accomplished successfully.

Your Excellency, can you tell us anything about the signature of the 1988 protocol? Were you with Archbishop Lefebvre in those days?

I was not; instead, I was made aware of these facts just like any other member of the Society.  On the 5th of May of 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre signed a protocol for an agreement with Rome, in which the pope recognized the right to consecrate one of the SSPX priests a bishop.  At this time, it was considered to be something necessary in order for the work of Archbishop Lefebvre to survive after his death, but such a thing was also the bait and the hook to obtain the Archbishop’s signature.  I think that when Archbishop Lefebvre signed this document he had a moment (temporary indeed) of weakness, as was the case with Saint Joan of Arc, and like her, he wrote, after the “worst night of his life”, a retraction letter to the Vatican representative, by which he nullified the protocol.  Bishop Fellay cannot take advantage of this moment of weakness which was later retracted to say he is imitating Archbishop Lefebvre’s conduct. “I went too far”, Archbishop Lefebvre would say later, referring to the signature of the protocol.  Archbishop Lefebvre had no illusion about the Roman diplomacy and the Roman interlocutors, as is demonstrated in many of his declarations and in the non-diplomatic determination that appears in the fundamental declaration of 1974 about the two Romes: the Eternal and the modernist, or the two churches: the Catholic and the conciliar. And Bishop Fellay, in so far as he confuses the current, official, modernist Rome with the Eternal Rome, he makes himself unfaithful to Eternal Rome, guardian of the Truth.  He confounds the conciliar church – about which Arch. Lefebvre spoke so much – with the Catholic Church.  For Bp. Fellay there is only one church and only one Rome: but this is the antithesis of Arch. Lefebvre’s position.

Your Excellency, recently we have been able to read many criticisms about yourself. For sure, the devil is not very happy with this consecration. What could you tell us about this?

What happens is that we intend to continue as much as possible the line of Arch. Lefebvre, and for this reason we receive attacks from the right and from the left, just like it happened to Arch. Lefebvre.

From the right and from the left?

Yes.  On the left are those that are carrying out the integration of the SSPX into the conciliar church, and on the right are the sedevacantists.  Sedevacantism is an excessive simplification of the situation (and sometimes it is not exempt of sentimentalism, even though this may be understandable).  That was not accepted, on a prudential level and after a deep examination, by Arch. Lefebvre and by theologians and canonists of high level that he was able to consult.  On this, one must speak about the true grace of state in Arch. Lefebvre, who had to some degree the same role of Saint Athanasius against modernism.  We have no doubt that Providence put him here to guide us in this crisis of the Church, that has only gotten worse after his death, but continues to be essentially the same. We cannot say that Francis has a greater responsibility than Paul VI or John Paul II for the development of the crisis that Arch. Lefebvre, Bp. De Castro Mayer, Fr. Calmel O.P. and so many other great theologians confronted.

On the other hand, Menzingen says that Your Excellency and Bp. Williamson do not  recognize the Roman authorities “except in a purely rhetorical manner”.  

No more and no less than Arch. Lefebvre. Hence the sedevacantists also attack us, and in a very violent way.

Your Excellency, in your Masses do you pray for Pope Francis? 

I follow Arch. Lefebvre’s instructions about this matter: pray for the pope and denounce his heresies, like Saint Athanasius and so many saints who had to oppose the popes of their times.

Concerning these liberal and modernist popes, and the question of the Catholic Church vs.  the conciliar church, does Your Excellency agree with the position of the Dominicans of Avrillé, as exposed in the article titled: “One Pope for two Churches”? 


Let us continue with the theme of the pope. In the previous interview we asked  Fr. Faure what would he do if Francis invited him to go to Vatican. And now we ask you as Bp. Faure, what would you say to Francis?

Above all I must say that such an interview is practically impossible, since a sine qua non condition is the presence of Bp. Williamson and the other priests, any type of “negotiation” already being excluded as seen as a deal of any sort, as Arch. Lefebvre used to say, so long as there is no radical conversion on the part of Rome, accepting, in fact and in right, all the encyclicals prior to Vatican II, as well as the condemnations against liberalism and modernism that they include;  but this apparently will not happen before the third world war (that seems near).  I would say to the pope:  “What Church do you belong to? To the Catholic Church or to a falsification of the Church?”  His function is to confirm his brothers in the Faith.  I would remind him of the words of Saint Paul: your authority was given to you “unto edification, and not unto destruction”(2 Cor. 13, 10), to edify and not to destroy catholic faith and morals.  I would say to him the following, citing Arch. Lefebvre: “Do you agree with all the great encyclicals prior to John XXIII, and with all the popes up until and including Pius XII?  Are you in ‘full communion’ with those popes and with their teachings?  Do you accept the anti-modernist oath?  Do you agree with the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?  If you do not accept the doctrine of these predecessors of yours, it’s useless to talk with you.  It is because we are faithful to the Eternal Rome that we are obligated to separate ourselves from the modernist and liberal, current and official, Rome.  Don’t think that just because Menzingen may let itself be seduced, that Bp. Williamson or I are going to fall for the same trap.”

Coming back to the critics and lies about yourself, some of them are extremely ridiculous. Therefore, forgive this question that we are asking with the purpose of honoring the truth and in order to protect some simple and excessively gullible souls: Can you tell us something about the circumstances of the burial of your father? 

In March 3, 1986, my father’s body was taken to my home for the wake. There he was placed upon my bed, and not upon the floor, as the slanderous sedevacantists falsely claim.  Let them say the names of the witnesses!  Personally, I can name Fr. Canale SSPX, who celebrated the Requiem Mass, Fr. Ricardo Olmedo SSPX, and the seminary professors who knew the facts, the seminarians that today are priests, Fr. Schmidberger SSPX, who was in the Mass and in the cemetery, and also the members of Mesuda family, who were great benefactors of the seminary when it began and who were present at the wake ceremony.  These ones later gathered in their field, moved by mercy, the twenty seminarians that left seminary during the sedevacantist rebellion of 1989.  My father was buried in the little cemetery of the Society where his his tombstone was made visible after the mass attended to by all the seminarians and many priests and faithful. In this incident there was nothing abnormal and nothing to hide; but what we have here is an example of the sedevacantist logic to say Bp. Faure is Jew: I was born in Algeria; Jews are numerous in Algeria; therefore, “I must be a Jew”.  But, as Muslims are much more numerous, maybe I am a marrano muslim?  Against all these very ridiculous calumnies and fabrications, I have a very good genealogical tree of my family in France that I will make public when I go back there.

And what can you tell us about the crisis of the Argentinian seminary, in 1989? They also blame you for this. 

About the crisis in the Buenos Aires seminary, I am making it clear that I arrived in Mexico in September 24th, 1985, five days after the terrible earthquake, after having been appointed Superior of the District of Mexico, but this crisis took place in 1989, in the period the sedevacantist rebellion against Arch. Lefebvre.  The director, one professor and many priests of this tendency had influenced half of the seminarians of La Reja, that waited the visit of Fr. Schmidberger in 1989 to leave wholesale the seminary and get into a “seminary” made by a secular group in Mexico.  A complete failure: a little group of them remained in an abandoned monastery near Cordoba, Argentina, and afterwards around Luján, and finally in El Bolsón (South of Argentina).  Therefore, it is an evident lie that the supposed  scandal around the burying of my father, that happened three years before, had provoked the immediate departure of these twenty seminarians.  Bp. Tissier writes about these facts in the biography of Arch. Lefebvre. (page 546, 2nd Ed., Edi. Clovis, 2002).

(Translation by Michael)

Menzingen’s avowal

Menzingen’s avowal

by Dom Thomas Aquinas OSB
March 22, 2015

The March 19th communiqué from Menzingen, although brief, informs us of a good number of things. Among them is the admission that Bishop Williamson was expelled from the SSPX for his opposition to the rallying policy of Bishop Fellay.

Up until now, Menzingen spoke of disobedience: Bishop Williamson was undisciplined, a bad subordinate who does not obey orders. Now Menzingen admits the real reason: “the violent criticisms” of Bishop Williamson concerning Menzingen’s relations with Rome. The same goes for Bishop Faure. That is their crime.

The incident of the letter written by the three bishops to Bishop Fellay and his assistants was not appreciated at all. Archbishop Lefebvre certainly had relations with Rome, but in the hope that Rome would correct itself and would come back. In fact, it was Archbishop Lefebvre who directed the negotiations with invincible certitude because his criterion was the Faith of All Times. Even so, he himself nearly fell into Rome’s trap. “I went too far”, he said.

But with Bishop Fellay, things are handled very differently. It is not he who directs the negotiations.  It is not he who has the strength to say to Rome:  “It is I, the accused, who should judge you.” No, Bishop Fellay does not present himself as judging the errors of Rome. Rather, he presents himself as being the guilty party, labouring under “an irregular situation, who needs to “fall into line”, but who’s having a hard time doing so because “his Society does not follow him.

Let us digress for a moment. Are we to judge Rome? Is that not the role of the superiors rather than of the inferiors? Of course. But it is the superiors who have already judged. It is Quanta Cura, Pascendi, Quas Primas, etc. that condemn the liberal popes.  It is Rome, the Eternal Rome, that has already judged the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant Rome. That is what Bishop Fellay seems to want to forget (and make others forget) with his “concrete Church of today”. End of digression.

Bishop Williamson blocked Menzingen’s moves.  He was a hindrance. Everyone knew it, but the General House gave another version.  Now they admit it.  “The violent criticisms of Bishop Williamson against Operation Suicide were the cause of his expulsion. It was about time Menzingen said it. Now it is done.

However, Menzingen falsifies the matter by saying that these violent criticisms were about “all relations with the Roman authorities. No. This is not true. They concern the rallying that would put the SSPX under the modernist and liberal yoke used by the devil to try to achieve what Corção called “the final sin: to bring down the last bastions in an ultimate and monumental offensive against God.

Under no circumstances will we support this effort. The devil will not achieve his goal because Our Lady is keeping watch: Ipsa conteret. This is our hope. It will not be in vain if we are faithful, by the grace of God: Fidelis inveniatur.

Sweetness and Bitterness in Menzingen

Sweetness and Bitterness in Menzingen

By Amicus Romanus ;  Translation provided by Michael Fuller

From the same mouth bitterness and gall and sweetness and honey is emitted, but not in the same direction.

— Towards Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure, it’s all bitterness.

— Towards Conciliar Rome, it’s all sweetness.

The communiqué from Menzingen regarding the March 19th consecration offers a truly impressive contrast.

PART I:  Only bitterness!

Joseph’s brothers could not speak peaceably to him, as much as they looked on (Genesis 37:4). From Menzingen, don’t expect one single kindhearted word of recognition or of charity towards Bishop Williamson or Bishop Faure, after their decades of good, loyal service.  Menzingen only thinks of denouncing them: “The SSPX denounces the episcopal consecration of Rev. Fr. Faure”.  At least this is clear, but why this denunciation?  What is reprehensible in this consecration?  This is something much more sinister.  A very strong animosity is felt, but many rational arguments are not discerned.  And even worse: it tastes of bitterness!  Menzingen seems unable to speak objectively simply respecting the facts about the two bishops. At all costs, they must deform and dirty the intentions, dirty the reputation of people.  The tendency seems unstoppable.

1. “Against any relations…

First example: the relations with Rome.  Everyone knows that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay oppose each other on this point.  The former estimates (whether he is right or not is not the question here) that the latter lacks the necessary strength to decidedly oppose -face to face- the errors of the Roman authorities; instead of impressing his interlocutors -like Archbishop Lefebvre- by frontally reminding them of the inopportune truths, he lets himself be impressed by them.

More fundamentally, the opposition is about the finality of the negotiations. For Bishop Williamson, there is only one objective: that the Roman authorities abjure from all the modernist and liberal errors and everything that has resulted.  Meanwhile, Bishop Fellay dreams of a canonical recognition, even before the conversion of the authorities.

All of this is notoriously public.  The question is not to know if it is necessary or not to discuss with Rome, but how and with what finality to go about with these discussions.

Menzingen could easily say it in one word: Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson differ regarding the discussions with Rome.  This is clear, simple, true, and perfectly objective. But no! Menzingen could not be resolved to call it how it is.  The necessity to dirty the reputation was too violent.  Distrusting the evidence, Menzingen declared that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure are:

“against any relation with the Roman authorities”.

But they have explicitly declared the contrary (still on the eve of the consecration), but that doesn’t count.  Apparently, Menzingen knows more about what the bishops themselves think!

2. “It is not at all comparable…”

Second example: the comparison between the 1988 consecration and the 2015 consecration.  The differences and similarities can be argued a long time. 1  At least it is unarguable that the nature of the act is the same.  There was a paternal link (through Bishop Williamson, Archbishop Lefebvre is now the “grandfather in episcopacy” of Bishop Faure).  Archbishop Lefebvre himself had contemplated consecrating Jean-Michel Faure.  The state of necessity in the Church has not diminished since 1988.  Finally, Bishop Williamson has the same discourse that Archbishop Lefebvre had at the time.

Different circumstances of times, places, or manner can always be disputed, but Menzingen doesn’t even attempt it.  Their communiqué simply declares that “the episcopal consecration of Fr. Faure is not at all comparable with the consecrations of 1988″.  You read that right: not at all.

Among all the ways of criticizing the 2015 consecration, Menzingen chose the most expedient, the most extreme, the most insupportable, to reject as a whole.  “It is not at all comparable.”  It is integral negationism.

3. “All the declarations…

We approach the apex.  And here finally:

“All the declarations of Bishop Williamson and Rev. Fr. Faure prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities”.

This is the accusation that kills: sedevacantism!  An outright accusation alleged without even a minimal, faint shadow of a doubt.  We are very far from interrogative-negative formulas or from the dimmed allusions of Bishop Fellay when he tries to emit reserves about Pope Francis (we don’t understand…”, “We have the impression…”).  Here Menzingen understands very well and is certain.  This confession was not made once, by surprise or by halfhearted words, it’s in “all the declarations” of the wicked bishops.  Yes all of the declarations!  Faith in Menzingen!

Moreover, Menzingen realizes that there might be, among the readers of the communiqué, some readers of Bishop Williamson that can be a little surprised because they have read exactly the opposite.  Not only does Bishop Williamson recognize the Roman authorities, but he has frequently argued against sedevacantism (and in a more convincing way than Bishop Fellay, who is content with presenting as a scarecrow).

Those who have read Fr. Faure (notably the interview before his consecration) can experience the same surprise, and even think that good Bishop Fellay lies, or at least that he says just about anything.

Happily, the bile reserve has not run dry.  To prevent against any embarrassing question, it is sufficient to accuse them, Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure, of lying.  All of their declarations affirm that they recognize the Roman authorities?  It doesn’t matter!  It is simply that they don’t believe what they say.  They are only words in the air, empty, rhetorical spins.  And Menzingen, which really knows better than what the bishops themselves are thinking, finishes:

All the declarations […] prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner”.  [formatting emphasis is ours]

This is what we call, in good French, a judgment of intention.  It is the preferred tactic of subversives (communists, masons, etc.), because it is very difficult to counteract.  You all can respond however you like, it matters little, because we have put forward the principle that you all do not really believe what you say.  State ten times that you recognize the Roman authorities, undertake the work of refuting the sedevacantist arguments: we content ourselves with responding that your insistence on this point is suspicious and confirms, once more, that you all don’t absolutely recognize the mentioned authorities “except in a purely rhetorical manner”.

A simple question for Bishop Fellay:  Conscientiously and before God, is it truly correct that this polemical procedure is in complete conformity with the Gospel?

PART II:  Only sweetness!

But the most impressive is the contrast.

After all, Menzingen could be suffering from a toothache or had a bad night when they wrote up their communiqué.  This could explain the bitterness.

But the gall?

Well, reread attentively: is it not evident that they have left out from this communiqué any expression that could constitute a minimal possibility of risk of displeasing conciliar Rome?

1.  “State of necessity” without an identifiable cause.

“The Society of St. Pius X still maintains that the present state of necessity renders legitimate its action throughout the world”.

—But where does this state of necessity come from?  It seems to float in the air without a cause and without an explanation other than the evil of the times.  Menzingen mentions it as if it verifies the rain or the sun and does not remember even once that the harm comes firstly from the pope and the Holy See that propagate, since 50 years ago, mortal errors to souls.

- Shush! Shush! Warning! You are going to offend Rome!

2.  The limited bishops and the administering of the sacraments.

Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops so that they could ordain priests, this is certain, but also to defend the faith and combat the current errors, moreover, the modernist and liberal errors spread by the conciliar hierarchy.

Apparently, this has ended.  For Menzingen, the bishops must no longer combat the errors.  The communiqué explains that Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops in 1988 and:

“his sole goal was to make available to the faithful the sacraments which priests ordained by the bishops would offer”.  [formatting emphasis is ours]

“[T]he sole goal”: the state of necessity in the Church is limited to the sacraments- and what about the doctrinal crisis?  What about the errors of conciliar Rome, the neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendency so frequently denounced by Archbishop Lefebvre?

-Shush! Shush! Warning! You are going to offend Rome!

3.  Errors that “Who knows from whence they come”?

Nevertheless, there are errors. Menzingen indicates that it is necessary to oppose them.  In its martial fit of rage, the communiqué goes all the way to valiantly declaring that the Society must oppose the errors “from wherever they may come”!    And just from where do they come?  They won’t tell us anything else!

-Shush! Shush! Warning! You are going to offend Rome!

Bishop Fellay, accused by Bishop Williamson of gleaming in front of conciliar Rome, should have taken advantage of the occasion to prove otherwise.  Some words against the neo-modernist and neo-protestant Rome would have been particularly adequate.  The very situation even seemed to require it. But no!  Not a single word.  Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure are scorned, but modernist Rome is in no way denounced.

And regarding this, one of the two applies:

  • Either:  whoever is responsible for the communiqué from Menzingen was (a suspected plotter and) is a secret ally of Bishop Williamson, and he treacherously works to discredit Bishop Fellay – publishing, in his name, communiqués crafted liberally (sickly-sweet for the enemies of the faith, bitter for its defenders).
  • Or: the communiqué really expresses the way Bishop Fellay thinks, and so the joy that Archbishop Pozzo promptly directed to the SSPX for this beautiful communiqué is understood.

P.S. Secondary consideration

It is curious that Menzingen always expresses itself as if the state of necessity that afflicts the Church was its own territory or its private property.  Only the SSPX can seemingly invoke it in order to justify its apostolate.

Lastly, Menzingen seems to attribute to itself a supreme, extraordinary jurisdiction almost like the pope exercises the supreme ordinary jurisdiction.  This perspective would explain the reason that Menzingen believes it is authorized to “denounce” the consecration of Bishop Faure: an attempt against its Monopoly.

If this is not the case, well then what is it?  A personal prelature already agreed upon by Rome-secretly- to Bishop Fellay?

The sermon of Bishop Williamson for the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Faure

The sermon of Bishop Williamson for the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Faure

Translated by Michael ( )

Pictures compliments of


In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

Forgive me that I do not speak Portuguese.  I have to speak Spanish instead, and I hope that all will be able to understand.  For this very great feast day of St. Joseph who, after the Most Holy Virgin, is the greatest of all Catholic saints, and is Patron of the Church — well I had not thought particularly in this, but the fact is there – it is for this feast of the Patron of the Church that we meet here today to look after the consecration of what I suppose we call the Resistance.

Brothers and sisters, the fact is that the Truth, the Truth of God, the Truth of Christ, the Truth of the Church, is today in grave danger.  In the first place, of course, there is the 2nd Vatican Council.  The fact is that, since already some centuries ago, the enemies of God were preparing a new world, what we call today the New World Order.  It’s a completely different world.  And they want this to take the place of the world of God.  It is God who created nature and who created all of these things. It is not man.  God is the Creator of man and the Master of the Universe.  The Master of masters, the Lord of lords, the King of kings is God and not man.  Saint Pius X said that “the grave problem of the modern world is that it wants to substitute God.”   It is true.  It wants to take the place of God.  And so, after some centuries, in the beginning, the Church and the popes could not withstand this treachery but the world has constantly handed itself over more and more to the ‘glory of man’ and has tried to snatch away the glory of God.

And finally being surrounded by these enemies, the churchmen, at the Second Vatican Council tried to change the religion of God ; and the contamination was there so deeply that the great majority of bishops in the Council went along with trying to end Tradition.  Incredible ! – but not incredible for someone that understands just how profound the corruption of the modern world is.  This corruption has even penetrated inside the Church ; and the great majority of churchmen have fallen, particularly the popes: John XXIII, Paul VI and the popes after the Council, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Pope Francis who is the most evidently revolutionary of all of these popes but has participated with the very same principles of his predecessors since the Council.  It is like saying that deep down Pope Benedict XVI is just as revolutionary as Francis, but with Francis only it is much more evident.   His subjective intentions within him, only God can judge, but objectively, objectively they are traitors of the true religion of God.

There was one bishop that resisted and remained faithful and today in particular all that are here today appreciate him very much : his character and his faith, his fidelity to Our Lord, Our Lord of the true religion of God: Archbishop Lefebvre of course.  And without him we would not be here today.   It is evident.  And what he did at the end with his resistance was exactly his consecration of 4 bishops in 1988.  And when he preached in that ceremony, he said that what we are doing here is  “Operation Survival” instead of “Operation Suicide”.   If we had made a compromise with the Second Vatican Council, if we had made this compromise, we would have committed the suicide of the resistance to it.   So that our resistance, the good resistance to the lie, the good resistance to the lie and the resistance that maintains the Truth, we must never forget this.  And he was saying that if we also make this compromise with the Council, it would be Operation Suicide, and instead we consecrate bishops to secure Operation Survival of the Faith, of the Truth, in a world of lies where there is no truth, in a world of lies, deceit, treachery, we commit the act of consecrating bishops to defend the Truth, for the reason of defending the Truth.  If the Catholic Faith was not the true, we would not be Catholics, the reason is that it is the Truth, and the Truth, of course, is the Faith, the Catholic Faith.

And today what are we doing?  It is nothing more than the extension in modern times, that is 25 years later, the extension of Operation Survival.  It is nothing more.  It is like saying in a certain sense: we are only repairing the emergency light of Archbishop Lefebvre.  There was the Church with its great human, electronic light, and this light was turned off, and Archbishop Lefebvre turned on the emergency light, and now with the SSPX, today the Society is also giving in to the compromise of the Second Vatican Council.  They want to associate themselves, or they want to be united with the Romans, they want to follow the Romans. The Society has not yet died, it is not yet dead, but it is dying on the road, it is headed down.  Maybe it will leave this path and return to the path of Archbishop Lefebvre, that is the way of defending Truth.  That it may return to defend the Truth.  But so many men today have lost the Truth and it is the fundamental element of the crisis of the modern world.  Men have lost the sense of the Truth.  Because Truth is the correspondence between my soul and reality, and modern man lives his virtual life in a bourgeois way. All of these phones and technology have created a plastic, artificial world, and the sense of the Truth is lost!  There is a lack of peasants with sane judgement to live through what is to come.  And what is being done by the Church today, today the falsehood; and the way that the Society wants to take is a falsehood.  But they do not see it.  They do not see it.   So we have to play the role of repairers of the emergency light.  It is not a glorious role!  We do not save the Church!  We do not have that pretension.  In no way whatsoever do we have the pretension of saving the Church.  No, no, no!  Only God can save His Church today and He will do it.  And in His time and His terms.  But up until now God is purifying His Church, and He wants us to do what we can to save and maintain the treasures of the Church in order to be able to hand them over once more when the churchmen will have been truly corrected and enlightened by God.  And He will do it but probably by means of an unimaginable chastisement because the momentum of the grave reality, of destitution, of the grave world of modern man is only leaving reality and if it doesn’t happen, everything remains a dream, a dreamworld.  And so we do what we can.

We are thankful to Father prior, Fr. Thomas Aquinas OSB, for this beautiful ceremony, and this makeshift, metal cathedral.  Such a great improvisation.  And that is how it is said, where there is a will, there is a way. And if we desire to remain faithful to God, He will find us in the right path.  It is impossible that God abandons souls that have not abandoned Him.  That means that it is not God that abandons us. It can only be us if we abandon Him.  That God may impede it!  We are thankful to Father.  We are thankful to the sisters that have worked so much to constitute this improvised cathedral.  We are thankful to the monks that have also worked so hard to help bring about this ceremony and have done very well.  And that is how it is.

Tomorrow and after tomorrow maybe there will be more treachery, so very possible, if things continue as they are headed, it is very possible, but it does not matter.  Each day keep going.  Today we will continue being faithful and we are very thankful for all who have come, some from very far away.  Forgive me that we did not want to publicize the fact beforehand, but we wanted to secure and protect the ceremony.  We wanted to protect the ceremony from any impediments that could have arisen because not everyone likes this ceremony.  It is very evident.  And we actually expect that the devil detests this ceremony.  So then the devil has many servants, and they might have been able to impede this ceremony.  We could have waited and asked for a sign from Divine Providence like Archbishop Lefebvre did in 1988.  In particular, for me it seems that the Church can not substitute bishops that can ordain priests and confirm adults and children.

So then, in the political situation of today of which the 3rd world war can come about at any moment, with some recent news from my country, England, that weapons of mass destruction have been prepared a long time ago to be dropped on Russia.  It is madness!  Madness.  But men are insane and these liberals have the instinct of suicide, and the third world war is a ceramic product of this instinct of suicide.  And it will come about, and when it happens, it is absolutely unable to know how the events will play out. And in this case, to only ordain and confirm seems to me to be something irresponsible.  The world is not calm. It is very unstable and destabilized.  We do not know how things will turn out. So then without publicity, without looking for glory in any way whatsoever, without  wanting to gain attention from the world, in contrast, at least myself, I want only to hide from the limelight after this ceremony as much as possible without any pretension whatsoever.  We are doing this in order to defend the Church.

Beloved faithful, beloved priests, and there are even priests from afar, the United States for example, others from all over Latin America, we pray to Saint Joseph, the great Saint Joseph so that he aids us, he who is most faithful, his example of faithfulness and protection and of lack of publicity, we don’t want publicity, do the best that one can do.  We ask Saint Joseph that everyone, each one of us according to his vocation in life, understands how to remain faithful and strictly to the Son of God and His Most Holy Mother, the Most Holy Virgin.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

An interview with Bishop Williamson immediately after the ceremony of the consecration of Bishop Faure

An interview with Bishop Williamson immediately after the ceremony of the consecration of Bishop Faure

Translated by Michael ( )

Pictures compliments of

Did the priests support you regarding this consecration?

Sermon of Bishop Williamson at the 2015 consecration of Bishop Faure

Sermon of Bishop Williamson at the 2015 consecration of Bishop Faure

Yes, there was a group of priests from Latin America and the United States and elsewhere.  There are priests that understand, they are not numerous, but they have courage; they have faith, and are determined to continue in the right direction.

What made you decide to perform the consecration at this moment?

Each day it became more reasonable with the threat of war, which is nearly upon us now, and has already been twice avoided with Syria and Ukraine, and the criminal West continues to provoke the Russians.  The moment may arise when Putin will say enough is enough and decide to attack.

Your Excellency, already the voices have begun to cry out that say you and Bishop Faure are excommunicated, what can you tell us about that?

Truth is more important than authority.  The authority exists to serve the Truth, and unfortunately, the Roman authorities abandon the Truth more and more each day thanks to the Council.  So their punishment and censures have no force; they are meaningless.

What are the qualities of Bishop Faure that caused you to consider consecrating him a Bishop?

He is calm, experienced.  He is older but a bit younger than me, 73.  Also, he is intelligent and has the Faith.  He also has the experience from the revolution because he fled Algeria in his youth.  He lost everything because of this revolution and experienced the treachery of General De Gaulle, so he understands the modern world.

Many of the young priests have almost no experience with the modern world or the Revolution, so they do not perfectly understand the evil.  For example, Bishop Fellay does not understand at all what the temptations and dangers of Vatican II are, or its effort to embrace the modern world.  He does not understand it and neither do many of the other priests of the Society.  They are too young, and Bishop Faure, is a veteran with experience enough to avoid this trap of ignorance of what the modern Church, the modern world and everything else actually is.

The headquarters of Bishop Faure will be France. Will you continue to visit America as before?

This is what we expect to be the case, although events may decide otherwise.  Bishop Faure’s heart is in Latin America, and he could possibly return to Latin America very often.  That is most likely how it will be.

Your Excellency, will there be more consecrations?

It is quite possible.  This time it was done very discreetly, but the next time there will be more than one consecration and it will be made public with plenty of time in advance.

Will the next consecrations be in Brazil?

No, it would probably have to be in Europe.  Thank God that we have Brazil for this first consecration to take place, because it is far away from Europe and many of Europe’s problems.  Now I’m no longer the only bishop and so the danger is not as great.

Do you expect a condemnation of this consecration from the Society?

I hope they do not, because it would be an evil, and I do not wish evil to the Society.

A Society priest has recently said that the Resistance is a group of dissidents with no future.

Of course, that’s also what they said about Archbishop Lefebvre.  But things are not judged according to the positions of men; they are fallible and can easily be deceived.

Another accusation is that we are full of pride.

They also accused Archbishop Lefebvre of being full of pride.  But defending the Truth and proclaiming that the Truth is above all men, that is not pride; it is humility.  Above all there is an objective truth, moreover Our Lord as man says many times in the Gospel of St. John; “I have come not to do My will, but the will of My Father.”   So then Our Lord as man is below something that is above Him. He is humble. And He said to the Pharisees: “If I spoke like you who do not know the Truth, I would be a liar.”  If I reduce my statements, I would be a liar.   If I reduce my claims, my requirements, it would be like revolting against the Father.  The requirements, the absolute comes from the Father.   For all of us – even Jesus Christ as man.

Brief response of Fr. Thomas Aquinas OSB on the communication from Menzingen of March 19, 2015

Brief response of Fr. Thomas Aquinas OSB on the communication from Menzingen (SSPX) of March 19, 2015

Bishop Williamson and Fr. Dom Thomas Aquinas

Bishop Williamson and Fr. Dom Thomas Aquinas

Menzingen denounces the consecration of Bishop Jean Michel FAURE as not having anything in common with the 1988 consecrations.  In order to do this, the general house of the SSPX makes a certain number of considerations.  We will examine four of these:

1)  Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure have been expelled from the Society because they were against any relations with Rome.   

This is false.  They are against the way that Bishop Fellay and his assistants are doing this, including the general chapter of 2012, because they are seeking a practical agreement without Rome’s conversion.

2) Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure do not recognize the Roman authorities.   

This also is false.   Neither one of them are sedevacantists.

3)  Menzingen insinuates that the publicizing of the event was insufficient and compares this to the large scale publicity of 1988. 

Compared with the consecrations of 1988 the one in 2015 was not as great, but in and of itself this is not to say that it is any less important.  If we count all the participants of the ceremony, we have people representing the following countries: England, France, the United States, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia and Brazil.  [Note from translator: I myself was present and am American.]  A hundred or so faithful attended the ceremony.  The media was called and received well.

4) The fourth question refers to the state of necessity.

It seems that this is where we only begin to see the tip of the iceberg, already so very well-known:  The state of necessity of 1988 is no longer applicable in 2015.  Rome is no longer so aggressive against Tradition like it was in 1988. [seriously?!]   This is the same old song:  Rome has changed!

Yes!  Rome has changed… for the worse!  And this is even since Benedict XVI.  All in all, what is at risk here, is what Archbishop Lefebvre spoke about during his historical sermon of Lille in August of 1976:

In the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me: “What have you done with your priestly and episcopal graces?”  I do not want to hear from the mouth of Our Lord: “You have contributed to the destruction of the Church with the others.”

Neither do we.  It is for this reason that we continue the fight, and for that reason we need bishops. This is the reason for the consecration on March 19th.  There is no other reason but this.

Interview with Fr. Jean-Michel Faure (*before* the consecration)

Interview with Fr. Jean-Michel Faure

before his consecration…

How about a little history to begin, Father, how did you get to know Tradition and Archbishop Lefebvre?

In 1968, while in Argentina, I visited the Archbishop of Paraná, who told me: “Do you want to defend Tradition?  In the Council I defended Tradition together with a brave Bishop, a friend of mine, Archbishop Lefebvre.”  It was the first time I had heard of Archbishop Lefebvre.  I went to look for Archbishop Lefebvre in Switzerland in 1972, and during Holy Week I first met him there.

Where were you born? Why were you living in South America?

I was born in Algeria and my family, after the independence, acquired a plot of land in Argentina, close to Paraná. My family was deported from Algeria because the French government seceded power to the militant Moslems that committed horrendous massacres during the course of the process of the independence. My grandparents, parents and uncles worked in agriculture there since 1830.

Returning to the story, how your apostolate in the Society come about?

Archbishop Lefebvre ordained me in 1977 in Econe, and 15 days later I went with him on a trip through the southern United States, Mexico (where the government refused our entry), Colombia, Chile, and Argentina.  The Archbishop put me in charge of starting an apostolate in this region. During the first year 2 Argentinian priests helped me and the following year another Spanish priest (of the Society). After this the South American district of the United States was formed as was my position and responsibility and I began to preach retreats as far north as Mexico.  The first year there were 12 vocations that were put in the Priory of Buenos Aires that was in a large enough house. Following this, around 1980, the seminary in La Reja (Buenos Aires) was built, where Archbishop Lefebvre put me as rector. I stayed there until 1985, when I was named superior of the District of Mexico. That was when they built the churches in Mexico City and Guadalajara.  I looked after the country and its distinct places together with Frs. Calderon, Angles, and Tam. Later I was in France for some years.  After all of this I was named as professor of history in the Seminary in Argentina and I was there until the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from Argentina (2009).

Did Archbishop Lefebvre confide in you?

Archbishop Lefebvre gave me free access to his mail and correspondence and he put me in charge of certain records.  He had a certain kind of trust for me: in 1977 in Albano he asked me what I thought about consecrations.  In this opportunity he confided in me that “they are waiting for me” (the rector in Econe and the professors).  They would suggest accepting the New Mass and the Council in order to preserve the Tridentine Mass.  They said to him: “now we are confronted with Rome.  If we conserve the Mass (Traditional) we must accept the Council.”  They tried to persuade the Archbishop to retire in a beautiful house in Germany, but he told them that they were free to leave if they wanted to.  He got rid of them.

Is it true that Archbishop Lefebvre asked you to accept being consecrated a bishop?

In 1986, while on a visit to Econe, he called me aside after a meal and asked me if I would accept being consecrated a bishop. Now, knowing what happened, I suppose I should have accepted.

Then you did not accept?

I told him that it seemed to me that Bishop De Galarreta would be the most adequate.

Can you summarize what happened in 2012?

In that year we were very close to an accord and it failed at the last moment, probably, because of the issue with Bishop Williamson. The deal failed because of that matter and the letter of the three Bishops. Both of these caused the deal to fail.

It is said that the key to the ad intra strategy of Bishop Fellay is the backside of the General Chapter.  Can you tell us something about this?

The General Chapter was very well prepared by Bishop Fellay and the they (the accordistas) accomplished their objectives.  That was when I had understood what Archbishop Lefebvre and his friends felt like in the Second Vatican Council.  Bishop Fellay had taken the decision of a policy of getting close to Rome and he had fixed it in order to have the the general support of the Chapter in expelling Bishop Williamson, who was the only one capable of obstructing this policy.

According to your judgement, what should be the conditions required to make a deal with Rome?

Archbishop Lefebvre told us that while there were no real changes in Rome, a deal would be impossible, because these people were not loyal, and one cannot intend to change one’s superiors.  It is the cat that chases the mouse and not the mouse that chases the cat.  A deal would be equal to handing over oneself to the modernists, and consequently, it must be absolutely refused.  It is impossible.  We must wait for God’s intervention.

Can you tell us what you think the visits of evaluation of various modernist prelates to the Seminaries of the Society?  Is it true that once Archbishop Lefebvre received some prelates?  What is the difference now?

It dealt with exceptional visits during which Cardinal Gagnon never had the possibility of defending the Council, while on the other hand now it deals with the first steps of a reintegration (of the Society) into the conciliar Church.

What do you think about an eventual unilateral recognition on the part of Rome to the Society?

It is a trick.

Between the 2006 chapter and the crisis started in 2012, certain changes are observed and attitudes of the authorities of the Society of St. Pius X in respect to Rome.  What is the reason for this change?

It is the decision of this appears to be reintegrated into the conciliar church.  Since 1994 or 1995 there were some contacts with GREC that were significant steps towards a reconciliation, like what had been seen with the Ambassador Perol (represents tatie of France in Italy) who is the inventor of the lifting of the excommunications (2009) and the Motu Proprio (2007).  That must have had another relative act of recognizing the Council.

What would Archbishop Lefebvre do in the current situation?

He would follow in the line that he indicated to us after the consecrations, doing away completely with the possibility of a deal.

If in the future you were invited to go to Rome and speak with the pope would you go?  What would you say?

First, I would consult with all of my friends in the resistance.  I would go with Bishop Williamson and the other excellent priests that accept the combat of the resistance with much valor.  And I would keep all of our friends well-informed with all transparency.

Bishop Fellay has said that the Society is in agreement with 95% of the Second Vatican Council. What do you think of this?

Archbishop Lefebvre answered that all of the Council is invaded by a subjectivist spirit that is not Catholic.

Is Francis, being an effective devastator of the Church and objective destroyer of the Faith, a true pope?

In my opinion, it cannot be said that Francis is worse than Paul VI, who was he who put the Church on the wrong course, and so we must conserve the attitude that was the same of Archbishop Lefebvre, a prudential attitude that excluded sedevacantism.  Archbishop Lefebvre always refused to ordain a seminarian that was sedevacantist.  And that was the policy in the SSPX until his death.  So don’t let it be said that the Archbishop did this or said that.

What is the state of the process of your expulsion from the Society?

The last news that I had heard was by chance a second warning in an email.  After tomorrow, therefore, the Society of St. Pius X will again have 4 bishops!  They better throw me out quickly.  Deo gratias!

This decision of consecrating a bishop must’ve been thought about and meditated during much time.  Just like Archbishop Lefebvre, you, Bishop Williamson and the priests of the resistance have not wanted to collaborate in the destruction of the Church.  It is for conserving the faith intact that they have persecuted you all, condemning you all and calumniating you all many times.  Your episcopal consecration could run the risk of resulting in an alleged excommunication.  What were the principal reasons for bringing about this consecration?

The main reason is that that we cannot leave the resistance without bishops.  Just like Archbishop Lefebvre said, Catholic bishops are indispensable for the conservation of the true doctrine and faith and the sacraments.

Archbishop Lefebvre thought of you in the consecration of bishop and now Bishop Williamson is finalizing this wish.  What will be your main concern?

Maintaining the strength of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre and the way that he had gone, without deviating too much to the right or to the left.

Where will your place of residence be?

In France, where we have been thinking about opening a seminary close to the Dominicans of Avrille.

Would you like to say any words to the priests and faithful that are still under the structure of the Society but that are not satisfied with the liberal ways in the last years?

That they return to read into and meditate upon the texts of  Archbishop Lefebvre.

Can you explain to us the essence of your coat of arms?

In the center is the Lamb of the Apocalypse, and Alpha and the Omega the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world announced by Isaiah.  The hearts are symbols of the Vendeé martyrs and the revolution; and the flor de lis is the emblem of Catholic France.  The motto, ipsa cónteret (she will crush you) is taken from the Vulgate, Genesis 3, 15 where God promises the victory of the Virgin Mary against the dragon.

Is there anything more you would like to add?

We conserve Faith, Hope, and Charity.  There is nothing to doubt and we must beg of God and Our Lady that we are maintained in these virtues.

Father, we greatly thank God, His Most Holy Mother, and Saint Joseph protector of the Church for this great grace.  We ask of God that he may protect and conserve you.  We thank you for having accepted this tremendous position and Bishop Williamson for consecrating you as one of the successors of the Apostles.  Deo Gratias!

(Translation from French by Michael.)

Ecclesia Dei

Why such a doctrinal evolution of the Ecclesia Dei Communities ?

This text was written several years ago by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. It was addressed to those of his confreres who had left the SSPX in order to receive an official canonical status from the Conciliar Church. He was trying to find a reason that would explain their doctrinal evolution.

There is an important difference between the clear, consistent declarations made by Archbishop Lefebvre right from his early days on Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and Vatican II, and the position presently held by yourself.

To explain this situation, there are only three possible hypotheses: 1) either you never knew the real position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, and you followed him not properly knowing why; 2) you understood his position but did not approve of it, and so you hypocritically gave the appearance of remaining with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX; or 3) your doctrinal position evolved between the period “before”, and the period “after” the Episcopal consecrations.

1. The hypothesis that you may be ignorant seems to be psychologically impossible and even absurd. It is simply impossible for any of you not to have read even one work by Archbishop Lefebvre, not to have heard even one of his sermons, and not to have known his firm official position. Your ignorance in this matter must be categorically rejected.

2. The hypothesis of hypocrisy may well be possible. Nevertheless, it seems highly improbable given the number of persons involved and their moral character. Furthermore, the hypothesis of hypocrisy represents an insult so serious that I would accept it only after hearing an explicit declaration upholding this position by the individuals in question. That is why I reject this hypothesis as the explanation for your evolution.

3. Therefore, if you know Archbishop Lefebvre’s position on Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and Vatican II (we reject ignorance); if you are not a secret opponent and liar (we reject hypocrisy); then that only leaves the third hypothesis as the right one: your change of position can only be explained by a doctrinal evolution of your position.

But where does this doctrinal evolution come from?

Here, two hypotheses are possible: either the cause is of a purely intellectual order, or it is of a moral and psychological order.

A. The hypothesis that the evolution is purely intellectual seems to fall under the heading of  miracles rather than factual history. One would have to imagine that there was a sudden change in thinking, an intellectual illumination, on the goodness of Liturgical Reform, on the truth contained in Dignitatis Humanae, or on the timeliness of Vatican II.  A serious historian must reject such an unlikely hypothesis.

B. The only valid hypothesis is that of a moral and psychological order, in other words, one that originates from exterior circumstances.  Only one conclusion is possible: it is your dealings with Rome and with diocesan bishops that have brought about this doctrinal evolution.

Indeed, all your Roman and diocesan contacts are in favour of the Liturgical Reform, of Dignitatis Humanae and of Vatican II. It is completely normal, obvious, and historically certain that once you negotiate with Rome and the bishops and once you demand certain concessions, you must then be silent, you must soften or altogether abandon your opposition to the Liturgical Reform, to Dignitatis Humanae and to the Council, or else you will find yourself in a position that will be psychologically unbearable. This is the one true cause of your doctrinal evolution: the moral weight of those with whom you dialogue and your own desire to achieve tangible results from these difficult negotiations where you are in a minority position. This situation forces you to make concessions, if only verbal concessions.

I do not claim that you are making these concessions out of cowardice. I simply claim that, once you have evolved beyond a certain point, you then start to think it possible and even necessary to temper your opposition in the hope of obtaining greater results. But, if I were to consider your present attitude objectively, I would be obliged to note that there has been a shift concerning points that have always been considered as vital in the combat for Tradition.

The conclusion is therefore extremely clear: in spite of your good intentions and your initial desire to remain faithful to Tradition, it was impossible for you to continue to firmly resist the Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and the Council, and at the same time to pursue negotiations with those who are firmly in favour of these three key points.

As things stand at present, negotiations and agreements with Rome and with diocesan bishops must necessarily end up, sooner or later, with the abandonment of the positions that were always held in Tradition and notably by Archbishop Lefebvre.

In other words, present-day Rome has but one goal: to lead all who negotiate with Rome towards the errors of the Council and Liturgical Reform. The truth is there for all to see: Rome is not in favour of Tradition. That is why they have not kept their promises. That is why Rome did not sincerely wish the negotiations to succeed.

* * *

The author of the above text has now “evolved” himself, as is shown in a statement in the December 2014 issue of a widely diffused publication:

« We wish with all our hearts for a speedy “reconciliation” that would benefit both groups and also the entire Church. The difficulties are objective and do not primarily depend on individuals, but we may always pray that Our Lord “gather His Church in unity”. That is what we fervently ask for every day. »

Conciliar Rome has not converted. The danger remains the same.

The Religion of Charity

The True Religion is recognized by its fruits: The Religion of Charity


Without Jesus Christ

With Jesus Christ


All of the pagan civilizations legitimized and practiced the murder of newborn babies: Greece, Rome, Carthage, India, China, Japan, North, South and Central America, Africa, Oceania, etc.

  • Constantine – (First Christian Emperor) takes away from parents the right of life and death over their children.
  • The Council of Arles (313) encourages Christians to take in abandoned children.


  • In ancient Rome as at Athens, the vast majority of inhabitants were slaves.
  • Throughout its history, Islam has always practiced the mass trafficking of slaves (European or Black).
  • In Europe, slavery reappeared when the Christian spirit grew weak, at the end of the middle Ages.
  • “There is neither free nor slave” declared St. Paul.  From that moment, without trouble or revolution, Christian Charity began to snuff out slavery. Christians freed their slaves.
  • In France, the Queen Saint Bathilda (626-680) established the prohibition of slavery.


  • In Antiquity: Habitual massacre of those conquered.
  • Rome: Circus games, atrocious spectacles (under Claudius, thousands of men killing each other on Lake Furino to offer entertainment for the people!)
  • God is Charity announced St. John (first epistle) and the first Christians radiated this charity.
  • The pagans said of them: “See how they love each other!”

The Selfishness of the Leaders

  • Some philosophers praise charity, but practice it very little and without giving of themselves. (Tyrannical Rule: “In helping the destitute, the wise must remain indifferent to the evils he relieves: pity is a weakness, an illness.”)
  • Universal scorn or contempt towards the poor and the weak.
  • The poor are the center of attention Christians are invited not only to “weep with those who weep”, but to honor the poor, to whom they are indebted.
  • Even during the reign of the “Sun King” Louis XIV, Bossuet recalls this great thought in his sermon on “the eminent dignity of the poor in the Church of Jesus Christ” (1659).

Tyrannical Rule

The political power is absolute (Caesarism). Even if there were a few wise kings and emperors, the tyranny of a Nero or a Caligula or a Commodus, didn’t encounter any opposition.

Protection of the humblePopes and Bishops take up the defense of the weak in face of the strong. Multiple examples from the time of St. Ambrose (in face of the emperor Theodosius), up to Cardinal Mindzenty in face of Communism.

More details on the charity of the Church towards…

…The Poor

Since its birth, Christianity has been like an explosion of Charity. In Jerusalem, the first Christians sold their goods to give to the poor (Acts 4.32).

The pagan Lucien de Samosata (125-192) ridiculed Christians in his satire ‘Peregrinus’, but he acknowledged their “incredible enthusiasm” in exercising Charity: “They spare neither trouble, nor money, nor work.”

Before its persecutors, the First Christians emphasized this Charity.  Tertullian: “Has the State forgotten that it owes us the life of its poor, who would alas die if we didn’t come to their aid?” – Saint Lawrence, the Roman Deacon, gathering the poor that were helped by the Church, said, “These are the treasures of the Christians, we have none other.”

4th Century: Towards the end of the Persecutions, the wealthy Roman converts to Christianity sold all their goods to place themselves at the service of the poor: Pinian and Melanie, the Senator Paulinus, etc.

In the Middle Ages, the Christian Kings were well known for their Charity towards the poor: Saint Stephen of Hungary (†1038) washed their feet himself; Saint Edward of England (†1066) despoiled himself to help them; Saint Margaret, Queen of Scotland (†1093) and Saint Elizabeth of Hungary (†1231) literally passed their lives in caring for the poor; Saint Louis, King of France (†1270) each week reunited the poor to serve them himself at table. – Saint Edmond, Saint Casmir of Poland, Saint Leopold of Austria, Robert the Pious, Saint Bridget of Sweden, Saint Hedwig, Saint Margaret of Savoy, etc.

To help the unfortunate, new religious families regularly sprang up, drawing hundreds and thousands of souls who sacrificed themselves entirely to charitable works: The Daughters of Charity of Saint Louise de Marillac in the 17th Century, the Daughters of Wisdom in the 18th, the Little Servants of the Poor (of Jeanne Jugan) and dozens of other Congregations in the 19th Century…..

You can search everywhere, but you won’t find this heroic Charity practiced anywhere else than in the Catholic Church.

…The Sick

Jesus “went about doing good”, especially to the sick.  From the beginning Christians followed Him in this.

252 A.D.: Epidemic of the Plague in the Roman Empire. Pagans fled from Carthage, abandoning the sick to the care of the Christians (under the jurisdiction of the Bishop Saint Cyprian who would be martyred by the same pagans in 258). – In 268, the same happened in Alexandria.

4Th Century: As soon as the anti-Christian Persecutions ended (Edict of Milan in 313), hospitals, orphanages, and hospices rose up throughout the Empire. The first known hospital was founded in Caesarea by the Bishop Saint Basil the Great, who cared for the sick there himself. – The first hospital of Rome was founded by Saint Fabiola. Something never before seen: this noble Patrician would go and take up the sick from the streets, wash them, bandage them, nourish them and spend her whole fortune on them. – The Senator Pammachius (friend of Saint Jerome) did the same: he died destitute, in the hospital which he himself had founded. – Likewise, Saint John the Almoner founded the first hospital in Alexandria, Saint Chrysostom, that in Constantinople, Saint Ephrem at Edessa, etc.

Throughout the Middle Ages, hospices and hospitals multiplied themselves in all of Christendom.  The Pope Saint Symmachus founded a new hospital in Rome in the beginning of the 6th Century. Pope Pelagius II founded another in 580. Pope Saint Gregory the Great (590-604) still another, in addition to an orphanage, etc.

The historian Hurter estimated that in the 13th Century, France possessed 20,000 hospitals which welcomed the sick, orphans, the poor and pilgrims.

A masterpiece (indeed to be visited!) of this Charity in action is the Hospital of Beaune, founded in 1443.

Century after century, thousands and thousands of religious gave themselves totally to Christ in the person of the sick: The Hospitaller Brothers (Saint John of God, 1537), Camillians (Saint Camillus de Lellis, 1584), etc. In only 30 years, 1584-1614, 220 of the first Camillian Religious died of sicknesses contracted from those whom they assisted.

Not only in Christendom, but throughout the entire world (India, China, Africa, and Islamic Countries) the Catholic Church is the true Mother of hospitals and of works of Charity. Other religions have more or less tardily imitated Her, but without ever preceding or equaling Her.

…The Prisoners

Slowly but surely, the Church brought about the abolition of slavery, not in causing slaves to revolt (which would have led to massacres), but in giving a Christian spirit to their masters. St. Paul recommended to masters this charity towards their slaves: “Forebear threatening them, knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in Heaven; and there is no respect of persons with Him.” (Eph. 6.9).

Hermes (Prefect of Rome under Trajan) freed his 1,250 slaves on the day of his Baptism.  Saint Ovidius freed 5,000 slaves, Saint Melanie 8,000, etc.

Pope Saint Symmachus (498-514) employed considerable sums in buying and freeing slaves in Liguria. His successors did the same, notably Saint Gregory the Great (590-604), and Saint Zacharie (741-752) who bought slaves as far away as Africa.

When the Pagan spirit revived, at the time of the Renaissance (15th-16th Centuries), Popes Paul III (20th of May, 1537) and Urban VIII (22nd of April, 1639) firmly opposed the slavery of the American Indians.  Several Popes equally opposed the slave trade (of Blacks): Eugene IV (January 13, 1435), Pius II  (October 7, 1462), Paul III (June 2, 1537), Blessed Innocent XI (by the intermediary of Cardinal Cibo in 1683), Pius VII (Congress of Vienna, 1815), etc. – Numerous priests helped the negro slaves, notably Saint Peter Claver (†1654) who added to his Religious vows that of consecrating his entire life to the service of the slaves, and who did not hesitate to sign (his name): “Peter Claver, slave of the slaves forever.”

During this time, thousands of Christians were reduced to slavery by the Berber Muslims of Algeria, Tunisia, etc.  The Order of the Trinitarians (founded by Saint John of Matha in 1198) and that of the Mercedarians (founded in 1218 by Saint Peter Nolasco) dedicated themselves to delivering them. – Saint Peter Pascal for example (Bishop of Jaen) gave all his goods, and then his own person to redeem the captives of the Turks. Some Faithful sent a huge sum of money for his ransom, but he preferred to use it to free women and children, and he died a captive in 1300.

Common law prisoners and convicts profited also from the Charity of the Church:  The 5th Council of Orleans (549) ordained that an archdeacon visit the prisoners every Sunday. Saint Damasus, Saint Wenceslas, Saint Leonard, Saint Peter Caracciolo, Saint Vincent de Paul, etc. devoted themselves particularly to this apostolate.

Read the encyclical In Plurimis of Leo XIII, 1888, regarding slavery.

“All the Institutions of Charity that mankind possesses today for the relief of the unfortunate, all that has been accomplished for the protection of the poor and weak in all of the circumstances of their lives, and for their different kinds of sufferings, owes its origin either directly or indirectly, to the Roman [Catholic] Church. It is She who gave the example, She who gave the impulsion, She who often still furnishes the means of execution.”  – (Frederic Hurter) *

(*)  The Historian Frederic Hurter (1787-1865), specialist of the Middle Ages, was converted to Catholicism after having noted the Charity of the Church throughout the centuries.

The confessions of the enemies of the Church

The Pagans:

In the 4th Century, the pagan emperor Julian the Apostate grieved: “While the priests of idols don’t have a thought for the unfortunate, these abominable Galileans (= Catholics) devote themselves to exercises of Charity.” (Letter 48). – “They nourish not only their poor, but even ours as well.” (Letter 49).

The Protestants:

The revolt of the Protestants against the Church in the 16th century was a catastrophe for the poor. In England, King Henry VIII closed all the monasteries and confiscated their goods. Now, these monasteries nourished the poor.  The extreme poverty became frightening, and brought about revolts.  Henry VIII took excessively severe measures: he caused thousands of vagabonds to be hanged. To replace the alms that had before been spontaneously given for the love of God and neighbor, England was constrained to institute a tax for the poor (which became progressively heavier and heavier). She enclosed the poor in Workhouses, the harshness of which moved public opinion. The same circumstances gave rise to the same effects in Holland, where they went so far as to organize veritable “Hunts for the poor”.

In Germany, the leader of the revolt against the Church of Jesus Christ, Martin Luther himself, was forced to admit, after the victory of Protestantism:

“While we were still serving the devil [sic] under the banner of the Pope, everyone was charitable and merciful, not only did one give, but one gave generously, with joy, with piety […]. Today […], there’s no one who doesn’t cry out or thinks he’s going to die if he gives but a mite.”  (Sermon of Luther, ed. Walsh, t. XI, c. 1758).

One of Luther’s first companions, George Wizel, left him for the following reason:

“I reproach the Lutherans for almost entirely destroying or rendering useless, the establishments founded at great expense by our fathers for the benefit of the poor, which is against charity and also against justice for our neighbor. I reproach them for appropriating for themselves the riches of the Churches without helping the poor […]. Everyone agrees and recognizes that the poor have a much harder and more miserable life now, than in the past, in the time of the Roman Church.” (George Wizel, Reiectio Lutherismi, 1535).

The Atheists:

While, in France, the Third Republic chased the Religious from the hospitals that they had founded, Dr. Armand Despres (1834-1896, hospital surgeon and famous unbeliever) testified:

“During my service, at the time the Sisters were working, the mortality rate was 1%. Now, with the lay people working, it is 5%. Why? Because the Sisters never left the Hospital, because they ran at the first call of the sick, because they accomplished not a profession but a duty. These brave girls were content with the 200 f. which they received annually. The lay persons receive 700 – 900 f. when they are boarded, 1500 – 2000 f. when they live elsewhere (…). Where before there was but one Sister, they have now placed two lay nurses. Where we are working, they have even placed three, and that didn’t suffice. These three women claimed they had too much work, and obtained the help of a fourth nurse. See how one has replaced one Sister.”  (Letter of Dr. Despres to The Hospital Gazette, September 7, 1888.)