Order of the Knights of Our Lady – Observance of the Holy Hearts of Jesus & Mary

Order of the Knights of Our Lady

  Observance of the Holy Hearts of Jesus & Mary

lu58848xre_tmp_2fdbff0771951c8d

The Church and Christendom

In order to promote Christendom, i.e. the social and political reign of Our Lord, Holy Mother Church established two important institutions. First of all, the royal or imperial anointing and coronation, a sacramental which gives a participation in the Kingship of Christ, and graces in order to fulfil the corresponding mission. However, faced with the social chaos after Charlemagne’s death, the Church reminded even barons and knights that they had, at their own level, the same duties as the kings. Consequently, She Christianised the military dubbing, modelling it after the coronation rite and giving it an official mission along with the corresponding graces. This is how Christendom reached its apex.

lu58848xre_tmp_b8fa251bfd6ae114

However, in order to protect Christendom, the Church also founded another two institutions: the Crusades, with the temporary vow of the Cross, and Military Orders –Orders of Chivalry– of a permanent nature, with religious vows for religious knights and private vows for secular knights. So, how could the kingship of Christ be restored today? Probably using institutions established for that very purpose. By definition, they are the best way to reach the goals they were given: good for all times and everywhere.

The Knights of Our Lady

It is upon these institutions (the knight’s dubbing and orders of knighthood) that the Order of the Knights of Our Lady (Militia Sanctæ Mariæ) was founded in 1945 in France, where it was canonically erected in Chartres, as well as in Germany, Switzerland, Portugal, and Spain. The Order nevertheless suffered a break-up after Vatican II. Finally, some faithful members founded a traditional branch of the Order in 1970, whose first knights were all dubbed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

lu58848xre_tmp_c29c053c174d85c5

Of course, one does not enter the Order as one would join an association. The postulant is received as a squire after a minimum formation of 6 months. After another 2 years, he may take temporary vows as a donate for a 2-year period, which is indefinitely renewable. Then, at the call of the Master in Council, he may be admitted to his final profession, and to the knightly dubbing.

lu58848xre_tmp_7d03ab73aac46ef4


Introduction to the Order

lu58848xre_tmp_536913f7503c2366

He then exchanges the donate’s grey mantle for a white one, and makes the three private vows: Conversion of life (living according to the Rule), Fidelity to the Order (obedience within the limits of the Rule and brotherly mutual help) and Defence of the Church (similar to the vow of Crusade, to defend the Church and Christendom, even at the peril of one’s life). The next day, after the whole night vigil-at-arms and Mass, he is girded with the sword as a knight.

lu58848xre_tmp_43b8c274c716ca9

The Order today

The knights commit themselves to the recitation of the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the entire Rosary every week, to set aside a certain time for daily mental prayer, to go on a yearly closed retreat, to pursue their doctrinal and spiritual formation, to train physically, to attend the monthly chapter meetings of their local commandery, and to participate in the combats of the Order for the reign of Christ the King.

The wives and daughters of members may also be admitted. There are also pages and cadets, who prepare for knighthood from a young age, and may remain in the Order all their lives, without having to change orientation or spirituality.

lu58848xre_tmp_9ef693c686718ed5

Today, the Order has members in Europe, the Americas, Asia and Australasia. The knightly vocation certainly is the vocation par excellence for laymen. Archbishop Lefebvre solemnly called upon them during his priestly jubilee in 1979 saying: “We must make a Crusade […] in order to restore Christendom, as the Church desires it to be […]. with the same principles […]. You must act […]. You should get organised […].” The knights are also active in the fields of charitable action and help, the service to the sick during pilgrimages, doctrinal and physical formation, and the education of the youth. Their main thrust however is in the winning back of minds and hearts, as well as of the political and social institutions of society, to Christ the King.

Contact: militiasanctaemariae@orange.fr

Epidemic: The Solution!

Epidemic:

the Solution!

by Cardinal Schuster OSB

Commentary on the Prayers of the Votive Mass in Times of Epidemic

Great calamities or public misfortunes are generally inflicted by God as punishments for the sins of the nation. The individual will expiate his faults in the next world, but nations and states cannot do so, and therefore the Lord punishes their social sins here. He desires, by these public scourges, to bring them to repentance, and the surest means to avert the divine justice is the conversion of the people and their return to God.

St. Gregory had this object in view when he instituted the famous Litania Septiformis with the procession to the Vatican Basilica, in order to stop the plague desolating Rome in 590. This thought inspires the following Collect:

God, who desirest not the death but the repentance of sinners, mercifully look upon thy people who return to thee; and grant that they, being devoted to thee, may by thy mercy be delivered from the scourges of thine anger. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son…

[…] The plague was raging throughout the kingdom of David, and slew seventy thousand victims in three days. The angelic minister of the sanctity of God was sent to punish the sin of vainglory committed by the king, when he ordered the census of the nation to be taken. The people suffered for his sin on the principle of solidarity so strongly felt by the ancients, who regarded the sins or the virtues of parents and rulers as drawing down punishment or blessings upon their children and subjects.

By permitting this, God commits no injustice, for it is merely a question of temporal goods which he is in no way bound to bestow, and if he deprives certain individuals of these advantages, it is for their eternal welfare. For instance, the plague was in reality ordered to the greater good of the Israelites, for God, who does not punish the same sin twice, allowed them to expiate their sins by that death, and the poor victims were carried away by the pestilence at the moment when it was to the greater advantage of their souls. Even those who by the inscrutable judgement of God were not saved, were spared from adding to their guilt, and their eternal punishment was less terrible in consequence.

David propitiated the Lord by erecting a votive altar on the spot where he had beheld the angel with the drawn sword; that altar is a symbol of our Redeemer who reconciles all humanity to God through the merits of His Precious Blood.

[…] When confronted with some great catastrophe such as an earthquake or a pestilence, the pride of man is brought low; all his discoveries and his exalted wisdom are powerless before God, whose touch can wither and dissolve the earth.

— Man raises his towers of Babel, his palaces and monuments, as though they were to endure for ever, but an earthquake of the duration of a few seconds is sufficient to make of a populous city a heap of ruins.

— Science performs miracles; man thinks that he has penetrated all the secrets of nature, he boasts that he has mastered creation and has now no need of God. An epidemic breaks out: a mysterious bacillus slays thousands and thousands of victims, and upsets all the calculations of the learned. It is a microbe, an almost invisible organism, which annihilates human pride. Such is our life, the span of which can be shortened by such microscopic enemies.

God alone is strong, wise, and good. In him only can we trust, for he alone will never fail us. All other things, science, art, glory, health, and strength, are but vanity.

[…] When the Word took flesh he conferred upon that flesh the power to bestow health, grace, and holiness. The saints, especially in early Christian times, regarded the Holy Eucharist as a remedy not only of the soul but for the body. The Fathers of the Church relate many cases of bodily cures effected by Holy Communion.

St. John Chrysostom tells us that many sick people were restored to health after having been anointed with the oil from the lamps which burnt before the altar. […] since the second century the bishop always blessed the oils for the sick at the Sunday Mass. When, subsequently, the performance of this rite was limited to the Missa Chrismalis of Maundy Thursday, the faithful of Rome in the Middle Ages used to bring their own phials of oil to be blessed by the Pope or the clergy celebrating with him. This Oleum Infirmorum was reverently preserved in every house as holy water is now.

A great change has taken place since those days in the mind of Christians, some of whom now appear to have a great fear of Extreme Unction.

[…] the Book of Numbers (xvi, 48) […] tells how the people of Israel rebelled against Moses, and how fourteen thousand were destroyed by fire from heaven. The great legislator commanded Aaron his brother to place himself as mediator between the bodies of the dead and the living, and the justice of God. The prayers of Aaron ascended like incense and God was placated.

This is the place and the vocation assigned to the clergy. The priest is called away from the multitude to be a mediator between God and man. Among all the ministries and offices he is chosen to fulfil, there is no office more worthy, none more essential, than the offering up of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and liturgical meditation, the psalmody in loco sancto, in quo orat sacerdos pro delictis et peccatis populi. The priest makes prayer and intercession for the sins of others, for it is understood that he must be holy and pure from every sin, or else si non placet, non placat, as St. Bernard wisely says. St. Jerome, too, when speaking of the legal purifications of the Jews, remarks: “Does any man among the people fall into sin? The priest prays for the culprit and his sin is forgiven. But should the priest sin, who shall make intercession for him?

In time of plague when the chief need is to find the cause and the remedy for the disease, the Church is indeed wise to point out the true source of all evil, sin. When this is removed by a sincere return to God, the epidemic will disappear, God will be placated, and will restore his grace, which will purify the body, too, from every contagion.

Cardinal Schuster O.S.B., Liber Sacramentorum, volume 9

Vromant et Cie, Bruxelles, 1933

p. 247-253

For a more complete look at this topic, read the following article on Fatima found on our website:

The Message of Fatima, the last remedy given to the world

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”? 

Yes.

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 ( cruzadoparalaverdad@gmail.com )

Pictures compliments of   nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2015/03/consagracion-de-monsenor-faure.html

 

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 ( cruzadoparalaverdad@gmail.com )

Pictures compliments of   nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2015/03/consagracion-de-monsenor-faure.html

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.