A Major Event in Tradition

A Major Event in Tradition

A text available on gloria.tv aptly analyses certain consequences of the granting of an ordinary jurisdiction to the Society of St. Pius X by Pope Francis for the duration of the “Holy Year”.   We quote here some extracts from it.

 

5)  The forms of the concession are atypical:  the jurisdiction is awarded to priests of the Society according to an unusual procedure, moreover it is very limited and temporary in nature.  The act of September 1st 2015 is nevertheless a “canonical normalization” in the sense of the decision of the Chapter of July 2012, which did not make any distinctions between partial, complete, unilateral, consensual, temporary or final normalization etc…    Furthermore, the six “preconditions” imposed by this Chapter no longer have any reason to exist now that the papal measure has been accepted by the Superior General.

 

6)  On analysis, this “mini-normalization” ( two sacraments for one year) appears to be a first experiment in co-existence between the Society and its “conciliar” environment, and a test of its docility towards the holders of legitimate power in the Church. […]

 

7)  Last autumn, the risks of this process could not have eluded the General Council of Menzingen, thus making even more imperative the meeting of the Chapter foreseen in the communiqué of July 14th 2012.   And yet the Superior General did not convene this extraordinary Chapter.   So the procedure for authorization instituted by the supreme authority of the Society with the aim of its protection was not applied: and the reason for this omission has not been given.

 

8)  Having accepted alone and without the authorization of the Chapter this preliminary act of the Pope, will Mgr. Fellay be able to oppose the complementary normalization measures already envisaged  (cf. his sermon at the French pilgrimage of Le Puy on April 10th, 2016) or a more complete canonical recognition?   Will he be able to refuse to ratify the “fundamental accord” on “the value of the Council”, as the pope requires for the erection of a personal prelature for the Society (cf. interview in the French newspaper La Croix of May 16th).   On considering the evolution of events, we are not able to affirm this.

 

9)   The desire to remedy a canonical situation deemed “irregular” has led the Society to defer endlessly decisive confrontation on doctrine.   Not having demanded Rome’s renunciation of conciliar errors before consenting to receive the ordinary jurisdiction granted by the act of September 1st, the Society has fallen into a trap:  it will not be able to invoke the state of necessity and take, if necessary, without the agreement of the authorities, the measures needed to safeguard the faith and the priesthood, put in danger by Vatican II and its reforms.

Answer to Fr Bouchacourt (SSPX)

Answer to Fr Bouchacourt (SSPX)

On July 1, 2015, on the Porte Latine, website of the Society in France, Fr Bouchacourt, Superior of the District, published a communiqué warning against the Dominican community of Avrillé. The same communiqué was also published in Fideliter 227, September/October 2015, magazine of the Society in France.

The Dominicans answered respectfully on their Website.

As the Society is now spreading the English translation of the communiqué of Fr Bouchacourt, the Dominicans publish here their answer in English.

Here in part 1 is the communiqué of Fr Bouchacourt, followed by the answer of the Dominicans:

PART 1. Communiqué of Fr Bouchacourt

1. For more than a year the Dominican Fathers of the friary in Avrillé have been spreading and supporting defiance against the authorities of the Society of St. Pius X, especially with regard to Bishop Fellay and the General House.

During conferences, in publications and on their website, they have accused the superiors of the Society of St. Pius X of giving up the good fight for the Faith in order to drag the Society at all costs into an agreement with the Roman authorities.

We have tried, in vain, during various meetings, to prove to them the contrary and to show them that their attitude was imperiling the unity of Tradition by sowing doubt and division. This communique intends to re-establish the truth so as to defend the honor of our superiors and that of our priestly family.

2. The outstanding acts of this increasingly public opposition were the following:

  • On Sunday, January 19, 2014, the Dominican Fathers distribute to persons who came to attend Mass at the friary in Avrillé their “Address [Appeal] to the Faithful”, a document made public on January 7 of that year, accusing the General House in Menzingen of going “in the opposite direction” from the one pursued until now by Archbishop Lefebvre, “by getting closer to modernist Rome” and stubbornly continuing “on that path that leads to death”; the Fathers in Avrillé are among the signers of this document;
  • On that same day, Fr. Pierre-Marie gives a conference to the faithful who came to Avrillé, to explain and justify the validity of this “Address to the Faithful”;
  • The text of this “Address to the Faithful”, accompanied by an introduction justifying it, is published in the magazine Le Sel de la terre [The Salt of the Earth], no. 88 (Spring 2014), pp. 138-139;
  • Confidential correspondence exchanged with Bishop Fellay after the publication of the “Address to the Faithful” is published in Le Sel de la terre, no. 89 (Summer 2014), pp. 215-220;
  • The Dominican Fathers take a position in favor of the episcopal consecration of Bishop Faure on March 19, 2015, and publish a long dossier justifying this act in Le Sel de la terre, no. 92 (Spring 2015), pp. 139-169.

3. Like all the signers of the “Address to the Faithful”, the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé thought that they had to present:

“…not a declaration that they were breaking away from the Society of St. Pius X, but on the contrary, public testimony to their firm, faithful attachment to the principles that always guided Archbishop Lefebvre in the fight for the Faith.”

But in this they are laboring entirely under a delusion and are drawing into it all who follow them. For Archbishop Lefebvre always conducted this fight for the Faith not only in doctrinal fidelity to Tradition, but also in order, in unity and in peace, in the spirit of obedience.

The Fathers of Avrillé are not faithful to these principles, for they denigrate the authority of Archbishop Lefebvre’s successor and cast suspicion on the acts of his government so as to create a dialectic between the members of the Society and their superiors, setting even the priests one against another. In order to detach oneself [lawfully] from an authority, it is necessary for the latter actually to urge the subjects to sin against faith or morals.

Now the Dominicans of Avrillé cannot show which acts performed by the Superior General demonstrate that “Menzingen is betraying the fight for the Faith.” Therefore the General House is not the one that is currently betraying this fight for the Faith; rather, those who label themselves the “Resistance” are the ones who are weakening it by their subversive manoeuvers.

4. The consecration of a bishop by Bishop Williamson is altogether unjustifiable. Whatever may be the false pretexts whereby some try to make it plausible, it only aggravates this spirit of independence and division. Archbishop Lefebvre always expressed himself very clearly to warn us against such a state of mind. As he said during a meeting held in Econe on July 4, 1988:

“The Superior General is the one who maintains the ties with Rome and, in a word, takes responsibility for Tradition, for this is the structure of the Society that exists in the Church’s eyes. We never wanted any organization of Tradition or any presidency of such an association; nonetheless the fact remains that the Society is de facto the spinal column of Tradition, its providential instrument, on which all initiatives of Tradition must rely.”

In supporting the episcopal consecration of Bishop Faure, the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé make themselves accomplices in a harmful act and do serious damage to the common good of Tradition, inasmuch as the only reason mentioned to justify this act is based on the unproven accusation that the Society of St. Pius X had abandoned the fight for the Faith. 

5. It is obvious that no superior who is responsible in God’s sight for the good of his district can fail to react to these repeated provocations [prises de position]. We cannot allow distrust, division, or a partisan, disparaging spirit to become established within our ranks. This is a matter of the common good of the flock, and the first duty of a pastor is to preserve its unity and cohesion by putting it out of the reach of these troublemakers.

6. Consequently, given so many dishonest accusations, the District of France can no longer support the Dominican community in Avrillé which, by its subversive schemes, is sowing doubt and division in the ranks of Tradition and weakening its forces.

This situation is very regrettable. May the Holy Ghost enlighten the superior of the Dominican community in Avrillé, and may Our Lord and Our Lady keep us in the unity of truth and charity, faithful to the good fight for the Faith conducted by Archbishop Lefebvre, for the honor of Christ the King, that of Holy Church and the good of our souls.

Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, SSPX District Superior of France

July 1, 2015, on the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord

 

PART 2. Respectful answer of the Dominicans in six points

Point # 1.   We read in the communiqué:

“During conferences, in publications and on their website, they [the Dominicans of Avrillé] have accused the superiors of the Society of St. Pius X of giving up the good fight for the Faith in order to drag the Society at all costs into an agreement with the Roman authorities.”

This is inexact.

Our disagreement with the Superior General of the SSPX arises from the fact that the superior is prepared to make a practical agreement with authorities who still profess the conciliar errors.

* From 1988 to 2012 the Society held this wise principle:

No practical agreement with Rome without a prior doctrinal agreement.”

This principle was again clearly affirmed by the Chapter of 2006:

“The contacts that the Society has from time to time with the Roman authorities has as its only goal to help them once again to take ownership of Tradition, which the Church cannot deny without losing its identity, and not the search for an advantage for itself, or to reach an impossible purely practical agreement”.

* In March 2012 Mgr. Fellay announced that he was abandoning this principle ( by affirming: “ it is not a question of a principle but of a line of conduct”). This abandonment was supported by the Chapter of 2012. Since then, despite numerous entreaties, Mgr. Fellay has refused to return to the former principle.

* On the 31st of May 2012, we wrote to Father Bouchacourt: “It is because we wish to keep this principle – which is the legacy of Mgr. Lefebvre – that you are preparing to condemn us.   Or rather that Mgr. Fellay is preparing to condemn us by your mouth”.


Point # 2.   We read in the communiqué:

‘The Dominicans of Avrillé cannot show which acts performed by the Superior General demonstrate that Menzingen is betraying the fight for the Faith.

The words in inverted double commas are wrongly attributed to us: we are not the authors ( see Le Sel de la terre  92, p.141).

What we do say (and it is obvious from point 1), is that Menzingen has changed its line of conduct in its relationship with Rome, engendering a loss of confidence amongst a great number of traditionalists.


Point # 3.   The communiqué reproaches us for having published “ a confidential correspondence exchanged with Mgr. Fellay” in Le Sel de la terre 89, p.215-22.

It is sufficient to refer to the published text to see that there is nothing confidential in these letters. Mgr. Fellay forbade us all collaboration with the Society, deprived us of ordinations and of the holy oils. It was normal that we should make known the reasons on which he purported to lean, and also that the rupture came from his side and not ours.


Point # 4.   We read in the communiqué:

“The only reason mentioned to justify this act [the episcopal consecration of Mgr Faure] is based on the unproven accusation that the Society of St. Pius X had abandoned the fight for the Faith.”

This is inexact.

We have expounded several grave objective reasons which justify the episcopal consecration of Mgr. Faure ( see Le Sel de la terre no. 92, p.139-170, and no. 93, p.200-208) and notably the fact that Mgr. Fellay refuses ordinations and even the holy oils (necessary for several sacraments, in particular extreme unction) to our community and to several others who do not share the new policy established in 2012.


Point # 5.   The communiqué relies on words said by Mgr. Lefebvre during a meeting in Écône on the 4th of July 1988:

“We never wanted any organization of Tradition or any presidency of such an association; nonetheless the fact remains that the Society is de facto the spinal column of Tradition, its providential instrument, on which all initiatives of Tradition must rely.”

As Mgr. Lefebvre said, it was a matter of fact (de facto) and not of right. This fact could have endured for a long time, if Mgr. Fellay had not taken the decision to break the unity of Tradition by changing the line of conduct with regards to Rome, and by excluding Mgr. Williamson from the Chapter of 2012, then by expelling him from the Society because he did not approve this change in the line of conduct.

 

Point # 6.   We read again:

“This communique intends to re-establish the truth.”

At the same time it accuses us of:

— spreading and supporting defiance against the authorities of the Society of St. Pius X;

— denigrating the authority of Archbishop Lefebvre’s successor;

— creating a dialectic between the members of the Society and their superiors;

— subversive manoeuvers;

— making themselves accomplices in a harmful act [the consecration of Bp. Faure];

— doing serious damage to the common good of Tradition;

— repeated provocations;

— [setting up] distrust, division, or a partisan, disparaging spirit;

— dishonest accusations;

— sowing doubt and division in the ranks of Tradition and weakening its forces;

— subversive schemes.

Is that all ? ….

The truth is something which accords with reality.

Also before “so many false accusations” we are happy to say to the readers of the communiqué: “Come and see, read our publications (Le Sel de la terre, our Letter to friends and benefactors, our English website), and see if what can be found there is compatible with the melodramatic description of the communiqué.

The reality is that despite the differences with the Superior General about his new policy towards Rome, on our part we remain friends of the Society, and we wish it to overcome the crisis which it has been undergoing since 2012.

Friends & Benefactors Letter #20, April 2015

Letter from the Dominicans of Avrille

No. 19, May 2015

Dominican Life:   A Mixed Life

The Consecration at a Solemn Dominican High Mass.

The Consecration at a Solemn Dominican High Mass.

Dear Friends, Family and Benefactors,

“Seeing how great is the evil nowadays and how no human strength will suffice to smother the fire kindled by heretics – even though attempts have been made to organize opposition against them – as if such a great and rapidly spreading evil could be resolved by the mere force of material weapons, it seems to me, nevertheless, that we should now conduct ourselves as in time of war : The sovereign of the country retires into a fortified city, out of which, from time to time, he attacks and wins the battle thanks to the courage of the city’s elite warriors. Since this little castle of ours, our castillo, is the home of good Christians, no one must be won to the enemy’s cause. Therefore, the captains of the castle, namely, the preachers and theologians, must be eminent. Hence, it is indispensable, as I have already said, that the ecclesiastical arm, and not the secular one, come to our help.”

The above citation from Saint Teresa of Avila’s work, The Way of Perfection, well describes Saint Dominic’s motives in founding the Order of Friar Preachers.

Religious life is distinguished as belonging to two categories. The first category consists of contemplative religious who continue the role of Saint Mary Madeleine “seated at the feet of Jesus to listen to His words,” loving Him exclusively.

The second category consists of active religious who continue the role of Saint Martha, drawing out of their love of God the zeal to serve their fellow men, in whom they serve Jesus Himself.

However, Dominican life does not belong to either category.

Our friary some years ago before the fourth wing and a bell tower were built.

Our friary some years ago before the fourth wing and a bell tower were built.

In fact, Saint Dominic aspired to the apostolic life – the form of life of the Apostles themselves – in which the priests and religious would be “entirely consecrated to prayer and to the preaching of the Gospel” (Acts 6:4). Saint Thomas Aquinas, the most eminent son of Saint Dominic, summarized the apostolic life and spirit of the Order by the famous expression, “Contemplari, et contemplata aliis tradere – to contemplate and to give to others the fruits of one’s contemplation” (II-II, q.188, a.6).

Consequently, the friar preacher is neither a pure contemplative, nor a pure active – supposing that these two categories could exist in a pure state. Rather, Dominican life is a mixed life, which is not merely adding exterior action to contemplation. On one hand, after spending several hours at chapel, the hospital Sister, animated by the love of God, spends the rest of her day caring for the sick, yet her religious life remains active. On the other hand, for apostolic Orders, such as the Dominicans, the exterior action of preaching is the direct continuation of contemplation. Thus, the hospital Sister cares for the sick using medicine and bandages – and not what she had contemplated in prayer – whereas the friar preacher imparts to souls the truths and lights received from contemplation. In fact, the Dominican has the obligation to “shout from the housetops what he has heard in his ears” (Mt. 10:27).

Hence, the contemplation and exterior action of a Dominican are well united: firstly, due to the motive, which is divine charity; and secondly, due to the content: “the words which Thou gavest me, I have given to them” (John 17:8). Consequently, the Dominican preacher must be able to repeat the following words of Saint John: “We announce to you that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and which our hands have handled, of the Word of life” (1 John 1:1).

The litany of the Blessed Virgin at the end of Compline on Saturdays.

The litany of the Blessed Virgin at the end of Compline on Saturdays.

Even theologians outside the Dominican Order consider apostolic life – or the “mixed” life – as the most perfect form of religious life, because priority is given to contemplation, and because exterior action is considered only as the continuation and fruit of contemplation. Here is a passage written by the Carmelite Fathers of Salamanca, Spain, cited in the work Une Journée à Saint-Maximin (A Day Spent at the Dominican Monastery of Saint-Maximin) by Bernadot O. P., Father Marie Vincent; Saint-Maximin, France, 1924, pp 11-12:

The mixed religious Order is more perfect than the other Orders, because it is similar to the life of Christ, the Apostles, and bishops. The mixed religious Order is not ordered firstly to preaching and teaching, but, rather, gives priority to contemplation, by principle, and, only afterwards, performs exterior works for the good of others as the overflow of contemplation. Without this principle, much perfection would be lacking in the preaching and teaching of doctrine… Therefore, it is wrong to teach that religious Orders dedicated firstly to preaching and teaching are apostolic. Their exterior activities do not come from the overflow of contemplation, but are, rather, works of the active life.

Thus, in order that our contemplation, preaching, and teaching of sacred doctrine may bear abundant fruit, the Constitutions of the Order provide four fundamental means to achieving the work:

  1. The religious state with the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience,
  2. The solemn recitation of the Divine Office,
  3. The life of regularity with its traditional monastic observances (silence, fasting, abstinence, chapter of faults, etc.), and
  4. The assiduous study of Sacred Truth.

These four means, according to the Constitutions, “have been given to us by our Holy Patriarch Saint Dominic to arrive at our goal, and, therefore, these four means cannot be suppressed nor modified substantially.”

From this general study of the basic principles of Dominican life, an important lesson for the spiritual life can be drawn out for the good of all.

We all have the tendency, unfortunately, to put action above, and before prayer, thus not only time-wise, but also in our esteem. Even if perhaps we do not have much time for prayer, we should nevertheless consider prayer as the most important work of the day. “Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33)

Hence, let us make a real effort – at least in our esteem – to give priority to prayer, like Saint Mary Magdalene. If, however, despite all our efforts, we are crushed with work, like Saint Martha, instead of being annoyed, let us humble ourselves at the feet of Jesus, at least for a little while, in order to listen to what He has to say.

Community Chronicle

January 9: One of our Fathers assists at part of the Chapter of the Knights of Our Lady at the school of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary in Vendée.

February 5-7: Exams for our scholastic Brothers.

February 12: Father Marie Dominique is at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet Church in Paris for the funeral of Miss Claudine Germinet (Sister Marie Madeleine of Jesus, in the Dominican Third Order). Next June she would have celebrated her twentieth anniversary of profession in the Third Order.

February 25: Our boys’ school has their first rugby game against one of the biggest clubs of the area.

Our boys’ school rugby team on the pitch.

Our boys’ school rugby team on the pitch.

 

March 1: Rev. Fr. Faure gives a conference to our community on the fight of Archbishop Lefebvre.

March 19: At the Monastery of Santa Cruz in Brazil, Father Emmanuel Marie represents the community at the Episcopal consecration of His Excellency Bishop Jean Michel Faure.

March 28: Father Marie Dominique and Father Hyacinth Mary speak to several nurses, students in medicine, etc. about the moral problems of the present evolution of medicine. There will be regular meetings to form these young Catholics of the new St. Raphael group.

April 4: At the Easter Vigil this year we have the joy of the Baptism of an adult.

April 15: A community hike to strengthen the fraternal charity among the Brothers and Fathers during Eastertide.

The work site

After several years passed without touching his chisel, our Brother sculptor made a Sacred Heart statue in order to get the feel again. Now he will be able to sculpt the Blessed Virgin destined for the entrance of our cemetery in the woods (to replace the one that fell and broke a few years a go).

The statue of Our Lady in the woods that fell and broke and that we must now replace.

The statue of Our Lady in the woods that fell and broke and that we must now replace.

 

As for our library, built from 2007-2009, it is not yet filled with all the books. The cataloging and classing of the books has advanced thanks to several friends that come to help regularly. However there are still many books to enter on our lists and many shelves to put up.

We confide these projects to your prayers and thank all those who can help us to finish up the library by purchasing the last equipment necessary.

New information:

-Please take notice of our new US address. The address in Huntington, Indiana is no longer to be used (and please make things out to “Dominicans of Avrille”).

-For more about our life and apostolate, as well as to have some doctrinal and spiritual reading, you can now go to www.dominicansavrille.us

clip_image012

FOR MORE INFORMATION

write to:

-Couvent de la Haye-aux-Bonshommes

49240 Avrillé, France

You may send donations to the address above, or:

– In the U.S.:

Dominicans of Avrille, Inc.
P.O. Box 23

Newman Lake, WA. 99025-9998

In Canada:

The Association of St. Dominic

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

201-21 Street East

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

S7K OB8 Canada

Please specify: CAN$:acc.#40-91531

In the U.K.:

The Association of St. Dominic

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Edinburgh Comiston Branch

17 Comiston Road

Edinburgh EH10 6AA

Please specify: Acc # 00105564

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?