Last week it was stated that the essence of today’s crisis of the Church consists in the Vatican II split between Catholic Authority and Catholic Truth, when the highest authorities in the Church, assembled in Council, officially abandoned Church Tradition for “church” modernisation. This meant that from then on Catholics had to choose: either cling to Authority by “obeying” the modernists and abandoning Tradition, or cling to Truth and defy more or less the apparent Church “authorities.” Or they can choose any one of several possible combinations of part Truth and part Authority anywhere between the two poles.
As for Archbishop Lefebvre, his choice was as much respect as possible for Authority in Rome as would be consistent with not abandoning Tradition (because Catholic Truth can only be in accordance with Tradition). But when in 1988 the Roman authorities backed him up against the wall by their implicit refusal to look after Tradition, then for him doctrine (Truth) finally took precedence over diplomacy (towards Authority, finally truthless). And so he defied the Romans by consecrating four bishops, in “Operation Survival,” instead of “obeying” truthless Authority in what would have been “Operation Suicide.” “Operation Survival” ensured for his Society over two more decades of the primacy of doctrine (Truth), but then by striving to obtain official approval for the Society, his successors turned the Society into the Newsociety, by preferring Authority (recognition by Rome) to Truth (the defence of the Faith). They were giving up on the Archbishop’s heart and soul – the heroic defence of that Truth which is the heart and soul of the Church. Their Newsociety might be more popular and more comfortable, but it would no longer be the stuff of martyrs.
https://stmarcelinitiative.com/79-seminarians-ii/
At the Angelus Press Conference for Catholic Tradition held in the USA on December 11, 2021, the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X (SG for short) took official position on two different Covid questions, both controversial but in fact quite distinct. Firstly in a brief speech he gave three arguments to justify why the Society is not taking a public position for or against the so-called Covid “vaccines.” And secondly in Question Time he gave three comparisons to help explain why the Society tells Catholics that they may accept to be inoculated with these “vaccines.” Both his arguments and his comparisons deserve examination, but note that the SG has more than once been quoted favourably in these “Comments.” The problem is absolutely not personal in any way. See on the Internet: https://youtu.be/OYuqVdzr6Ew
His first argument for the Society standing back from the whole Covid controversy is that it is a medical question which does not come under the religious mission of the Society. And this argument he says is the main reason for the Society not to commit itself officially one way or the other. However, is the abolition of God, of Christ and of the Catholic Church not a religious question? The objective investigation team of the German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich has interviewed hundreds of doctors and politicians ever since Covid burst on the world scene in March of 2020, and their serious conclusion is that the Covid onslaught is “the greatest crime ever committed against mankind as a whole.” Fuellmich is convinced that the jab or “vaccine” was not invented for the Covid virus, but the virus was invented to impose the jab, either to depopulate, i.e. kill, millions of human beings, or so change their genome as to render them more docile slaves of the surviving elite. That is why so many people make the same accusation, that Covid is a fraud, medical in deceptive appearance, but in reality utterly political, part of a massive and unbelievably wicked fraud to take power over the whole world.
Objection: priests should stand back, because who can tell for sure whether people like Fuellmich are not simply “conspiracy theorists”? Answer: Were Covid not a fraud, would it need such a mass of shifting lies to promote and protect it? Is an honest mind really so incapable of discovering the objective truth?
The SG even admits in his second argument that the Globalist Conspiracy to replace the Catholic Church and God’s natural order with another universal man-made authority, started 300 years ago, with Masonry. The Church has long known all about Freemasonry, he says, so we need not worry about Covid. However, if Covid is being tied through the Globalists to Judeo-masonry, the Church’s prime organised enemy, as the Popes have recognised since the 1730’s, then we can sit back and relax? Should not Covid be worrying priests all the more, not the less? Or has the SSPX also been infiltrated by Freemasonry? To ask the question is to fear the answer, when its SG argues in such a way.
His third argument, from the anti-”vaccine” alliance, is equally contorted. He says that the SSPX cannot afford to join the anti-”vaccine” alliance because it includes left-wingers opposing the “vaccine” in the name of human dignity and human rights, just like abortionists claim that abortion is part of human dignity and a human right. However, there is no comparison between these two “human rights.” The right of any man or woman to refuse anything going into their body which they do not want in their body is a true human right over one’s own body. Abortion is no human right at all, even of the mother, because the foetus is never part of her own body that belongs to her, because from the moment of conception it is a substance distinct from the mother’s substance, by blood-type, fingerprint and genetic composition. Therefore anyone, left-wing or right-wing, who claims that the two rights are comparable, is talking nonsense, and to oppose the “vaccine” the SSPX need have no fear of being associated with them. The business of an SG is to talk Catholic sense, not worry too much about the multitudes talking nonsense.
https://stmarcelinitiative.com/wrong-lead-i/
https://stmarcelinitiative.com/resistances-2022/
“RESISTANCE” 2022
Than blind obedience, faith that sees is greater.
The time for obedience to return is later.
If by “Resistance” we understand that loose grouping together of Catholic priests and lay-folk striving to maintain and to live by the faith and morals of traditional Catholicism prior to its essential dislocation by the modern world through the Second Vatican Council, then what are its prospects in the New Year just arriving? In appearance those prospects are not bright, because the Devil seems with the Covid-nonsense to be winning the battle for control of our world. In reality they are bright, because if the “Resistance” has survived so far, it can only be because God is granting to it minimal graces of survival in accordance with His promise to be with His Church to world’s end, and that promise still stands (Mt. XXVIII, 20).
But what are the principles by which the movement of “Resistance” (or “Fidelity”as it can also be known) came, and still comes, into existence? Most of the priests who would recognise themselves as belonging to the movement are former priests of the Society of St Pius X who disliked the policies it was officially adopting from around the General Chapter of 2012 onwards. These policies were characterised by a kind of benevolence towards the Church’s rulers in Rome, and towards the decisions of Vatican II shaping those rulers, that Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society’s Founder, had never shown towards either.
And what is wrong for Catholics to show benevolence towards the Church’s rulers? Is it not Catholics’ bounden duty to show respect and obedience towards the Church’s officials, in particular its Pope? Yes indeed, that is the normal rule, but there is one exception, and that is when the Catholic Faith is being endangered. Alas, it is seriously endangered by the most typical documents of Vatican II (1962–1965), e.g. Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio, Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae amongst others. And worse even than the grave but particular errors in these Conciliar documents, said the Archbishop near the end of his days, is the general subjectivism suffusing them all, in other words that mushing of the mind by which a man puts his subjective feelings in front of the objective truth. But if there is no objective truth, how can there be a true God? Vatican II opened the door wide to Pachamamma in the 20th century.
But does not Pope (or at least seeming Pope) Bergoglio show a special benevolence towards the Society of St Pius X? That, says Archbishop Viganò (once Number 11 inside the Vatican), is only trickery on his part to lure the Society into abandoning that juridical status of independence from the official hierarchy of the Church which Archbishop Lefebvre so carefully ensured for his Society, but which its present leaders still seem to want to exchange for full official acceptance by the Church’s apparent Authority. Yet at this very moment those leaders must be admitting that it is only the Society’s unofficial status which protects it from the sledgehammer of Traditionis Custodes, now smashing all other Traditional communities which strive to preserve the true Mass but which still want to respect these Romans’ Truth-less Authority.
The safeguarding of that Truth which is the Catholic Faith, without which nobody can be saved (Heb. XI, 6), was the mission and the strength and the glory of the Archbishop and his original Society of St Pius X. The strength was undermined and the glory was tarnished over the last 10 years by even just the shadow of compromise with the unfaithful Church authorities, but the mission remained, and it remains through the New Year, indeed until the Lord God puts the Pope back on his feet. In the meantime the “Resistance” (so-called), like any faithful remnant down the ages, requires no large numbers, nor prestige, nor official approval, but, to save the stones of the street from having to cry out (cf. Lk. XIX, 40) it does require from its followers faithfulness to the true Faith, and it may well at some stage require martyrs.
And so if Catholics fasten their eyes on Heaven, and pray seriously, quietly, steadily, if at all possible 15 Mysteries of the Rosary every day, they cannot make a better use of 2022. Happy New Year!
Kyrie eleison.
In fact, Fr Aulagnier parted company with the Society in 2003, and he may have continued to serve Catholic Tradition in various forms thereafter
In 1976 when the Archbishop was on the eve of the historic ordination of the first important batch of priests from Écône, it was on Fr. Aulagnier’s door that he knocked in a moment of hesitation before finally taking this decisive action, and it was Fr. Aulagnier’s encouragement that finally decided him. Again, where would the priesthood and the Church be today had either of them faltered?
And in late May of 1988 when the Archbishop gathered together in the middle of France a large number of the leading defenders of Catholic Tradition, priests and Sisters, to deliberate whether he should go ahead in June with consecrating bishops for Tradition without Rome’s official permission, the Sisters were valiant to a man (sic), but the priests nearly all advised delay, except Fr Aulagnier, who said, “Rome’s philosophy and theology are no longer Catholic . . . . I am afraid of the agreement they are offering us . . . . I fear Roman cunning . . . we risk being eaten up by modernist Rome.” He was right then. He is still right today.
https://stmarcelinitiative.com/paul-aulagnier-r-i-p/
https://stmarcelinitiative.com/modernisms-malice-v/
The human will can want nothing that the human mind has not first presented to it. In front of every human desire must go a human thought. The desire of a non-object can only be a non-desire. Therefore the will depends on the mind to have grasped its object for it, and between every will and the object it wants must have come the mind, always assuming that the mind grasps its own object. But now comes Kant who says that the mind cannot grasp its own real object, it can only grasp what it itself fabricates. This means that the will and its real object are no longer properly connected. This means that a good will can will things in reality bad and a bad will can will something in reality good, but given men’s original sin the latter case will be less frequent. And so when Kant unhooks the mind from objective reality, he is making it that much easier for the will to want something bad while it appeared to be good. Thus in today’s whole world of minds unhooked from objective reality, it is that much easier for men still to be of good will even when they are wanting what is in reality not good, because the mind has been radically crippled.
Here is what Fr Faber is prophesying. He is saying that by the end of the world, the problem need not be so much bad hearts or ill-will as good hearts with crippled minds, in other words good hearts with bad principles. What does this mean in practice? It means that today there will be a large number of Catholics who can have the Faith and who mean well, but whose minds are malfunctioning because they follow, consciously but more often unconsciously, the teaching of Kant, so that their good will is correspondingly adrift. Then they can no longer see how the Newchurch is a gangrene upon the true Catholic Church, or how the Archbishop’s Society of St Pius X is being gangrened by his successors. But in many cases the blindness of such souls is not necessarily out of malice or a lack of good will.
It follows that in dealing with such souls in which the subjective has been split from the objective by a whole world crippled by Kant, a Catholic can easily make one of two opposed but connected errors. Either he can say that such souls are so innocent of heart that they cannot be mistaken in mind, so the Newchurch cannot be all that mistaken, and so he should rejoin it, Pachamama and all – thus behave today the Newsociety’s leaders and all those following them. Or he can say that the errors in the mind of the Newchurch and the Newsociety wishing to rejoin it are so grave that they cannot possibly be the true Church or the true Society, and both must be absolutely shunned – thus argue and behave those known as sedevacantists and those who may refuse the label of sedevacantism but take sedevacantist positions.
On the contrary, if I recognise how Kant began the split of subject from object, I will say neither that such souls are of good will and therefore their doctrine is good, nor that their doctrine is so false that they must be of bad will. Instead I will say that subjectively they may be of good will, but in any case they are objectively of such bad doctrine that for my eternal salvation I cannot follow them or keep them company. And with the Holy Rosary I will beg Our Lady to keep my heart and mind balanced in truth.
On October 23, 2019, it was reported that L'abbaye Notre-Dame de Bellaigue in Virlet, Auvergne, France, housing the Benedictines of Our Lady of Bellaigue, has been expelled by the Neo-SSPX regime because the Benedictines rejected Bernie Fellay/Dave Pagnliarani's policy to sell out to Francis-Bergoglio's Newchurch of the New Order.
The Neo-SSPX's "Diabolical Duo" Fellay/Pagliarani tried to force the abbot, Fr. Placido, to resign, but he refused, and his monks stood behind him. The abbey is a particularly great loss for the Diabolical Duo because it is an ancient Cistercian abbey founded in 950. It will now continue as a traditional Catholic abbey operating independently of the pseudo-traditionalists Fellay/Pagliarani and their followers.
True Catholics, the Neo-SSPX is not the original traditional Catholic organization, the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (ob. 1991). It has shifted toward the Newchurch of the New Order, founded in 1964 at the Vatican II Anti-council. In recent years some 600 of its priests have walked out in disgust at Fellay/Pagliarani's pro-New Order stance. Now another great abbey has deserted the Neo-SSPX and gone independent. Undoubtedly there were be more desertions from Fellay/Pagliarani because the head of Newchurch, the Marxist/Modernist Francis-Bergoglio, has now openly accepted paganism and has installed pagan statues before the altar of St. Peter's Archbasilica. We may be witnessing the dissolution of the Neo-SSPX.
Huge news in France
(tradcatresist)
The Benedictines of Bellaigue, no more than the Capuchins, are known to be resistant to the new policies of the SSPX. The Superior, Dom Placide, was recently called in and told in no uncertain terms to resign or face the consequences. Dom Placide told the Society that they must do what they must and refused their offer.
The response by the SSPX was to instruct all superiors to no longer send any seminarian's to Bellaigue and to remove the Monastery from the SSPX website's.
Of course there are two interesting things here. Firstly, will Bellaigue follow in the footsteps of the Dominicans and support the Resistant Bishops? Particularly as one of them is a fellow Benedictine (Bp Thomas Aquinas) Secondly it somewhat makes a mockery of the recent interview by Fr Pagliarani as it makes apparent his continuity with the policies of Bishop Fellay.
One hopes that the Benedictines choose to put their support behind the Resistant Bishops and that the SSPX's decision to demonize them to their own laity has the same lack of effect that it did when they did the same to the Disciples of the Cenacle at Velletri under Don Curzio who continue to receive vocations from SSPX families in spite of being under a Resistant priest.
The Benedictines of Bellaigue, no more than the Capuchins, are known to be resistant to the new policies of the SSPX. The Superior, Dom Placide, was recently called in and told in no uncertain terms to resign or face the consequences. Dom Placide told the Society that they must do what they must and refused their offer.
The response by the SSPX was to instruct all superiors to no longer send any seminarian's to Bellaigue and to remove the Monastery from the SSPX website's.
Of course there are two interesting things here. Firstly, will Bellaigue follow in the footsteps of the Dominicans and support the Resistant Bishops? Particularly as one of them is a fellow Benedictine (Bp Thomas Aquinas) Secondly it somewhat makes a mockery of the recent interview by Fr Pagliarani as it makes apparent his continuity with the policies of Bishop Fellay.
One hopes that the Benedictines choose to put their support behind the Resistant Bishops and that the SSPX's decision to demonize them to their own laity has the same lack of effect that it did when they did the same to the Disciples of the Cenacle at Velletri under Don Curzio who continue to receive vocations from SSPX families in spite of being under a Resistant priest.
If there is one thing certain about Catholic Tradition and the Second Vatican Council, it is that they are irreconcilable. It is tempting to think that they can be reconciled, because of course the letter of the 16 documents of the Council does include a number of Catholic truths. But the spirit of the Council is driving towards a new religion centred on man, and as the spirit inspired the letter of the documents, so even the Catholic truths which they include are harnessed to the Conciliar “renewal” and are made part of it. Indeed, Catholic Truths (and Hierarchy) have been used by the Modernists as carriers for their liberal poison, as a Trojan horse for their heresies. Therefore even Catholic truths are poisoned in the Conciliar documents. Thus in 1990 Archbishop Lefebvre saw and said that Vatican II is 100% infected by subjectivism, whereas in 2001 Bishop Fellay said that the documents of Vatican II are 95% acceptable.
It is indeed tempting to pretend that Catholic Tradition and Vatican II are reconcilable. In this way I need no longer be torn apart by trying to follow both Catholic Authority and Catholic Truth at the same time, because ever since that Council, as the Archbishop said, Catholics have been forced either to obey the Conciliar Popes and depart from Catholic Tradition, or to cleave to Tradition and “disobey” these Popes. Hence the temptation to pretend by one means or another that Tradition and the Council are reconcilable. But the fact that they are irreconcilable is the most important reality now governing the life of the Church, and so it will continue to be until Church Authority comes back to the Catholic Truth of all time.
The Pope is crucial because he is the rock on which the Church is built (Mt. XVI, 18), so that if he is fractured through wanting to follow the corrupt world instead of leading it out of its corruption, then as you say “things are fractured almost beyond belief – everywhere.” When Our Lord was struck in the Garden of Gethsemane all the Apostles were scattered (Zachary XIII, 7; Mt. XXVI, 31). Today Pope Francis is so deeply struck that authority throughout the Church is essentially dislocated.
The problem of Pope Francis goes back to the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), because that was when and where the Popes gave up resisting the decadent modern world and decided to follow it instead. Up till Pius XII included (1939–1958), the Popes had resisted that decadence, but it was so glamorous and overpowering that John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul II and Benedict XVI all allowed themselves to be deluded (not without their own fault). They created your (1), the Novus Ordo or Conciliar Church, named after the New Order of Mass which has turned masses of Catholics into virtual Protestants. Pope Francis not only shares these Popes’ errors from the accursed Council, but he also puts them most destructively into practice, causing more chaos in the Church than ever.
Yet soon after the Council, God had raised a Catholic Archbishop to found a Congregation to look after all souls that refused to abandon Catholic Tradition which was then being abandoned by the Popes and the mass of churchmen. That was your (2), the SSPX, or Society of St Pius X, which flourished until the Archbishop died in 1991. But before he died there began also your (3), the “sedevacantists” who are so scandalised by the Conciliar Popes that they refuse even to believe that they are true Popes. And after the Archbishop died, his younger successors at the head of his Society, suckled on the modern world, fell foul of the same errors as the Council, notably Bishop Fellay who may well be seeking a Cardinal’s hat as a reward for his corrupting the resistance of Tradition to the Newchurch. This betrayal of the Archbishop’s true resistance from inside the Society gave rise to your (4) the SSPX “Resistance,” in which scattered priests hang loosely together to keep the Catholic Faith being now corrupted inside both the Novus Ordo and the SSPX. Good Catholics hanker for less looseness, but by now half a century of Conciliar Popes had essentially broken Catholic structure. However, your (5) now arose, Fr. Pfeiffer’s group, to which the (4) “Resistance”did not seem to be resisting enough.
In brief, within all five groupings there are scattered Catholic sheep known to God, who have the faith and want and mean to be Catholics, but Conciliar Popes are incapable of pulling Catholics together in the true Faith. And since nobody less than a Pope in his right mind can fulfil that function, then “what cannot be cured must be endured,” until God intervenes. For God to intervene, let any Catholic – or non-Catholic! – pray 15 Mysteries of the Rosary every day for God’s Mother to intercede with her Son.
Likewise the Catholic Family News blog of November last year serves Menzingen. The blog is intelligent, speculating that Rome’s real bait-and-trap to catch the Society is not aimed at the Society’s wholesale surrender, but at its piecemeal division and disintegration (actually, Rome is achieving both). Thus Rome makes repeated enticing offers, each of which divides Society priests so that some break away, while Menzingen gets up its hopes, only to see them dashed by another impossible demand of Rome. And the game will go on until the Society is completely undone. Therefore, concludes CFN, the Society must remain united at all costs and no Society priest must defect.
But, dear CFN, how did the Archbishop build up the Society in the first place? Certainly he too suffered from divisions and defections under him. Did he nevertheless build by crying for unity, unity, unity? That was the great argument of Rome against the Archbishop! His own great argument was the Faith, the Truth, the Faith. To plead as you do for the Society’s unity behind pro-Rome Menzingen is to plead for the Society’s destruction! Unity is always specified by that around which one is to unite. Under the Archbishop it was around Catholic Truth, the whole strength of the Society. Since 2012 it is around Menzingen, presently the division and ruin of the Society.
Take heart, dear readers. “The truth is mighty and will prevail,” with or without the Society of St Pius X.
1 The Archbishop disobeyed Rome. That proves that he was proud.
2 Had he given up his Society and seminaries to obey Rome, he would have been heroic.
3 If he disobeyed Rome to save Tradition, he did evil in order to bring about good, which is wrong.
4 To obey a Pope as misguided as Pope Francis is, is a martyrdom by which one imitates Christ.
5 For Bishop Fellay to step into the jaws of the Roman lion is, in spiritual terms, heroic.