Sorrowful Heart of Mary Newsletter - January 2022

[Stone]

View as Webpage 

[slightly adapted]

✠

Christmas Season/Epiphany Season 2022

Merry Christmas and Blessed Epiphany to All!

We are now ten years since the revolution within the Society of St. Pius X took place in 2012 by a well-organized coup d’etat, however, not from the bottom, but from the top!

Remember the phrases?

• “The fact of going to Rome doesn’t mean that we agree with them. But it’s theChurch! And it’s the true Church!” (Bishop Fellay, Flavigny, 09/02/2012).
  

• “The Religious Liberty of the Council is limited, very limited.” (Bp. Fellay 5/11/12).
  

• “We are in the process of making the Council’s errors into super-heresies, as though it is becoming absolute evil, worse than anything,...this is serious, because such a caricature no longer corresponds to reality” (Bp. Fellay 10/07/12).
  

• “The Priestly Society of St. Pius X rejoices to see the Church regain her liturgical tradition...the Priestly Society of St. Pius X extends its deep gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this great spiritual benefit “ (Bp. Fellay 07/07/2007 On the occasion of “Summorum Pontificum”).
  

• “Anyway, the Pope said that it is only a problem of canonical discipline. An act of Rome will suffice to say it is finished and we will return to the Church. It will come. I am very optimistic!” (Bp. Fellay, Interview with Les Nouvelles Caledoniennes, 12/27/10).
  

• “Unfortunately, in the present situation of the Society (i.e. the Society members’ resistance to the steps of making an Agreement with Modernist Rome) the new Declaration will not be accepted...I committed myself, despite rather strong opposition within the ranks of the Society, and at the expense of significant troubles. And I intend to continue to make every effort to pursue this path in order to arrive at the necessary clarifications… May Your Holiness deign to believe my filial devotion and dearest desire to serve Holy Church.” (Bp. Fellay Letter to Pope Benedict XVI, 06/17/2012).
  

• “There was a questioning of authority [by priests in the Society loyal to Archbishop Lefebvre], a radical challenge, because it accused it of no longer leading the Society towards its end.” (Bp. Fellay, Cor Unum, November 2012).
  

• “The entire Tradition of the Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide for understanding the teachings of the Vatican Council II which Council in turn clarifies— i.e., deepens and make more explicit over time— certain aspects of the life of the Church that are implicitly present in them or not yet conceptually formulated” (Doctrinal Declaration April 15, 2012).
  

• “We declare that we acknowledge the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments when celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and of the Rituals of the Sacraments legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II” (Doctrinal Declaration 04/15/12).
  

These are just a few highlights proving the new direction of the “hermeneutics of continuity” regarding Vatican II and the “new attitude” that Bishop Fellay called for towards Modernist Rome. Did this new thinking just suddenly pop up out of nowhere in desperation for an Agreement? No. It was long prepared. Let us not forget GREC!


Reduction to Silence

G.R.E.C. is an acronym meaning in French: Groupe de Reflexion Entre Catholiques (A Group for Reflection Among Catholics), which was a monthly gathering of priests of the SSPX, of Ecclesia Dei and of the official hierarchy, and some laymen with the goal to soften the Catholic Resistance of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. One of its founders was Fr. Michel Lelong, who wrote a book titled: For The Necessary Reconciliation. It reveals the results of twelve years of discussions from 1998 to 2010. Fr. Lelong who was deeply attached to the Second Vatican Council and prompted the Society to request the lifting of the “excommunications” in order to facilitate a reconciliation with Modernist Rome, had these weasel words to say:

At that time, all too often aggressive and polemical points-of-view were being expressed both on the part of the Catholics attached to Tradition, as well as on that of those who claim to follow the spirit of the Council. These were not contributing to bring about the climate of peace and mutual confidence which is necessary in the search for a true reconciliation. The Society of St. Pius X must understand that, even if it has much to bring to the Church of Rome, it also has much to receive from it. Therefore it must stop rejecting Vatican II in its entirety. 

The leaders of GREC also called for a ceasefire:

We ask the leaders of the Society to cease declarations and polemical articles which criticize the Holy See.

Abp. Lefebvre warned his sons about this slippery trap!

When they say that they (i.e. those joining Conciliar Rome) have lost nothing, it is false. They have lost the possibility of refuting Rome. They can no longer say anything! Having been given the favors that have been accorded to them, they must keep quiet. It is now impossible for them to denounce the errors of the Conciliar Church (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter, no. 79, p. 3).

So, for those who try to say “nothing has changed in the SSPX since 2012” and insist "it's the exact same old SSPX,” are deluded! The shower of favors from Popes Benedict & Francis (i.e. “lifting” of the excommunications, Summorum Pontificum, jurisdiction for confessions, marriages and holy orders, etc.) explains the reason for the overly-subdued position of the Conciliar-SSPX against the scandals of Pope Francis honoring the pagan idol “Pachamama” in St. Peter’s Basilica, the scandalous neutrality of Fr. Pagliarani & leaders on the immoral vaccinations derived from hundreds of murdered babies, the toned down denouncement of Vatican II & the New Mass, the absence of any endorsement of the clear statements of Abp. Vigano, etc., etc. Again, as Abp. Lefebvre forewarned: 

Having been given the favors that have been accorded to them, they must keep quiet! (ibid.)

Lay Down the Weapons

Does anyone remember the Angelus editorial letter of Fr. Wenger in 2012? It called for a less militant spirit and the new, branded version of the Angelus would, from then on, focus
on Gregorian Chant, architecture and non-abrasive subjects. In other words, off with the boxing gloves! On with the ballerina slippers!

Let us refresh our minds with some more of the great counter-Revolutionary statements of Archbishop Lefebvre, who died with his boxing gloves on!

First, he highly praised the Si Si No No articles that warred courageously against the scandals of Modernist Rome and constantly exposed the Liberalism of the periti at the Council. The Angelus stopped publishing these great works in 2012. No more to be found!


Drop Distinction of Two Churches

Bishop Fellay proceeded to blur the distinction of the “Conciliar Church” from the Catholic Church which Abp. Lefebvre constantly maintained, for truth and clarity. This distinction of “Neo-Modernist Rome” and “Catholic/Eternal Rome” is the first sentence in his 1974 Declaration! If this distinction does not exist then of course, the Society must seek recognition and get approval from Rome as did the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, etc.


Religious Liberty Limited?
As for the Error of Religious Liberty of Vatican II (Dignitatis Humanae) being “very limited”, this is one point Abp. Lefebvre fought, vehemently! Do these words of his give any impression of mitigating this monstrous error?

Neither God nor truth changes. What the Church has defined or solemnly condemned for centuries cannot change. That is why we absolutely reject this new doctrine which demands an agnostic civil society as if it were a liberty of man in religious matters when, at the most, it should be a tolerance on the part of civil authorities and can never be a natural right. (Abp. Lefebvre, Econe, May 22, 1987).

Do the following adjectives that the good Popes repeatedly used to denounce Religious Liberty as taught by Vatican II sound “limiting?”

“Most pernicious,” 
“absurd,”
“erroneous,”
“insanity,” 
“contrary to the doctrines of the Church, Scriptures, & the Fathers, ”
“reproved,”
“proscribed,” 
and “condemned.” (cf. Quanta Cura of Pius IX). 

Do they sound like they are downplaying or limiting this Error?


The Kingship of Christ

For the leadership of the SSPX (i.e. Fr. Pagliarani and Bp. Fellay), the Mass is now the exclusive focus of the Battle. But Abp. Lefebvre never lost sight of the proper order of things:

...That’s what makes our opposition [ to current Rome ], and that’s why we cannot get along. This is not primarily the issue of the Mass , because the Mass is just one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism and thus transform worship, sacraments, catechism, etc. The real fundamental opposition is the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ! “Oportet Illum regnare,” St. Paul tells us, “He must Reign!” They say: “No!” We say: “Yes!” with all the Popes! ( Abp. Lefebvre, “Fideliter” p. 70, 1993).

Bp. Fellay signed the Doctrinal Declaration in 2012 (never yet retracted) in order to solve the canonical problem and gain “unilateral recognition,” attaching to it the infamous “Six Conditions For An Agreement With Rome” regardless of Modernist Rome’s refusal to convert to Tradition. This was never the case with our Founder:

It is not surprising that we have not come to an understanding with Rome. That will not be possible as long as Rome does not return to the Faith in the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ! [...] We are in opposition on a point of the Catholic Faith! (Abp. Lefebvre, Conference at Sierre, Nov., 27, 1988, Fideliter, no. 68, p. 12).

New Mass Legitimately Promulgated?

Regarding the word “legitimate” when applied to the New Mass and New Sacraments, the Conciliar-SSPX accepts that they are “legitimately promulgated.” Abp. Lefebvre thought otherwise:

We are not saying that the New Mass is heretical, nor that it is invalid, but we refuse to say that it is legitimate, that it is perfectly orthodox (Communicantes, August, 1985).

Now, “legitimate” means conformity to rule or principle; lawfulness. If then “legitimacy” is the quality of what is in conformity with the law, a thing is also “lawful” when it is in conformity with the law. In other words, the expressions “legitimate,” “lawful,” and “licit” are synonymous. A Resistance priest of the Society concluded the following in his study on the Doctrinal Declaration, called Proof of Treason:

If we move into canonical language, as is the case here, we see that there is no difference in the meanings of “legitimate” and “licit” because the liceity of a sacramental act is based on the “legitimacy” of the liturgical law which promulgates it. Thus, one time admitting, as Bishop Fellay has done, that the New Rites have been “legitimately promulgated,” thereby implies that the laws which have “promulgated” them are good, because in Canon Law, for a law to be legitimate, it must be good! And if their promulgation is “legitimate,” nothing prevents their celebration from being licit and good as well [...] All the traditional communities who have rejoined Modernist Rome have passed that way...They began by recognizing the “legitimacy” of the promulgation of the New Rites, then their superiors did not hesitate to concelebrate the New Mass with the Pope, as Dom Gerard, Bishop Rifan, Fr. Wach (Institute of Christ the King), and other have done publicly!.... So, when will Bp. Fellay concelebrate the New Rite with the Pope, if he asks him to do so? (p. 57, no. 7).

Let the truth be told; to call the New Mass “legitimately promulgated” is only a few steps from saying it! It was Abp. Lefebvre, who predicted that the Monastery of La Barroux in France, would celebrate the New Mass in five years after their “Agreement” in 1988. He was proven right! Even worse than that, they took up the defense of the Error of Religious Liberty of Vatican II, writing a thick book in its favor!! They too obviously agreed that Religious Liberty was indeed "limited."


Summorum Pontificum

Bp. Fellay celebrated this “Motu Proprio” in 2007 which blasphemously placed the Catholic Tridentine Mass of two thousand years on an equal level with the New Mass of Abp. Bugnini and stated that the two Rites were “mutually enriching!!” What have been the effects of the New Mass? Thirty-eight years (now in 2022 - fifty-three years) of watering down the Faith - utter catastrophe and apostasy! (cf. See “The Recusant” Issue 56, Autumn 2021, Commentary on “Summorum Pontificum”, p. 31). 

Ten years ago, Vatican II, Part 2 became visible in the ranks of the SSPX. This was a lamentable tragedy! With the help of Our Lady of the Rosary, recovery is possible if the Society leaders:

• Abolish the ambiguities.
  

• Condemn the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 and the “Six Conditions” & return to the principle of the General Chapter Decision of 2006 ( No practical/canonical agreement without first the Doctrinal agreement!).
  

• Hold the position of Abp. Lefebvre, our Founder: No discussions with Rome until Rome returns to Tradition (in accord with the Papal condemnations of Modernism & Liberalism) and proclaims the Kingship of Christ.
  

• No deals with Rome “until we have a perfectly Catholic Pope.”
  

The Archbishop gave all the necessary guidelines for his Society, if only we had abided by them!

Archbishop Lefebvre transmitted all that he had received; all the heritage of Fr. LeFloch, from the French Seminary in Rome, all his experience - he left all that to the Society, and it still works, but on condition that we continue the same spirit of combat! It is out of the question of laying down our arms in the middle of the battle. We are not going to look for a treaty while the war is raging, with Assisi III or IV, with the beatification of a false “Blessed” Pope John Paul II; and with Benedict XVI’s continuous demand to accept the Council and the Reforms and the Magisterium after the Council ( Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, Conference at the Gastines Priory in France, September 16, 2012).

If only Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and the Society lived up to these words! Its far worse now. Compromise on doctrine leads to compromise on morals, which explains the Society's failure to condemn the link between abortion and the vaccines. They have indeed laid down their arms. Continue the Catholic Resistance! "Viva Cristo Rey!"

Fight on, little flock!

In Christ the King,
Fr. David Hewko