What are we to think of the Fraternity of St. Peter?

[Stone]

From the SSPX Archives:

Question 13

What are we to think of the Fraternity of St. Peter?

Since the introduction of the new sacramental rites, Rome had allowed no religious society or congregation exclusive use of the older rites. Then on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to ensure the survival of the traditional priesthood and sacraments, and especially of the traditional Latin Mass.

Suddenly, within two days, Pope John Paul II recognized (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988) the “rightful aspirations” (for these things) of those who wouldn’t support Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance, and offered to give to them what he had always refused the Archbishop. A dozen or so priests of the SSPX accepted this “good will” and broke away to found the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP).

The Fraternity of St. Peter is founded upon more than questionable principles, for the following reasons:

1. It accepts that the Conciliar Church has the power:

• to take away the Mass of all time (for the Novus Ordo Missae is not another form of this, question 5),
  

• to grant it to those only who accept the same Conciliar Church’s novel orientations (in life, belief, structures),
  

• to declare non-Catholic those who deny this by word or deed (An interpretation of "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism [of Archbishop Lefebvre] is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication." Ecclesia Dei Afflicata), and,
  

• to professes itself in a certain way in communion with anyone calling himself “Christian,” and yet to declare itself out of communion with Catholics whose sole crime is wanting to remain Catholic (Vatican II, e.g., Lumen Gentium, §15; Unitatis Redintegratio §3).
  

2. In practice, the priests of the Fraternity, having recourse to a Novus Ordo bishop willing to permit the traditional rites and willing to ordain their candidates, they are forced to abandon the fight against the new religion which is being installed:

• they reject the Novus Ordo Missae only because it is not their “spirituality” and claim the traditional Latin Mass only in virtue of their “charism” acknowledged them by the pope,
  

• they seek to ingratiate themselves with the local bishops, praising them for the least sign of Catholic spirit and keeping quiet on their modernist deviations (unless perhaps it is a question of a diocese where they have no hopes of starting up), even though by doing so they end up encouraging them along their wrong path, and
  

• note, for example, the Fraternity’s whole-hearted acceptance of the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church (question 14), acceptance of Novus Ordo professors in their seminaries, and blanket acceptance of Vatican II’s orthodoxy (question 6).
  

They are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics.

This being so, attending their Mass is:

• accepting the compromise on which they are based,
  

• accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and
  

• accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.
  

That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses.

[Emphasis in the original]

[Stone]

See also Fr. Peter Scott's 1995 Angelus article: Is Saint Peter’s the Line of Archbishop Lefebvre?

[Stone]

Adapted from the SSPX archives

Fiasco of Fraternity of St. Peter

[For ease of reading each section will begin with the words of a priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), Fr. Rene de Reboul,
followed by 'counter-commentary' by the SSPX's Fr. Francois Pivert]

FSSP's Superior General Fr. Bisig Press Release with regards to the Novus Ordo Missae: The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter held a general assembly at Rome from February 8-11, 2000.  It was convoked by the Holy See, on account of certain internal difficulties.  At the end of four days of discussion and reflection an agreement was made as a basis for a reconciliation that would enable a greater unity to be found. 

Commentaries

FSSP: The terms (of the agreement) can be summarized in this way:  The Fraternity of St. Peter recognizes fully that its priests have the faculty to use the Novus Ordo Missae, according to the conditions given last Fall by Cardinal Medina.  Pergratum nobis est! The exercise of this "special right of every priest of the Roman rite" cannot harm the unity of our institute. 

SSPX: This is the most important part. What follows is an unofficial commentary, although it has not been disavowed. But the content of the agreement is in itself scandalous enough: not only is the New Mass recognized as legitimate, but it is, for the Fraternity of St. Peter, the official rite of the Church.


FSSP: Nevertheless, with the exception of the Chrismal Mass of Holy Thursday, on account of its special character, signifying the unity of the Church, the Fraternity’s priests have been asked to voluntarily renounce the right of celebrating or of concelebrating in the new rite, even on occasion. This is an agreement that ought not to be difficult for anyone, as soon as it is understood that it is the Fraternity of St. Peter’s agreement. We maintain our very real attachment to the old tradition, as well as our will to make it known and appreciated by a greater number of faithful Catholics.

SSPX: On what do they base their attachment to the traditional Mass, if there may be exceptions?


FSSP: The legitimacy of such an agreement requires, of course, that it be recognized by the Roman authorities. We submit ourselves, as in the past, to their judgment. This is, in our opinion, the condition for true respect for the spirit of the founders of our Fraternity, for which, without any doubt, attachment to Rome was more important than the preservation of a liturgy, as incomparable as it might be. This conviction brought them to the choice of 1988. 

SSPX: For us (the SSPX), our attachment to the Mass is an attachment to the Church, to its tradition, which is to say, to the teachings of Jesus Christ. For them, it is a question of the spirit of the founders of their Fraternity.  The attachment of the Fraternity of St. Peter to Rome is purely material and they refuse to see that Rome is being controlled by enemies, and that in being submitted to them, they are opposing the true Rome, the eternal Rome, the guardian of the truth.


FSSP: We need to understand clearly what is at stake in the concelebration on Holy Thursday. We have been very critical of the modern liturgy, with all its disastrous consequences for the transmission of the Faith. But we easily forget abuses of another kind, for which the old liturgy was the pretext. They often led us to distance ourselves from ecclesiastical authority, and even to most preoccupying situations. Let each of us make reparation where he has sinned. It is for this reason that we expect concelebration more than anyone.  From our perspective, we greatly desire moderation in the new liturgy (for it is clear that we will not participate in any kind of ceremony at all), that it might again become apt to truly transmit the Faith.

SSPX: They recognize that the faith is at stake, but this recognition has absolutely no influence on their attitude. On the contrary:  for them obedience is of greater importance than the faith. The traditional Mass is a pretext for abuses, and leads to our distancing ourselves from authority, from the Church! Now, it is exactly the contrary: it is the modernist authorities that are distancing themselves from Tradition and thus from traditionalists, and it is our faithfulness to the traditional Mass, which has nourished our fidelity and nothing else.


FSSP: Finally, there will remain cases of real necessity. These are things that happen:

A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, who also stripped him, and having wounded him went away, leaving him half dead. And it chanced that a certain priest went down the same way: and seeing him, passed by. In like manner also a Levite, when he was near the place and saw him; passed by. But a certain Samaritan being on his journey, came near him; and seeing him was moved with compassion… (Lk 10:30-33).

SSPX: This is the parable of the Good Samaritan.


FSSP: We know the good reasons that influenced the men from the temple to turn away from this poor man; their rite, indeed a very old and venerable rite, forbade them to touch a cadaver under pain of impurity and of inability to offer the sacrifice that day (Lev. 22:4). They are not willing to take such a "risk", preferring to leave a man to die. As for our Samaritan, who failed to observe this kind of prescription through an inherited fault, he finds access to a truly new rite, that of charity. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. We are "bound" to the Tridentine liturgy, but there are special cases…! 

SSPX: But it is not a question of a cadaver, it is a question of someone wounded! This is absolutely not the interpretation given by the Church. The Fathers of the Church explain, on the contrary, that the priests of the Old Law were not capable of healing the wounds, which the bandits - the devils - had inflicted on humanity, because they foretold our Lord Jesus Christ but did not possess Him. When Jesus Christ came, He healed the wounds of humanity because He is the source of life, the Redeemer, the Savior. Now, precisely, it is the traditional Mass that gives us Jesus Christ, while the New Mass separates us from Him. If there is a comparison to make, it would be rather of the Samaritan and the traditional Mass on one side, and the priests of the Jewish law and the New Mass on the other. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

[Stone]

Adapted from here.

Letter of Bp. Williamson re Fraternity of St. Peter, December 1999

Fraternity of St. Peter
ROME IS NOW MAKING IT CLEAR –
THE ARCHBISHOP WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!

December 1, 1999

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

A flurry of recent events in Rome involving the Fraternity of St. Peter suggests that the masters of Rome may be wishing to have done with the officially approved Tridentine Mass, perhaps in time for the Conciliar Church's millennial New Advent, so long spoken of by Pope John Paul II. The Fraternity is resisting as best it can, but Rome seems to be becoming impatient.

Some but not all of these events have been evoked in previous Seminary letters. Let us give here as many of them as we can in chronological order, to bring out the pattern underlying the events: there is no reconciliation possible between the Catholic Faith and the leaders of the Conciliar Church now occupying Rome. These Romans have lost the Faith and are doing their best to stamp it out wherever they can still find it.

By way of background we must go back to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), where, under the decisive influence of the two liberal Popes, John XXIII and Paul VI, the mass of the Church's then 2,000 bishops fell prey to the glamorous modern error of liberalism: just let man be free, and everything will be well.

In 1969 Pope Paul VI laid hands on the Mass, and "freed" it from its ancient rite, named Tridentine from the Council of Trent when Pope Pius V codified it, but actually going much further back in time, parts even to the very beginning of the Church. Paul VI was "up-dating" the rite of the Mass, to make it also more acceptable to non-Catholics, in particular to Protestants. And since many Catholics live their religion principally through attendance at Mass, then it was Paul VI's New Order of Mass, or "Novus Ordo", which dramatically advanced the Vatican II process of transformation of millions and millions of Roman Catholics into Roman Protestants.

Now in the same 1969, Archbishop Lefebvre, a retired missionary bishop, fully realizing the danger of the Conciliar Reform to the Catholic Faith as a whole, began his Priestly Society of St. Pius X to defend the Faith by forming true priests who would as a result celebrate only the old rite of Mass. Miraculously, as he considered, he obtained in 1970 official Church approval for his little Society. So a number of the young men drawn to his Society did not follow the Archbishop for his in-depth defense of the Faith, but only for the combination he offered them, unavailable anywhere else, of priestly formation with both the Catholic Mass and Conciliar approval.

This meant through the early 1970's that as the Conciliar authorities realized what the Archbishop was up to and therefore (invalidly) dissolved his Society in 1975 and (invalidly) suspended him in 1976, so the apparent loss of official approval made many of his seminarians leave him, even if he did maintain the Tridentine Mass. However, the famous Mass at Lille in August of 1976 demonstrated that by now the Archbishop had a large popular following. The "Traditional" movement was born, and Conciliar Rome prudently backed away from any further open persecution of the Archbishop or his Society, as such persecution risked being counter-productive.

Rome keeping relatively quiet, again a number of the Archbishop's seminarians and by now priests continued to follow him because of his unique combination of the Tridentine Mass with, sort of, Conciliar approval. Despite the Archbishop's repeated condemnations of Vatican II, they still did not understand, or want to understand, the depth of his disagreement with neo-modernist Rome. That is why, when advancing old age drove the Archbishop in 1988 to consecrate without Rome's approval four of his priests as bishops to guarantee the Society's survival, otherwise in peril, these "Tridentinists", as we shall call them, appealed to Rome to provide them with the combination of Roman approval and Tridentine liturgy which the "excommunicated" Archbishop could no longer give them.

Conciliar Rome welcomed them with open arms. Because it had converted to Tridentinism? Of course not. Rather, it saw in these refugees from the Society of St. Plus X an opportunity to set up under Rome's control an alternative "Traditional" movement to keep souls away from the real Traditional movement henceforth "excommunicated" and so out of Rome's control, except by the silence and marginalisation, or calumny and scorn, which have constituted Rome's treatment of the Society ever since. However, while allowing these Tridentinists to say only the old Mass, Rome required as a condition for its acceptance of them that they recognize the "orthodoxy and validity" of Pope Paul's New Mass. Which these Tridentinists did. So Rome now had a docile decoy to pull priests and people, as it hoped, away from the uncompromising Society of St. Plus X.

Apparently the decoy worked well enough for Rome to give it 10 years of life, so that in October of 1998 St. Peter's Fraternity celebrated in Rome, with kindred organizations, its 10th anniversary. However, the popular success of this meeting of some 2,500 Tridentinists from all over the world, all putting Rome under Tridentinist pressure, seems to have aggravated the Conciliar churchmen. They had only approved Tridentinism as a step down from Catholicism to Conciliarism. Now it seemed to be serving as a step back up from Conciliarism to Catholicism. This would not do.

We come at last to the recent events. We will narrate them as briefly as possible, with brief comments.

Spring or early summer, 1999: Grave accusations against a kindred organization of St. Peter's, the Institute of Christ the King in Gricigliano, Italy, enable Rome to threaten it with an Apostolic Visit. The Institute was founded soon after St. Peter's by a Monsignor Wach, essentially on the same basis as St. Peter's, i.e. to practice Tridentinism under Rome's control and without attacking Rome's Conciliarism.


June 11, 1999: Cardinal Medina, head of the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship, to questions of the Archbishop of Sienna, replies officially that by Church law Latin Rite priests can say only the New Mass, that the Tridentine Mass can only be said by Rome's exceptional permission, or Indult (both statements are false). Nor, the Cardinal went on, can priests say the Tridentine Mass by force of Pius V's "perpetual" permission in "Quo Primum", because what one Pope (Pies V) did, another Pope (Paul VI) can undo (true, but no Pope can undo Catholic Tradition, as Paul VI tried to do with his new-fangled Mass). The Cardinal is clearly trying to put the brakes on Tridentinism.


July 3, 1999: The same Cardinal drops a bomb on St. Peter's Fraternity! Allegedly in reply to questions put to his Congregation, he replies in the now notorious Protocol 1411 that, firstly, any Tridentinist priest may always say the New Mass; secondly, no Tridentinist Superior can stop him from doing so; and thirdly, any Tridentinist priest may concelebrate the New Mass.

To the credit of the St. Peter's Superior General, Fr. Bisig, he had been trying to stop St. Peter's priests from sliding towards the New Mass. Here is Rome paralyzing his efforts, for Rome never intended St. Peter's to block the New Mass, quite the contrary.


July 18, 1999: A second bomb is dropped on St. Peter's, this time by Cardinal Felici of the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, set up by Rome in 1988 to promote Rome-controlled Tridentinism. In a remarkably swift reply to complaint written only two weeks before by 16 dissident St. Peter's priests against the "Lefebvrist" direction being imposed upon St. Peter's by Fr. Bisig, the Commission writes to him that the permission previously granted for him to hold a special General Chapter in August (to stop St. Peter's from sliding) is revoked; that instead Rome will preside over a general meeting of St. Peter's in Rome in November; and that until then he can take only minor decisions for the Fraternity.

Now Fr. Bisig may accuse these 16 priests of having gone behind his back to Cardinal Felici - yet did not he himself go behind Archbishop Lefebvre's back to Cardinal Ratzinger in the mid-1980's? And he may accuse the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission of crippling his power to govern his Fraternity - yet who but he, to distance himself from the "disobedient" Archbishop, wrote "obedience to Rome" into the founding charter of St. Peter's back in 1988? In the old expression, Fr. Bisig is "hoist with his own petard" (blown up with his own bomb).


July 20 (?), 1999: Fr. Bisig writes to re-assure members and friends of St. Peter's that beneath this double blow from Rome he is doing all he can to defend their Fraternity's Tridentinism within the official Church, for the good of that Church.

But what if that Church itself determines that its good consists in ending all Tridentinism? What then can Fr. Bisig do? He himself designed St. Peter's to "obey" Rome. Truth to tell, like all Tridentinists to the left of the Society of St. Pius X and sedevacantists to its right, Fr. Bisig is basically a Fiftiesist who wants to rebuild the Church of the 1950's. But that surface Catholicism is no match for the neo-modernists in Rome. They blew it out of the water at Vatican II. The 1950's are gone for ever. Clearly, when Fr. Bisig followed the Archbishop, he never understood the depth of the Archbishop's doctrinal combat. What Tridentinists fail to grasp is that the false Mass is merely the spin-off from a much deeper and more important problem, which is doctrinal.


End July, 1999: Fr. Bisig and a companion Tridentinist leader are told in a meeting in Rome with the same high Cardinals that their Tridentinist societies rest not upon Church law but only upon Rome's gracious permission, or Indult. And they are asked how they can, if they admit that the New Mass is "orthodox and valid", so obstinately go on refusing to say it.

Indeed from when Fr. Bisig made that admission in 1988 to gain Rome's approval, what did his Tridentinism rest on? On a sentimental preference for the old liturgy? He then put the noose around his own neck. Now Rome is pulling it tight.


September 8, 1999: A large number of St. Peter's priests write a letter of support for Fr. Bisig to the same Cardinals.

But who are they taking these Cardinals for? Defenders of the Faith?? It is a lack of Faith that fails to discern in these Cardinals wolves in sheeps' clothing. Archbishop Lefebvre, by his Faith, saw from the beginning who they were, but pastorally did all he could to make them return to behaving like shepherds, until 1988, when they gave the final proof that they had no care for the sheep of Our Lord. Then he took the drastic action of the episcopal consecrations to guarantee his Society's survival, and left the rest in God's hands, which is what the Society is continuing to do.


September 26, 1999: Monsignor Wach, referred to above, sees the writing on the wall and concelebrates the New Mass with Cardinal Ratzinger in a nearby Benedictine convent.

The same Cardinal Ratzinger had written a few years previously a handsome Tridentinist preface to a re-edition of the Tridentine Missal. Now he brings Tridentinists to heel. Is there a contradiction? No. For him, explicitly, as for the Tridentinists implicitly, Tridentinism is merely a matter of sentiment. New Mass or Old Mass, depending on how you feel that day!


Early October, 1999: Fr. Bisig speaking at a Synod of Bishops in Rome on the one hand tells them his Fraternity is doing all it can do to draw souls from the Society of St. Plus X "back into the Church", but on the other hand he tells them how Tridentinism is prospering. Did he think they wanted to hear that Tridentinism is prospering?


October 11, 12, 1999: Rome arranges a meeting between Fr. Bisig together with Fraternity leaders loyal to him, and leaders of the 16 dissident priests who appealed to Rome against his "Lefebvrism" at the end of June. For the first day the dissidents are accompanied (and supported) by Cardinal Mayer, for the second, morning by Cardinal Felici! Only on the second afternoon are the priests left alone, whereupon the meeting turns into something of a head-on clash. All that Fr. Bisig obtains is the postponement until the New Year of Rome's take-over of the General Meeting of St. Peter's previously scheduled for November.

The head-on clash was of course between the contradictory elements enshrined in St. Peter's foundation: "obedience" to neo-modernist Rome against faithfulness to the Catholic rite of Mass. How will the clash be resolved? Either Fr. Bisig comes to heel, or he will be crushed by Rome, and the same is true for St. Peter's as a whole. Rome holds all the aces, by Fr. Bisig's doing.


October 18, 1999: Cardinal Medina, for his Congregation for Divine Worship, issues a ten-point letter in reply to the multiple questions (or complaints) raised by his bomb-shell Protocol 1411 of early July. He repeats that the New Mass is the only lawful Mass for the Latin Rite, that the Tridentine Mass continues only by Indult, that diocesan bishops should be considerate of Tridentinists, but Tridentinists in return must recognize Vatican II and all its pomps and all its works. And Tridentinist priests must celebrate the New Mass for diocesan congregations where it is usual. Thus Rome means to crush protest.


November 17, 1999: Una Voce International, a world-wide organization of lay Tridentinists, holds a meeting in Rome, no doubt mainly to protest against this crushing of Tridentinism by Rome. At this meeting Monsignor Perl, number two (?) official of the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, reads a "Clarification" to the assembled Una Voce delegates.

The "Clarification" begins by attributing recent attacks on the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission to "ignorance of facts" and "questionable information" on the Internet. How can the Commission be blamed for working with the diocesan bishops when that is what was meant to do from the beginning? By what right are lay associations lobbying in this religious matter? The Commission has from the Pope full authority over St. Peter's Fraternity. For any Latin Rite priest there can be no such thing as a right to celebrate the Old Mass exclusively. If St. Peter's priests refuse to concelebrate the New Mass, are they not refusing communion with the mainstream Church?

Having read this "Clarification", Msgr. Perl immediately stepped down, giving the Una Voce delegates no opportunity for questions or comment. Apparently, this left them all more or less discontented.

Dear delegates of Una Voce, let us for charity, or for the sake of argument, assume there is no malice on the part of Msgr. Perl or his fellow Romans. Still, they are all in the grip of such a different understanding of the Catholic Faith from yourselves that it would be foolish for you to expect them ever to accommodate you. Far more is at stake than just Liturgy.

Then remember how, ever since Vatican II, lay protest in defense of the Faith has never availed against the juggernaut of neo-modernism operated by the Vatican II clergy. In real terms you have as laymen only one threat that can make these Roman prelates hesitate - the threat to go over, lock stock and barrel, to the Society of St. Pius X!

The direction being taken by Rome is clear as clear can be. Can anyone still not see it? If one wishes to organize the defense of the Catholic faith, there is, alas, only the Archbishop's way. One cannot put oneself under these neo-modernist Romans. How clear-sighted the Archbishop was! What faith he had! What a gift from God he was! 

Rome may crush Fr. Bisig, but it could not crush the Archbishop, nor can it crush any Catholics who like him make no compromises on Truth. The Truth is master of Rome, and not Rome master of the Truth, ultimately. The Archbishop loved Rome, in the depths of his being, but still Our Lord's Truth came first. "The Truth is mighty and will prevail", and that Truth is the strength and cohesion of the Society of St. Pius X. All who seek the Truth find themselves today substantially united in holding, broadly, the Society's positions, but that is not because they are the Society's positions, it is because they happen to be the Truth.

Once again, great Archbishop, thank you, and please pray for us. [...]

Sincerely yours in Our Divine Lord, still King of Kings and Master of the Universe,

Source

[Stone]

Fr. Peter Scott's 

District Superior's Letter to Friends & Benefactors

August 2000

I would like to take the opportunity of keeping you up to date with the outcome of last month’s General Chapter of the Fraternity of St. Peter. If I do this, it is not to exult in their tragedy, which is certainly a tragedy for the Church, nor to say "I told you so", but simply to learn the lesson that their sad experience has to teach all Catholics.

Back in April an energetic and relatively young Cardinal was appointed to head up the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Cardinal Dario Castillion Hoyos, from Columbia. The reason for his appointment is clear from the decisive action that he took concerning the government of the Fraternity of St. Peter, action that makes it perfectly clear what attitude modernist Rome is going to have towards any community that aspires to anything like traditional life and liturgy.

In a letter addressed to the General Chapter he decided to follow the ancient principle of "divide and conquer." He did not fail to take advantage of the disagreement in principle within their organization with respect to the compromise worked out by the members last February, namely that they would concelebrate the New Mass, as Rome requested, but only once a year, on Holy Thursday. Reminding them that if they are to be logical with themselves and accept the legitimacy of the New Mass, then no superior can forbid a priest from celebrating this Mass "which is officially in vigor in the Latin Church". "A limitation of the exercise of this right" to the New Mass "cannot be inflicted on seminarians or be a reason for refusing them ordination". Of course, he is entirely wrong because his principle is wrong. The New Mass is NOT legitimate because it undermines and destroys the Faith, and does not adequately express the dogmas of the Church concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Consequently, it cannot possibly be the official rite in vigor in the Latin Church, but is a compromise with Protestantism and Modernism that has no rights at all. There is nothing legal about a rite of Mass which does nothing to bring about the end of the Church’s law, the salvation of souls.

The Cardinal President of the Commission then went on to explain to the Fraternity’s members why he was obliging the appointment of a new Superior General, and new Seminary Rectors and faculty, all of a liberal tendency, of a mind to accept and promote the New Mass and to be integrated into the post-Conciliar church. Clearly concerning by the traditionalist tendencies of the younger of the Fraternity’s members, he had this to say:

"In particular, you must avoid and combat a certain spirit of rebellion against today’s Church [the Conciliar Church], a spirit which easily finds supporters amongst young students, who like all young people, are drawn to extreme and rigorous positions…You cannot live in the Church and at the same time distance yourselves from it."

He then promises to watch more closely than in the past over the members of the Fraternity, that no groups be formed or opinions be expressed which are different from those imposed by Rome, via the puppet Superior General, Father Arnaud Devillers.

Back in 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre had clearly seen the thinly disguised politics of the neo-modernist Roman authorities. In his letter of May 24 to Cardinal Ratzinger he had stated the following:

"Upon reflection, it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion during these meetings. We hoped that you would give us the means to continue and develop the works of Tradition, especially by giving us some coadjutors, at least three, and by giving a majority to Tradition in the Roman Commission. Now on these two points, which we deem necessary to maintain our works outside of all progressivist and conciliar influence, we are not satisfied…1"

It is the least that he could have said. The Fraternity has proven that Rome had no intention of granting truly traditional bishops, free from the modernist hierarchy. Through the Ecclesia Dei Commission it has proven that there would not only not be a majority, but in fact not even one traditional Catholic working for that commission. Finally, Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos has made it perfectly clear that his mission is that of reabsorbing those who love the traditional Mass back into the post-Conciliar Church.

He is quite explicit about this in his discourse, which finishes with a "personal reflection". He explained that the question of rite is only secondary, and not central to the Church or to the unity of Faith. We know that this is entire nonsense, for "lex orandi, lex credendi", namely that we pray as we believe and believe as we pray, and that by deforming the way in which Catholics pray, the modernists will end up by destroying the Faith. The Cardinal explains:

"The rite is not the celebration itself. It is only one of its possible forms…Your role is not to modify the state of fact (that the New Mass is the common rite) or to speak of this rite (the New Mass) as if it were of less value, but to help those faithful who are attached to the old rite to feel more comfortable in the [Conciliar] Church."

If this is not an avowal of the policy of reabsorption, then what would be? He continues:

"You must not give priority to the form of the liturgy in which you have the privilege of celebrating. It is much more appropriate to see in it the particular contribution of your institute to the common work of the Church."

So they must accept that the traditional Mass is no better than the new Mass! The Cardinal finishes with an interesting admission. There is no place in the Church, he explains, for contradiction, leaving it to be understood that those who refuse the New Mass are in contradiction with the modern Church. Here he is entirely right. How often we have said the same thing! However, modernist that he is, he requires that the Fraternity’s contribution not contradict the New Mass and the new spirit, but that it complete it, and he continues, "by doing this you will contribute at the same time to the New Evangelization…"! Clearly, then, those who stay in the Fraternity will contribute to the post-Conciliar revolution. Did it not ever occur to them that the contradictions do not come from the traditional Mass, nor from the dogmas that Catholics have always believed, but from the infiltration into the modern Church of secular, liberal, humanist ideals based upon the rights of man, in contradiction with the rights of God.

Here again, I cannot help but be reminded of the wonderfully clear-sighted statement of our founder to Pope John Paul II on June 2, 1988:

"It is to keep the Faith of our Baptism intact that we have had to resist the spirit of Vatican II and the reforms inspired by it. The false Ecumenism, which is at the origin of all the Council’s innovations in the liturgy, in the new relationship between the Church and the world, in the conception of the Church itself, is leading the Church to its ruin, and Catholics to apostasy.

Being radically opposed to this destruction of our Faith and determined to remain with the traditional doctrine and discipline of the Church, especially as far as the formation of priests and the religious life is concerned, we find ourselves in the absolute necessity of having ecclesiastical authorities who embrace our concerns and will help us to protect ourselves against the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi.

That is why we are asking for several bishops chosen from within Catholic Tradition, and for a majority of the members of the projected Roman Commission for Tradition, in order to protect ourselves against all compromise. Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition…2"

How right the Archbishop was, and how sad it is to see that the situation in Rome has not improved over the past 12 years. It has considerably worsened. Along with the Jubilee’s diabolical exacerbation of Ecumenism, from the Lutheran Accord, to the public apologies for the Church! to the promotion of non-Catholic "witnesses of the faith", goes the determination to crush, by the abuse of authority, all traditional opposition. Our confidence lies only and entirely in Our Lord’s words that He will remain with His Church all days, even to the end of the world, and that in the end, Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph.

Let the principles of our daily combat for the Faith, for the Mass of all time, for a Catholic life of prayer, penance and submission to the Church’s Magisterium be always before our eyes. This is the only assurance of our unity, and of harmony, as also of our sanctity. May God then grant that our perseverance flow forth from the clear-sightedness that is given by the gift of Counsel, which warns of the deceits of the devil.

Yours faithfully in the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts,

Fr. Peter R. Scott



FOOTNOTES
1. Laisney, Fr. François; Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 99.
2. Ibid. p. 108.

[Emphasis mine.]