Society of St. Pius X

Two Bishops

Two Bishops on December 21, 2019

Ever since the summer and autumn of 2012 when it became clear that two of the three bishops of the Society of St Pius X were no longer taking the position towards relations of the Society with Rome which they had taken in their April 7 letter to Society Headquarters, followers of the Society, priests and laity, have wondered why. Few people, then or since, will have taken the bishops’ change of position to have been a question of persons or personalities. Since the letter warned severely against abandoning Archbishop Lefebvre’s clear refusal of contacts with unconverted Rome, most people took the two bishops’ change for what it was, namely a rallying to the Superior General’s new principle of contact before conversion. Yet since Conciliar Rome had hardly changed except for the worse between 1988 and 2012, why had the two bishops changed?

The question retains all of its importance for today. What is to be gained by the Society for the Faith – not by the Faith for the Society! – through friendly contacts of the Society with the Conciliar Romans still hell-bent on their Vatican II ecumenism, down to and including the Pope’s veneration of the Pachamama idol in the very gardens of the Vatican? One thing seems certain: for the last 20 years the Society has staked everything for its future on that friendship, and to give it up now would mean admitting that these 20 years had all been a big mistake. Therefore the Society, in grave need of new bishops for its worldwide Traditional apostolate, cannot choose and consecrate its own choice of Traditional bishops, because these would certainly displease the Conciliar Romans. Therefore the two bishops in 2012 laid a heavy cross on their own backs, heavier each year – they helped to drive the Society up a blind alley – in 2019 it cannot have, and it cannot not have, its own bishops.

Recent information became available that throws some light on the two bishops’ decision to abandon the Archbishop’s line of conversion-before-contacts, to which they had so recently adhered. As for Bishop de Galarreta, we learn that almost as soon as the April 7 letter appeared on the Internet, he hastened to SSPX Headquarters to apologise to the Superior General for its appearance, which he absolutely disclaimed. But how could he disclaim the appearance without also dissociating himself from the content? It seems that the publication made him fear the imminent implosion of the Society more than the content made him fear the blind alley of the Society, its essential abandoning of the Archbishop’s defending of the faith. Was the Society’s survival more important than that of the faith?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais took longer to retract his signature, so to speak, of the April 7 letter, but by early 2013 that retraction was also clear. To a friend he then gave the following episcopal guidance: Rome’s conversion cannot today come all at once. Official recognition will enable us to work that much more efficaciously from within the Church. We need patience and tact to take our time so as not to upset the Romans who still do not like our criticism of the Council, but we are making our way gradually – is that not what the Saints did? We must continue to denounce scandals and to accuse the Council, but we need to be intelligent so as to understand the way of thinking of our adversaries, who do after all include the See of Peter. Bishop Fellay’s policy has not really failed: nothing was signed on the 13th of June, 2012, nothing catastrophic, nothing stupendous has happened for the last 17 months. A few priests left us, which I find deplorable, from lack of prudence and judgment, but it was all their own fault. In brief, try to be more trusting in others and less trusting in yourself. Put your trust in the Society and its leaders. All’s well that ends well. That should be the spirit of your next decisions and writings.

Here end the bishop’s reasons for recommending his friend to follow Bishop Fellay. But have either Bishop de Galarreta or Bishop Tissier de Mallerais or Bishop Fellay fully understood the Archbishop’s reasons for cutting contact with the Conciliar Romans? Do not all three of them gravely underestimate the unprecedented crisis caused by the Conciliar churchmen’s on-going betrayal of the Truth and of the Faith? How can doctrinal compromise or merely human politicking with Rome solve that pre-apocalyptic crisis?

Kyrie eleison.

Both… And…

Both… And… on November 30, 2019

If issues of these “Comments” can broadly be divided into those that treat of the modern problem and those that treat of the Catholic solution, it would seem to be a pity if a number of readers are interested in the problem but not in the solution, or in the solution but not in the problem. This is because if I know the problem without the solution, I can be seriously tempted to despair, especially today, when God is giving to His enemies unprecedented permission almost to destroy His Church. On the other hand if knowledge of the solution leads me to mistake or to underestimate the problem, then the problem is liable to catch me unawares by going around my inadequate defences.

St Paul was a classic case of someone who knew both, and who grasped so well the New Testament solution, Jesus Christ (Rom. VII, 24–25), only because he had been a fervent Pharisee according to the problem of what sinful men had made of the Old Testament (I Cor. XV, 8–10). So it was only because St Paul had directly experienced the powerlessness of the Old Testament to forgive sin that he so deeply understood the salvation which Christ had brought to men by the New Testament. Another great convert who profited from many years in error to become one of the Church’s greatest ever servants of Catholic truth was St Augustine. Here is why the French have a saying, “A convert is worth two apostles.”

And here is why Catholics today should not scorn knowledge of the enemies of God or of how they are fighting Him, however vile that fight may be. And non-Catholics will be wise not to scorn the Catholic Church, because, however downtrodden it may appear to be, it still has the only true solutions to any of the world’s real, i.e. properly human, problems. All such problems are the poisoned fruit of sin rearing up against God in men’s souls, where God alone, and not psychiatrists, can penetrate with His forgiveness, which He chooses to bestow through His divine Son alone, and the Church purchased with His Blood.

Then let us suggest to non-Catholic readers of these “Comments” that they take interest not only in the analyses of the modern arts or politics, but also in their arguments that can seem to be merely squabbles among Catholics, such as what is wrong with Vatican II, or how the Society of St Pius X is more and more following Vatican II. This is because the Catholic Church may well be the only true solution of all readers’ true problems, but that solution is vulnerable to constant falsification by sinful men, and if it is falsified it is no longer the solution but part of the problem. Now Vatican II was the logical climax of many centuries of men wishing to put man in the place of God, and the Society of St Pius X, while it was designed and founded in 1970 to resist the errors of Vatican II, has since 2012 in particular fallen under the poisonous charm of those errors. Therefore non-Catholics looking for real solutions to the modern problems that they know all too well should follow the arguments over Vatican II and the Society.

Correspondingly, to Catholic readers of these “Comments” let it be suggested that they follow not only the arguments concerning Vatican II and the Society’s dangerous slide into conformity with the modern world but also the analyses in depth of what is wrong with that world. For indeed if the Society leaders are sliding in this way, is it not because they have underestimated the problem of that world? Are they not heading for defeat by waging a war without knowing the enemy? Whereas Archbishop Lefebvre once said that the whole of Vatican II is shot through with subjectivism, did not Bishop Fellay once say that 95% of its texts are acceptable? And whereas the Archbishop often said, in so many words, that one needs a long spoon to sup with today’s Conciliar Romans, is not Bishop Fellay’s successor following the latter’s example of behaving as though he thinks he can outwit the Roman devils? The real strength of the Archbishop was never his cleverness but always his faith, and his faithfulness to Catholic truth. And the same is true of the Society which he founded. Then let Catholic readers of these “Comments” not think that they have no need to consider the Comments’ analyses of modern corruption, however distasteful that consideration may be to them. They cannot afford to hide their heads in the sand.

Kyrie eleison.

World Sliding

World Sliding on November 23, 2019

It is not just the Society of St Pius X which is sliding, it is a whole world that is sliding, within men’s souls. And just as “you cannot make silk purses out of sows’ ears,” and “you cannot make bricks without straw,” so it is hopeless to expect yesterday’s institutions not to be emptied out by today’s human beings, like so many collapsed balloons in which the air has been let out. Here is the interesting answer of somebody who is still thinking, when he was asked what he saw in the future for the “Resistance,” for the SSPX, for the Church and for the world –

As for the “Resistance” there will be no great increase in numbers, no large harvest of souls, because the suitable material is simply not there. How can you make anything Catholic out of people who have little or no idea any longer of true and false, of right and wrong, of what truly needs to be resisted? Truth and right have been undermined, and more and more people have given up believing that they are of any importance, both because man is a social animal that takes his colouring from those around him who have today massively given up on truth and right, and secondly because life is so much less demanding if truth and right are insignificant. I can then go with the flow, and there is nothing I still need to resist.

As for the SSPX, if Bishop Fellay is fearful, his fear will spread to the rest of the Society and from there to the rest of the Church, insofar as the Archbishop’s Society was in its heyday the stiffening in the backbone of the Church. Without that stiffening a soft Conciliarism will prevail, with a hybrid Missal blending the Tridentine Mass with the New Mass, with a “hermeneutic of continuity” blending Catholic doctrine with Vatican II, with doubtful priests and rites making possible an illusory re-run of the 1950’s. And so the Church will end up with nobody still telling the Truth, and the “light of the world” will give out only a dim and optional glow, and the “salt of the earth” will be powerless to hinder the universal corruption.

The world will consequently become more and more degenerate, more and more wilfully artificial, because the Church was the supernatural protector, by grace in men’s souls, of everything natural in God’s creation. And in this New World Order even the remains of the true Church will continue to be persecuted by today’s passive-aggressive intimidation. Beneath an appearance of passive toleration, the reality is one of relentless pressure to conform – “You had better be ‘politically correct,’ like everyone else, or we will make you an outcast.” To this pressure from without corresponds a mysterious weakness within the modern mind which cannot hold on to any truth. The Devil then gets inside at the natural level, and swings minds to the left, away from God, making Catholics doubt themselves – ‘Who am I to say that Archbishop Lefebvre was right? Were his enemies really evil? Who am I to judge?’ And in this state of mind, it is easy to betray . . .

It was the Council of the 1960’s which let loose the confusion in the 1970’s, and it has had another half-century to spread since then, with the SSPX secretly working for the enemy for the last 20 years . . . .

This vision of the future is dark, but it is a realistic forecast on the merely human level. Fortunately God is God, He does indeed exist, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are our ways His ways, “for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah LV, 8–9). Nor will this God be frustrated by the machinations of men: “The word that goes forth from My mouth shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I intend, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it. For you shall go out in joy, and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills before you shall break forth into singing and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the briar shall come up the myrtle; and it shall be to the Lord for a memorial, for an everlasting sign which shall not be cut off.” (Is. LV, 11–13).

Kyrie eleison.

Slide Commented

Slide Commented on November 16, 2019

Two readers of the last two issues of these “Comments” (642 and 643, Nov. 2 and 9) have themselves made useful observations on the state of the Society of St Pius X. The first item of news was that the Newsociety seems to be wanting to bring all Traditionalists, inside or outside the Society, under its single authority, and the second item was that Rome-SSPX “doctrinal discussions” are to be re-opened in Rome with Bishop Fellay leading the SSPX representatives. The first observer comments on the constant tactics of the Revolution, the second on the fate which threatens Don Pagliarani. Here is the first observer:—

These two items of news are very bad. Even if I personally no longer miss the SSPX, it pains me to see it in a state of complete surrender to apostate Rome. Whenever the Revolution in the Church is taking an important step forward which is liable to cause resistance on the part of Catholics, it always has ready for them beforehand – always – an alternative position, a dead end to render ineffective those who were resisting. I am afraid that the SSPX is being set up by Rome to host all Catholics resisting the apostate Bergoglio, in order to steer them in Rome’s direction. It is fairly easy to foresee that that is what they are up to. As always, the one weapon we have in hand is the Rosary, to obtain the Consecration of Russia. God, have mercy upon us!

Such comments are not “conspiracy theory” or “fake news.” The misleaders of the modern Church and world, to whom God is for the moment granting great power to punish it for its apostasy, are not honest people who can afford to operate out in the open. They are all too often true enemies of God, dishonest Revolutionaries who have to conspire and deceive in order to disguise what they are doing. Therefore whenever Catholics who are not only as innocent as doves but also as wise as serpents (cf. Mt. X, 16) denounce the Revolutionaries’ trickery, the latter will accuse them of being, for instance, “conspiracy theorists,” which is yet more trickery, because the accusation is often true.

For example, in this case when in 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre was about to strike a great blow against the liberals by consecrating four faithful (then) bishops to ensure that the Society would survive to defend the true Faith, liberal Rome had prepared the Fraternity of St Peter to receive and neutralise all SSPX priests who would object to those episcopal Consecrations. Similarly when this observer above suggests that in 2019 Rome is turning the Society into a refuge for all Catholics opposing Pope Francis, in order to bring all their opposition under Rome’s control, it is very likely far from “fake news.” It is typical of God’s enemies to be committing exactly the same trickery of which they accuse those who denounce them.

As for the second observer, he suggests that Don Pagliarani may be less guilty than Bishop Fellay of misjudging the intentions of Rome, but if he continues to act as did his predecessor at the head of the Society, it is he, Don Pagliarani, who will take the responsibility for crippling the Society’s defence of the Faith. Nor can one indefinitely make allowances for him, because he must be less and less innocent if and insofar as he continues to act like Bishop Fellay. Here are the second observer’s comments:—

The news that the renewal of Rome-SSPX doctrinal discussions is being headed up in Rome for the SSPX by Bishop Fellay casts a dark shadow on his successor who chose him for that, Don Pagliarani. Even granted that the latter is not so in favour of an agreement as was Bishop Fellay, it does seem that he is stuck in the same way of thinking as his predecessor. Therefore either he breaks free of that conditioning, or he is destined to go on record as the grave-digger of the Society. God forbid! I will pray for him and the Society, and I will turn to the Mother of God to open his eyes and enlighten his two Assistants.

Notice how both observers see in prayer the only solution. Humanly speaking, the Society is essentially, albeit not completely, disabled. Choosing to rejoin the Conciliar Church, it will share its fate.

Kyrie eleison.

Sliding Still – II

Sliding Still – II on November 9, 2019

In case readers think that the August conversation reported here last week between Dom Placide of Bellaigue in France and Society of St Pius X authorities in Switzerland is insufficient to prove that the Society is still sliding away from the defence of the true Faith, here is another report leading to the same conclusion: at about the same time as the Society’s Superior General (SG) gave his re-assuring interview of September 12, he presided over the appointment of a Commission of three to go down to Rome and pick up again the theological discussions with the Conciliar Romans which ran from 2009 to 2011 with no result. And what three representatives of the Society were chosen for the discussions? None other than Bishop Fellay and Fathers Pfluger and Nély, the Society’s ruling triumvirate from 2006 to 2018, when all three were voted out of office at the elective General Chapter of July, 2018! A little background is again necessary.

In the preceding elective General Chapter of 2006, the Society’s 40 leading priests remained faithful, less faithful than in 1994 (as Bishop Fellay once admitted) but nevertheless faithful, to Archbishop Lefebvre’s principle of Catholic common sense, that in the clash between the Society and Rome such important questions of the Faith were at stake that no merely practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement could possibly resolve the clash. Now by 2006 Bishop Fellay had himself long since ceased to take doctrine seriously. For him, like for Pope Benedict XVI, for all modernists and for the mass of the world’s inhabitants today, God’s Truth is less important than men’s unity, but he knew that inside the Society many members still followed the Archbishop in their respect for God’s Truth, and so he continued to ask Pope Benedict for doctrinal discussions to take place so that the Society and Rome could be united.

The request was intrinsically foolish from the very start, because the doctrines of Catholic Tradition and of Vatican II can no more be united than the doctrines of 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. But both the Pope and the SG apparently hoped that the two sides could settle for 2+2= four and a half, because for both of them unity was more precious than truth. And so “doctrinal discussions” took place between four representatives on each side, from 2009 t0 2011. However, back in 2009 Bishop Fellay had still had to appoint four Society representatives who took Catholic Truth seriously, while the Romans were adamant in their attachment to the anti-truths of Vatican II, so that the discussions went nowhere. Unity failed then to prevail over Truth.

But at the Society’s interim (non-elective) General Chapter of 2012, opinion had shifted among the Society’s 40 leading priests, so that the Archbishop’s principle of doctrine first was abandoned, and the Society officially accepted that unity should come first. However, a hard-core resistance movement of Society priests immediately arose, threatening Society unity. And so when at the elective Chapter of 2018 the 40 priests still loved the Truth enough to vote Bishop Fellay and his two Assistants out of office, the new SG picked up afterwards on the idea of doctrinal discussions with the Conciliar Romans, an idea still intrinsically foolish but always as appealing as it is to have one’s cake and eat it. Down he went to Rome, and both the Romans and the SG must still have been dreaming of four-and-a-half, so it appears that “doctrinal discussions” are back on the table.

But whereas in 2009 Bishop Fellay had had to choose lovers of the Truth to represent the Society, the new SG seems to have chosen the very three officials of the Society who presided over the Chapter of 2012 which put unity before Truth! So who is fooling who? If the new SG is fooling himself that a non-doctrinal unity is possible, woe unto the Society, now and for the foreseeable future. If he is not fooling himself, is he acting under pressure from Rome or fellayised Menzingen, or both? It is the same thing, because Bishop Fellay did all he could to put Menzingen and the Society under Rome’s power. It is Rome that is therefore calling the shots, and rubbing the Society’s nose in the Society’s own dirt. Honourable Fr. Pagliarani, if you do not like taking responsibility for such dirt, the honourable thing to do is to resign!

Kyrie eleison.

Sliding Still – I

Sliding Still – I on November 2, 2019

There have been signs to give one hope that the official Society of St Pius X is no longer sliding under the power and control of the Conciliar churchmen in Rome, but such signs are overwhelmed by the evidence to the contrary. For instance, on September 12 the new Superior General (SG) who was voted to take over from Bishop Fellay in July of last year, Fr Davide Pagliarani, made public an interview in which he said many good things, enough to make at least one reader of these “Comments” rejoice that the Society’s slide was being thrown into reverse. Alas, a recent report from Society HQ in Switzerland gives us to fear that Fr Pagliarani is being directed to say such conservative things in order to fool all Traditionalists who are not watching his actions. Here is the background and the report –

Catholic Tradition has houses in France of three outstanding Orders of monks and friars from the Church’s past: the Benedictines in Bellaigue, the Dominicans in Avrillé, the Franciscans in Morgon. All three were encouraged and helped to start in their day by Archbishop Lefebvre, but never did he claim authority over any of them, in fact he positively refused to do so, because he did not see the Society as having any mission to monopolise Tradition or to control all Traditional initiatives. Since their founding, all three independent houses have, relatively speaking, flourished, and in 2019, as is normal for monks and friars, all three exert a special influence over Traditionalists, all over the world one might say.

However, with the Society’s major change of direction which became public in 2012, relations of these houses with the Society have become problematic, because its leaders have naturally wanted these influential religious to change direction also. Several years ago the SSPX broke off relations with the Dominicans of Avrillé who were considered to be too independent, while the Franciscans have needed over the same period of time to adopt a policy carefully balanced between co-operation and independence. And as for the Benedictines, their young Superior from Brazil, Dom Placide, came last August under particular pressure from the Society.

Summoned to Menzingen by Fr Pagliarani, he was rebuked for his lack of co-operation with the Society, and a piece of paper was put before him by which he was to sign over to the Society all control over the Benedictine Monastery! When – to put it politely – he declined the offer, he was threatened that the whole world would be told that the SSPX was cutting off all relations with the Monastery. Dom Placide replied that it was up to the SG to do what he thought best, whereupon the threat changed. Now the threat was that all priories of the Society would be ordered to send no more vocations to Bellaigue. And this threat has been carried out. Dom Placide declined the offer to stay for lunch in Menzingen.

We are entitled to speculate upon such a conversation. If we wish to keep up our hopes for Fr Pagliarani personally, we might speculate that he himself was directed to use such bully tactics upon the relatively young head of the Benedictines. But he cannot avoid the responsibility for at least consenting to act the part of the bully. More seriously, the bully tactics suggest that Rome and Menzingen are plotting jointly to sweep together under the Society all presently independent Traditional groupings, and then to restructure the Society and replace it by a Personal Prelature under Conciliar Rome’s complete control. This would have two advantages for Rome’s war on Tradition: firstly the independence and last traces of Archbishop Lefebvre in the structure of the Society which he designed would disappear, and secondly Rome could then gently strangle, together with the Society, all Traditional groupings and initiatives in one fell swoop. Nor would the Society’s present leaders disapprove of the fell swoop, on the contrary, because as they gently dropped dead of the strangling they would at least have the official recognition for which they have striven for so long.

So much for the misleaders of the Society. But what about its followers, priests and laity?

Kyrie eleison.