Petition of 700 Signatories/Families Delivered to Menzingen and Rome

Petition and Accompanying Letter Available Here

[Google Translation]

Our “letter of the faithful” has come to an end, thanks to you we have reached 696 signatures, thank you!  It is sent this day to Monsignor Fellay and to the Commission Ecclesia Dei.  You can read the letter that accompanied it below.  We have included your comments by deleting the name / first name / postal code of the editors.  Thank you again for your help in defending traditional marriage and for supporting our priests so unjustly punished!

Christus vincit!

Marcel Timafe


Paris, June 25, 2017,

Your Excellency, Eminence,

You will find herewith the text of a petition from faithful followers of the heritage of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre and which has collected nearly 700 signatures. These faithful estimate that the new arrangements you have put in place regarding the administration of the sacrament of marriage to the betrothed attached to the Catholic tradition are not compatible with fidelity to a Catholicism free from the mistakes of Vatican II.

We have included the comments of the faithful on the occasion of the signing of this petition. These comments show the profound rejection by the faithful of the provisions in question and, more generally, their fundamental opposition to a canonical regularization of the Society of Saint Pius X which would not be preceded by the recognition and rejection by the Roman authorities of the errors of the Second Vatican Council. Any other procedure can only be interpreted as the betrayal of Bishop Lefebvre’s struggle.

We did not allow ourselves any correction to the reviews. Of course we do not subscribe to the (rare) invectives that they could contain.

Excellency, Eminence, may our Lord Jesus Christ enlighten you and give you the strength not to yield to the mirage of a practical agreement when the Church is dying of the dogmatic ambiguity resulting from the evil Vatican II.

Marcel Timafe

Preparing the Terrain for “Bishop” Pfeiffer?

“Two years ago you were a passionate churchman.  Now you are a passionate Lutheran.  We must just pray that when your head has stopped spinning, your face is to the front again!”

-St. Thomas More to William Roper

Let’s review the facts: In 2015, foreseeing the inevitable dead end of trying to run a seminary without a bishop to perform ordinations, Fr. Pfeiffer brought in a charlatan who claimed to be (among other things) a renowned neuro-scientist, confidant of popes, adviser to presidents, secret spy behind the iron curtain, and the most interesting man in the world.

A clear fraud, complete with doctored pictures, and bewildered by the rubrics of the Mass, his entrance into the Jonestown seminary in Boston, KY sparked outrage even among the hardcore dupes, including one Mr. Tony La Rosa, who broke ties with Jonestown over the manifest fraud.

Forced to send Bill Moran packing to Colorado, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko have (unbelievably) maintained all along that Bill was indeed a validly ordained priest, validly consecrated Bishop, and a Catholic.  

The question as to why Fr. Pfeiffer, holding such convictions, would nevertheless send Bill into seclusion was never answered: If he is all you say he is, why send him away?

Could it be because one day, Bill (i.e., the “validly consecrated bishop”) might be called upon to do Don Corleone a service?

For the next year, Mr. La Rosa fulminated over his break-up with the boss: An estranged Pfeifferite who nevertheless was fully in Jonestown’s camp otherwise, but who still had a bothered conscience over the fraud Don Corleone was foisting upon the dupes, he railed at the imposture.  

Eventually making a public mea culpa, and seeking readmission into the Church of Boston, having judged that between Bishop Williamson and Fr. Pfeiffer, the latter was the lesser of two evils (an error), Mr. La Rosa has now done a 180 degree turn on his previous position regarding Bill Moran.

The question is: Why?

With one poisoned forum reporting that Bill will be called upon to perform the “ordination” of Boston’s “highest ranking seminarian later this year;”  the fact that Boston has maintained Bill’s “valid” episcopal orders all along; Tony’s latest reversal which seems designed to bolster the believability of a manifest fraud’s valid episcopal orders; a “seminary” which after five years has not a single cleric; and the shunning of that “seminary” by all valid bishops, could the article which follows by Mr. La Rosa be poised to help prepare the terrain for the acceptance among the Dupes of the eventual (invalid) consecration of “Bishop” Pfeiffer?

Time will tell.

I give you Mr. La Rosa’s own incredible version of the “Conflict Zone:


The Seven Deans: A Disappointing Strategy

The Seven Deans: A Disappointing Strategy


Sean Johnson


With enough time spent in the Resistance, one gradually gets used to the ups and downs; the disappointments; causes for hope which rise up one day, and are snuffed the very next, and so on. It was only a couple days ago that Sodalitium Pianum published an exhortation to the clergy of France, imploring them to support the seven deans (and three religious communities) in the vainest hope of reversing the course of the SSPX, even at this late hour. Yet, in just the space of a couple days, two bits of discouraging news reach us:

  1. “Rita” on the French Resistance forum speaks of a rumor in which Bishop de Galarreta is supposed to have said that, “The seven deans have accepted their punishments, which is an implicit recognition of their errors.
  2. A bishop tells me that the only aim the seven deans had in publishing their critique was to telegraph to Rome that the Society is divided (in both the matter of the “pastoral guidelines” regarding diocesan marriages in SSPX chapels, and regarding the Prelature generally).

If both (or either) claim is true, it means our exhortation has fallen upon deaf ears, and any naive hopes we may have had of the French clergy finding their courage (and fidelity) are dashed.

Surely, the deans succeeded in scaring Rome off for another few months (or years). Likely, Rome has perceived that, despite all the conditioning and compromise under the Bishop Fellay regime, he has not succeeded in sufficiently pacifying the SSPX to Rome’s satisfaction (though they are surely exhorting him to “keep up the good work”).

Rome will now wait for the next Superior General, having squeezed as much juice from Bishop Fellay as they could. Perhaps, like the Protestant and Orthodox “observers” at Vatican II, Rome will even be invited (or demand) some clandestine (or open) influence upon the choice of the next Superior General.

In any case, the disappointing strategy of the seven deans in limiting their objective to simply frustrating an imminent accord accomplishes nothing but yet another stay of execution for a Society which already has its neck in the lion’s mouth, but has not yet died:

If the 2012 General Chapter could not right the ship (at a time when branding and compromise had not weakened its priests nearly as much as it will have by the summer of 2018, when the next General Chapter convenes), then to seek to avert the final consummation of betrayal for another year accomplishes nothing. In fact, as mentioned earlier, it feeds right into Rome’s plan: They have wrung what they could out of Bishop Fellay. They want new blood. But will Fr. Pagliarini (or other SSPX “Papabili” chosen from among a stacked deck of hand picked Capitulants) present or represent a better option for Tradition?  Was it not him who stood up to defend Bishop Fellay against the indictment of Fr. de Jorna at the 2012 Chapter?

There is absolutely no reason to believe a Fr. Pagliarini type Superior General will deviate substantially from the present trajectory towards a Roman accord..

I wrote to one of the Deans, and opined that unless there was coordinated, widespread, sustained, public opposition to the ongoing process of disintegration which is currently dissolving the Society into the substance of this world (and conciliarism), there was no hope for the turnaround of the SSPX.

At the time I wrote those words, I did not yet know of the very limited (and ineffective) aim the Deans had in mind. But at least I was able to make that point, and he will have to reflect upon it as he watches the disintegration continue from the inside.

That situation reminds me of a comment Archbishop Lefebvre once made in Fideliter:

“I have heard tell of some monks who intend leaving Le Barroux, saying they can no longer live in an atmosphere of lies. I wonder how they managed to stay as long as this in such an atmosphere.

It is the same with those who are with Dom Augustin [Superior of the Benedictine monastery of Flavigny]. They were even more traditional than us, and now they have completely gone over to the other side. For all young people who are there, its awful to think of such a reversal. They entered the monastery to really be in Tradition. It was the safest, firmest bastion of Tradition, even more so than the Society. They thought they were guaranteed forever. And then they completely turn their coats.” (Fideliter #79, January/February, 1991).”

All they did was stay put, while their leaders moved towards Vatican II.

That is all it takes to go modernist, really: To not act when duty requires action. It is not necessary to positively subvert Tradition (or the traditional apostolate of the SSPX). All that is necessary to become a traitor is to hold your peace while the enemy overruns your position.

That is happening nearly everywhere the SSPX exists in the world today.

Isolated acts and limited aims will not suffice to save the day. Rather, they guarantee the enemy shall receive the victory.

Like La Barroux, et al, the day approaches when you too may switch sides.



The Muzzled SSPX Has No Opinion


The Muzzled SSPX Has No Opinion


Sean Johnson


It was only a couple weeks ago that we commented on Fr. Bouchacourt’s propaganda piece in the May/June Fideliter titled “As We Are” (Here), in which he stated:

“This fighting spirit against errors, even if it is only a consequence of an unconditional attachment to the Catholic truth, even if it intervenes only after the primary and essential concern to transmit the grace of Christ to the Is an integral part of the perennial identity of the Society of Saint Pius X. It will never abandon this struggle against error, an indispensable accompaniment to the love of truth.”

Of course, this is nonsense: The SSPX abandoned this struggle years ago, when it implemented the branding campaign, by which it agreed to soften its criticisms, and avoid negative critiques of the Council and conciliar Popes.

But supposing you were oblivious to all the evidence which could be (and has been) amassed to support that contention, only two weeks after Fr. Bouchacourt’s delusional (or dishonest?) article, a perfect example of this abandonment of the struggle appears on in an article regarding Pope Francis’ appointment of an Anglican pro-abortion “theologian” to the Pontifical Academy for Life (Here).

If you read that article, you will search in vain for the SSPX’s condemnation of Pope Francis’ appointment.  They have nothing to say about it at all.  Rather the branded approach is simply to report the news objectively, and without opinion (much the same way a secular newspaper reports the weather, stock market activity, and sports scores): They offer no commentary of their own…at all.

Any negativity or disapproval conveyed by the article is supplied not by, but subjectively and individually by the reader of the article, not by the wrods which comprise it.

Where is Fr. Bouchacourt’s “fighting spirit against errors?”

The timid SSPX is forced by their lust for a juridical approval to content themselves with other people’s comments on the matter (without ever affirming or commenting on them).

Actions speak louder than words, and very obviously the illusion/delusion Fr. Bouchacourt would wish to impart (more for the public consumption of those who have predetermined to support the SSPX’s slide into conciliarism at any cost, to make their passage from Tradition into conciliarism an easier transition) is roundly contradicted by the SSPX’s own refusal to offer a condemnatory opinion in a scandalous matter.

At best, we can only cite quotes of other non-SSPX sources, in order that when Archbishop Pozzo rings Menzingen, the General Counsel will be able to say that “it is not our opinion; we only quoted someone else.  And after all, we never affirmed our agreement with those opinions!”

But you have to understand the game that Menzingen is playing:

It raises the topic of the Pope’s appointment of a pro-abortion to the Pontifical Academy for Life, as if to imply that it is condemning the Pope on an issue in which, in former days, it most certainly would have.  The illusion, therefore, is that the SSPX has not stopped condemning errors, and the constituents in the pews are pacified.

On the other hand, if you actually read the article, the SSPX doesn’t offer a single word of condemnation (i.e., it only quotes the reactions of a couple non-SSPXers), in order to  stay within the confines of the branding campaign (i.e., No condemnations of Rome or the Roman modernists).

But what does the SSPX say on the matter?

Evidently, they either have no opinion themselves, or they dare not give voice to it.

And yet Fr. Bouchacourt can say, with very little reaction from those still glued to SSPX pews, that the SSPX will never abandon the condemnation of errors.



An Exhortation to the Internal Resistance in France: Now is the Time!

Last week, Sodalitium Pianum reported on the retaliatory transfer of Fr. de la Rocque (one of the seven deans of the French District who had signed a collaborative work condemning the SSPX’s acceptance of Rome’s “pastoral guidelines” which shall govern marriages in SSPX chapels, and subject the reception and administration of that sacrament to diocesan jurisdiction) from the SSPX’s largest chapel in the world (St. Nicollet du Chardonay with 10,000+ faithful) to a Philippine mission most long time SSPXers have never heard of.

This week, we learned of new developments regarding two of the other signatories:

Fr. Thierry Gaudray (a model priest, and my former Professor of Ascetical and Mystical Theology, and Gregorian Chant, at the seminary in Winona) was demoted two levels: From Dean, he is degraded below Prior to simple Chaplain, and will be transferred to the Dominican school of Kernabat of the Côtes-d’Armor, effective August 15. (See Here)

Regarding Fr. Aldalur (Dean and Prior in Etcharry, France), the French Reconquista Blog reports:

“For the month of June, Father Aldalur wanted to publish a study on the personal prelature which was to be exhibited in three issues.

Unfortunately, last week he was absent three days to preach a solemn communion retreat for pupils, and one person (community or faculty) took advantage of this absence to trace back to Suresnes [District Headquarters] the content of this study.

When he returned to the priory, the Trinitarian of June (which was published but not distributed), had been censored and the faithful of Etcharry instead read the text “as we are” Abbot Bouchacourt.
The original ballots have disappeared…”  (See Here)

How much support do these Deans and religious communities have among the other 120 (+/-) priests of the French District?

Interestingly, one of the Resistance Bishops (who does not live in England) told me that Fr. Phillipe Francois (who recently gave a magnificent Easter Sunday sermon against the Personal Prelature Here), is said to have refused to sign the letter of his brother Deans.  Why?

Regardless, NOW is the time to rally around the Deans in France.

Very likely, this is the final chance for the SSPX to avert Operation Suicide.

NOW is the time for fortitude.

NOW is the time to hazard all for the love of the Church, and any reasonable hope for the recovery of its former splendor.

If this flame in France is allowed to die, be assured that the only future for the Church is Fr. Calmel’s “loose network of priests” after the world’s largest bastion of Tradition and common sense is absorbed into the Conciliar pantheon.

And if Fr. Calmel’s forecast is frightening and repulsive to you, then for Heaven’s sake, do something NOW!

If the worst shall happen to you, you have the SAJM and Bishop Faure right in your own back yard!

How many saints desired to be in your situation in these latter days (St. Louis de Montfort), that they could contend so gloriously for God and Church!

Be assured that if it is true that, “as goes France, so goes the Church,” so too is it true that, “as goes the French District, so goes the SSPX.”

NOW is the time (and there may never be another).

A prayer, a deep breath, and then the plunge.

Only public, organized, sustained resistance can save the SSPX, Tradition, and any reasonable hope for the future recovery of the Church’s former splendor.

Priests of France: You must rise to the occasion, and you must do it NOW!

Retaliation Against the Seven Deans Continues: Fr. de la Rocque

The following account reaches us from the French Resistance Forum


“We have just learned that Fr. de la Rocque is transferred to the Philippines. That is to say a short 11.106,64 km from Paris.

He will therefore have every difficulty in maintaining contact with the “wicked French anti-Liberals who do not want to rally to the Rome of Francis”.

For greater security, he is not appointed Prior of Manila, but he is [sent to] Davao, Annex of Manila, in the South East of the Philippines (try to find this hole on a map!)

But that is not all. He will have to learn the Cebuano [language] to speak with 75% of the inhabitants of the place where he is assigned, and for the other inhabitants, the Tagalog, the Hiligaynon and the Bagiboo [languages]!

What priest of a certain age could endure such a change? Fr. de la Rocque is certainly still young and nimble enough to be able to endure such trauma.

But a priest of 60 years or 70 years?

This sanction is therefore a warning (especially to the elders) for all those who might be tempted to resist, one way or the other, Bishop Fellay’s rallying policy.

Social death or exile.

The suitcase or the coffin.

Talk about the fsspx being a sect that knows how to break its members…”

With “Rita” from the same forum thread, we might ask Fr. de la Rocque:

Father, is there not more use to be made in extending the reign of God and in saving souls? This is a real brainwashing you will undergo. And while you learn languages and silence your scruples to enter the state of mind of the district, what will become of the good souls you have had the courage to warn of the danger in Paris?


Petition Update

On May 20, we posted notice of a French petition initiated by faithful of the SSPX, addressed to Bishop Fellay and the Ecclesia Dei commission, expressing outrage over the Society’s acceptance of the Pope’s new “pastoral guidelines” regulating marriages in SSPX chapels, and the treasonous punishment of the “Seven Deans” (and three French religious communities) for having bravely resisted this betrayal.

Soon, the petition began to receive support from SSPXers and Resistance faithful all over the world (but curiously, the last time I checked, not a single SSPX priest had the guts to make a public protest with his signature!).

As in the times of the Arian crisis, the defense of the faith is primarily being maintained by the faithful, with the clergy watching the action from the rear.

Let us reaffirm our total rejection of these pastoral guidelines, and our refusal to attend any SSPX/Conciliar weddings wherein the local pastor has not publicly and unambiguously rejected the implementation of them, and reaffirmed his unwillingness to subject his faithful to the governance of heretic bishops. 

Today we received an update on the status of the petition, and we pass it along here:

Petition Update

“Dear signatories of the letter of the faithful to Bishop Fellay and to the Ecclesia Dei Commission,

Your petition is a real success! We are close to 700 signatures, which is a lot because the traditionalist world is so restricted.

Congratulations for this act of defending traditional marriage and support to our priests unjustly punished.

As announced, we shall deliver this letter to Bishop Fellay and to the Ecclesia Dei Commission in a week time, on June 20th.

Do you want to help us to reach the 1000 signatures before handing over ? If everybody gets there, we will do it!

So let your families, friends, acquaintances know about this letter so that we may be more many to continue the work of our priests who have acted for us, the faithful!

Thank you for your help!

Christus Vincit!”

Did Archbishop Lefebvre REALLY Believe the Council Was “Schismatic?”

Samuel continues to do the Church a very great service over at by translating some of the forgotten gems of Archbishop Lefebvre.   The latest article comes from the defunct French blog Credidimus Caritate, quoting the Archbishop from a 1980 priest retreat in which he clarifies what he means when he refers to the Second Vatican Council, the Pope, the bishops, etc. as “schismatic” (and which he also had published in the Cor Unum -the internal monthly bulletin of the SSPX- to ensure all his priests understood him properly).

In short, the Archbishop explains -plainly- that he is being hyperbolic (i.e., “Exaggerated claims or statements not meant to be taken literally.”).

Timely, in light of the apoplectic reactions of the Dupes to this blog’s previous article, showing the Archbishop in his own words candidly admitting (as late as mid-1980) that Catholics could fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a valid Novus Ordo, and that well-disposed communicants receive the transmission of sanctifying grace at a valid Novus Ordo.

This latest article is a welcome dose of cold water to the overheated exaggerations of the Sect, and can be viewed Here.

“I am not saying that in words one cannot use one phrase and then oppose it with another one, pull it out of context and, thus, make me say things that are not in my mind. I have sometimes dared to use strong phrases, for example, that the Council was more or less schismatic. In a certain sense it is true because there is a certain break with Tradition. So in the sense that the Council is in breach with Tradition, it can be said, to some extent, that it is schismatic. But when I said that, it was not to say that the Council is really, profoundly schismatic, definitively. You have to understand everything I say. The Council is schismatic insofar as it breaks with the past, that is true. But that does not mean that it is schismatic in the precise, theological sense of the word.

So when you take terms like that, you can say, “You see ! If the Council is schismatic, the pope who signed the Council is schismatic, and all the bishops who signed the Council are schismatics, so that we no longer have the right to be with them.” This is false reasoning. It’s madness, it does not make sense!

That is why I published this article on faith in Cor Unum. I don’t know if you have read the commentary on the virtue of faith by Father Bernard, a commentary on the article of St. Thomas Aquinas. He has the spirit of St. Thomas Aquinas, in which he accurately shows the infidelity of the faithful, in which he shows that among these faithful there is a danger to the faith, that there are many believers of whom one can say : “ Oh ! He no longer has the faith, he is a pagan, he is an atheist. ” If you wish, to a certain extent, because they are people who no longer practice, people who do not educate their children in a Christian way, people who have pagan reasonings, the worldly, materialists, whatever you want. Then they say: “They have no faith!” Can we really say that they no longer have the virtue of faith? It is quite another thing to no longer have the spirit of faith, or to no longer practice one’s faith, than to no longer have faith. These are different formulas. It is dangerous to immediately apply these things [like that], because by baptism they retain the virtue of faith. They have the virtue of faith, but they do not exercise it, they do not practice it. That is something else.”

In short, the Dupes don’t (want to) understand hyperbole; they would prefer to be left with their distortions, exaggerations, and slogans (despite all their protestations of fidelity to the Archbishop they are actually leaving behind, in favor of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko).

You see, truth weakens their “faith.”

They ought to reflect deeply on that.

No Spiritual Nourishment at the New Mass?

(A prisoner of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp eats bread; you will understand the picture after you read the article)


Of all the offenses Bishop Williamson is alleged to have made at his 2015 Mahopac, New York conference, the suggestion that one could, in certain circumstances, still find “spiritual nourishment” at a Novus Ordo Mass was judged by his adversaries to be the worst of all. A Catechetical Refutation  defended that comment (particularly at points #7-8). Reacting against this defense, the Pfeifferites went on to invent a new heresy, claiming against the de fide declarations of the Council of Trent (and the unanimous consent of the approved theologians) that there is no transmission of sanctifying grace to well disposed [Novus Ordo] communicants at a valid Mass.

To bolster that error (after the fact), they extracted two quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre from context, and held them out in a univocal sense.  Those attempts were refuted Here and Here.  Finally, an old Angelus letter of Fr. Pulvermacher was unearthed, and advanced in support of this error, which was refuted in two parts Here and Here.

Between the Catechetical Refutation and the four subsequent refutations rectifying the Pfeifferien errors on the operation of grace, we were content to have let the matter rest, having vindicated not so much the comments of Bishop Williamson, as the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church these errors attack.

However, Samuel recently posted a translation of a 1974 Econe spiritual conference of the Archbishop which leaves absolutely no room for doubt that he (like Bishop Williamson) believed the new Mass could still impart spiritual nourishment (i.e., sanctifying grace) to its communicants in certain circumstances, Here.

Neither will it avail the Pfeifferites to note that the Archbishop’s position on the new Mass later hardened, since what changed was not the Archbishop’s theology (i.e., grace passes/grace does not pass), but his prudential decision regarding attendance at the new Mass, given the worsening circumstances and conditions in the Church as the fruits of Vatican II manifested themselves more clearly over the years.

[On this latter point, it is worth recalling Archbishop Lefebvre’s May 9, 1980 comment in Michael Davies’ classic Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre (Vol. II, Ch. 40) positively endorsing Novus Ordo Mass attendance, stating that “Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfill their Sunday obligation” here.  I make the same observation regarding the quote the Pfeifferites pull from “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” in one of the refutations above, in which the Archbishop makes his comments on grace specific to the sacrilegous and desecrated Masses he was there describing, not all Novus Ordo Masses.]

As always, I suppose it is obligatory to state that that which is said above is in no sense to be construed as a defense of the new Mass, but rather, a defense of Catholic sacramental theology.

Here follows Samuel’s translation of Archbishop Lefebvre’s conference, which clearly shows Archbishop Lefebvre taught his seminarians/priests that grace can pass to Novus Ordo communicants:


“But if, on the other hand, as happens for example, they mentioned a case to me of.. some of you gave me the case of a priest who always says the old offertory, who always says the old canon, but he says the mass, he uses the new mass, he says the mass facing the people but he does not give communion in the hand. Well, if there are any seminarians that don’t have any other mass, can they attend a mass like that ? I think yes, what do you expect ! The priest who makes such an effort would be a little discouraged, hurt to see the seminarians close to him, whom he loves very much, to see that they don’t come and attend his mass under the pretext that he does not say [the old mass] absolutely from beginning to end.. I believe there are some circumstances we have to consider !

The father of Mr Pazat who is here told me yesterday that right now, there is not a single mass of St Pius V in Madrid. If there is no more mass of St Pius V in Madrid, if one is logical with those who are strict on the question of the mass, one would have to tell all people in Madrid that they cannot put in a foot in a church, one has to be logical, one has to be logical.. Do you feel in conscience capable to tell all people in Madrid, the whole city of Madrid, all Catholics : you cannot set foot anymore in a Church ? I do not dare saying that in such an absolute manner, since there are quite a few conditions, as I will mention, quite a few circumstances in which we cannot attend these masses.

But there are still priests who believe, there are still priests.. the mass is not always invalid, certainly not ! If it was always an invalid mass, of course we cannot go there, if it was always a sacrilegious mass, a mass regularly sacrilegious, evidently, a mass that has a net protestant tendency, it would be evident. But I think there are at the same time circumstances in which.. we do not know, because there is still the danger on one hand of losing the faith in the case of people who don’t go to mass for one month, two months, three months, four months, a year, they will lose the faith, it’s over, that’s obvious, we cannot make ourselves any illusions, if one were to say such to a whole city, imagine !

If on the other hand obviously you say : “But they eat meat that is poisoned !” That’s true, but if one eats a meal that is more or less poisoned, they may still last a little longer, until the moment when better nourishment arrives, while if they would die of hunger, they would be dead in three weeks or a month, they would die of hunger; It would be better to die in six months than to die in one month ! It would be better if they did not die at all, of course. But what do you expect, if not going to mass causes them to die by lack of faith, if by going to a mass that is not not very good because it is poisoning them they can prolong a little.. Take someone in a concentration camp who is given a choice : either you don’t eat, and thus you will die in a short time, or you will be given meat that has gone off, knowing well that you will eat bad meat, they know quite well that it will harm them, but they eat it anyway saying : “If I can survive a little longer, maybe my deliverance will come soon !” So, that is what we must say also, maybe our deliverance will come and we will have the mass of St Pius V; it is in this spirit that we have to tell them, I think.. [end of tape]”

Delusional or Dishonest?

The following is the latest spin from the Neo-SSPX, still trying to pretend there have been no changes or compromises with modernist Rome, and that they continue to follow the path of Archbishop Lefebvre: We have ALWAYS had diocesan clergy perform the marriages in our chapels!  We have ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia!  For a longer list of compromises and deviations, see this article:  

Commentary follows.


As we are

In his relations with the Apostolic See, Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre , to affirm that the Society of Saint Pius X should be considered according to his own identity, said: ” Rome must take us as we are … ” (cf. The sermon of 27 June 1980 ). I would like to clarify this expression.

The Fraternity of St. Pius X was founded in 1970 according to the rules of canon law , with aims and means consistent with the spirit of the Church, as evidenced by the approval of the Bishop of Friborg and the various documents Romans who praised the statutes. All its subsequent acts, up to the illegal “suppression” of 1975 , were carried out in accordance with canon law.

Let us now recall the characteristic of the Society of St. Pius X: “The purpose of the Fraternity is the priesthood and all that relates to it and nothing but that which concerns it. This is what distinguishes it, for example, from Jesuits or Oratorians. Bishop Lefebvre concluded: “The Fraternity is essentially apostolic, because the sacrifice of the Mass is also apostolic. From this came the works of the Society of St. Pius X: “All works of priestly formation”, “helping the sanctification of priests”, “helping the aged and infirm priests”, but also “the Schools which are truly Christian (…), it is from them that vocations will emerge “, and again” parish ministry “.

In its teaching, the Society of St. Pius X wishes only to preach the immutable truths of the faith, to be the echo of the Popes, the Councils, the Fathers of the Church. The revelation of the Holy Spirit, a new doctrine, but “to keep holy and faithfully to expose the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is, the deposit of faith” ( Pastor Æternus , Chapter 4 ). In the liturgy, the Society of St. Pius X wishes only to sing the glory of God and to obtain the holiness of souls per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum . In the spiritual life, the Society of St. Pius X wishes only to help the baptized to progress in the knowledge and love of the God Trinity.

When one promotes good, one opposes the opposite evil. Now the Catholic faith, the Catholic liturgy and the Catholic life are threatened today, notably because of the crisis that shakes the Church and society. It is therefore not surprising that the Society of St. Pius X fights against what threatens the salvation of souls.

The Society of St. Pius X, because it is attached to the Catholic faith, stands up against the attacks which threaten this faith. Its priests, for the sake of truth, are obliged to denounce the errors which ruin the integrity of the faith, especially those which today eat away at the Church, such as false religious freedom, false ecumenism, interreligious dialogue , what is called “the spirit of the Council”. It is not only a matter of denouncing errors per se, but of maintaining the full “freedom to correct, resume, even publicly, the wrongminders or innovators of modernism,” as stated in the General Chapter of 2012.

The Society of St. Pius X, because it is attached to the Catholic Liturgy, celebrates exclusively the liturgy which was transmitted by the Tradition of the Church, and refuses the new liturgy without ambiguity and definitely, this conciliar Mass of The Protestant spirit, which no longer transmits the grace of Christ with certainty.

The Society of Saint Pius X, because it is attached to the spiritual traditions of the Church, to the Christian way of life that the Church has always practiced, refuses the abuses, notably the alteration of marriage, The cause of priestly celibacy, the liberalism of manners, the abandonment of prayer and the sacraments. This fighting spirit against errors, even if it is only a consequence of an unconditional attachment to the Catholic truth, even if it intervenes only after the primary and essential concern to transmit the grace of Christ to the Is an integral part of the perennial identity of the Society of Saint Pius X. It will never abandon this struggle against error, an indispensable accompaniment to the love of truth.

We know that one day, by the grace of God, the Society of St. Pius X will find in the Church its right canonical position, but it will be ” as it is “, that is , It was founded in the Church and in the Church in 1970, and as it never ceased to be in the Church and the Church: loving truth, thus fighting against contrary errors. As Archbishop Lefebvre proclaimed in the same sermon of June 27, 1980, we shall find the canonical situation of which we have been unjustly deprived, but it will be ” with everything we are, everything we think, everything we believe, everything What we do, “he summarized ,” with the anti-modern oath in his hands. ”

Abbé Christian Bouchacourt †, Superior of the District of France of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X

Sources : Fideliter n ° 237 of May-June 2017 – The Latin Gate of June 8, 2017



In Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984,” a tyrannical government has teams of censors scour all written media for any trace of ideas which run contrary to the Party line, and when they find it, they toss it down the “memory hole.”  By doing so, remembrance of any such contrarian ideas soon disappear from the collective consciousness of society, and the threat of destabilization such contradictions pose to the current positions of the Party vanish.

In modern times, a similar technique was actually employed within the Church itself: After Vatican II, the triumphant “archaeologists” condemned by Pius XII vetted the Denzinger (i.e., A chronological sourcebook of Catholic dogmas, which shows their development from the early Church to the present): They went through it and expunged centuries of doctrinal development in order to return to the primitive Church, and “re-develop” doctrine in a direction compatible with the errors of Vatican II.

Something similar is now being practiced in Menzingen, as evinced by Fr. Bouchacourt’s interview in the opening paragraph above (quoting the Archbishop from 1980): We will excise from the public conversation all references to Archbishop Lefebvre’s post-consecratory intransigence with regard to the impossibility of any deal with unconverted Rome, go back to the days of his earlier diplomacy, and thereby maintain -dishonestly- that we have not departed from his position.  After all, look, we are using his own words!

Imagine if one did the same thing to St. Augustine, citing his early Tractates, but deliberately omitting reference to his own later corrections in the Retractationes.  In that case, would one truly understand St. Augustine’s positions?  No.

There was a brief time in 2012 when, instead of reverting to its own version of archaeologism, Menzingen actually tried to contradict the Archbishop (e.g., I am thinking of Fr. Simoulin’s “We Can’t be 88’ers Anymore”).  That approach at least had the virtue of honesty, albeit accompanied by open revolt against the founder.  But that approach was a little too honest, and completely flopped, sounding the alarm and waking the zombies in the pews to the deviations of a conciliatory SSPX.  Hence, that approach was quickly abandoned in favor of the present strategy.

“We have always been at war with Eurasia, er, Eastasia!”

The next few paragraphs of Fr. Bouchacourt cover the founding of the SSPX and its purpose.  The commentary frames this apostolate within the confines of legalism, referencing the Society’s initial legal approval, and stressing that this foundation was therefore done consistent with the spirit of the Church.

A trace of legalism is implicit here, because reference to the canon law amidst a state of universal grave public spiritual necessity is impertinent (i.e., out of place): There is a duty in charity and in justice to supply for the needs of the faithful whatever the positive law of the Church may or may not allow in normal times (Suarez), and hence to seek support for one’s actions in the canon law in the first instance is already to have gone astray.  The SSPX used to promote that position, as can be seen in the classic SiSiNoNo article “The 1988 Consecrations: A Theological Study”

The same can be said for the gratuitous reference to the “spirit of the Church,” which certainly recalls the “Romanitas” articles of Fr. Simoulin (as though those who did not want a legal agreement with unconverted Rome were to be accused of not having a proper love of the Church; an accusation formerly waged by the FSSP against the SSPX, and now by the SSPX against the Resistance).

After recalling the duty of the Society to denounce the errors which threaten souls, the mandate to do so is placed within the context of the 2012 General Chapter declaration (which itself agreed to enter into a practical accord with unconverted Rome, pending the accomplishment of six limp conditions).  The attempt is to portray the 2012 Declaration as having reaffirmed the mandate to condemn errors, and therefore not representing a departure from the SSPX’s previous positions in other aspects (e.g., the 2006 General Chapter Declaration, which stated no practical accord until the doctrinal issues are resolved in Rome).

In the penultimate paragraph, Fr. Bouchacourt declares the SSPX will never lessen its duty to condemn errors, and yet he seems to be delusional or dishonest in not recognizing what the rest of the world (particularly Rome) clearly acknowledges: The SSPX itself has already admitted to a branding campaign which has as its stated purpose to do precisely that!  To speak more positively, and less negatively about the errors ravaging souls, and thereby appease Rome, is precisely what the branding campaign of Fr. Wegner is all about!

To win a juridical recognition by modernist Rome, one must first cease attacking them (Else how can they grant it without losing face?  How can the SSPX stand shoulder to shoulder with the modernists they are condemning?).

Fr. Bouchacourt would understand that, and consequently I am not to be accused of rash judgment.  Did not Bishop Fellay allow the letter from Rome in the Cor Unum to urge all SSPX priests to focus less on doctrinal negativity, and more on prayer and the spiritual life?  Did not Fr. de Cacqueray have to go around Menzingen, and do what it would not, in order to condemn the scandalous Assisi abomination?

Then what good are these words of fr. Bouchacourt?