Monthly archives: May, 2017

Open Letter to Fr. Christian Bouchacourt (SSPX French District Superior)


Fr. Nicolas Pinaud, USML



Dear Father-

Your reaction to the declaration of seven of your ten deans on Sunday, May 7, has incited me to write to you publicly because it reminds me of the facts and attitudes I had hoped to have definitively left behind since the masquerade of my ecclesiastical trial.

“You condemn and reject completely and firmly the subversive way in which this statement was circulated.”

You will describe it in detail: – Preparation in secret – selection of confreres – surprise and destabilization of superiors – taking the faithful hostage – judgment of superiors.

Your prose reminds me of that of the Secretary General in his circular of 7 March 2013:

“… a handful of priests determined to make the Brotherhood explode …” or, more recent, the words of Abbé Berteaux in his sermon of April 24, 2016, claiming the post of executioner for the Abbe Roy, who had expressed his anxiety. “Yes, I’m worried. Many priests, like me, are worried. If we have so far kept the silence, it is always in this hope that those leaders who direct us at this time can find the way, can rediscover the light.”

Will not you disagree when you so brutally overwhelm these seven deans. Seven Deans! Would the appointments be so unsound that seven revolutionaries have been invested with this function?

Do you know them?

Fr. Aldalur never ceased to show the greatest respect for Bishop Fellay, who presided over the festivities of the 25 years of his school in 2014. He reserved for him a triumphant reception in Lourdes for the pilgrimage of 2015, and also on the occasion of the pilgrimage to Le Puy in 2016.  At present, he is spending all his time on the installation of the SSPX in its new Basque acquisition.

Fr. Beauvais silently submitted to his last changes without ignoring their motivation.

Fr. Camper is spending body and soul for the new installation of the FSSPX in Lyon.

Are not the Abbé France and the Abbe Legrand models of discretion and sacerdotal devotion?

Can one be more respectful and obedient than Fr. Gaudray? He is one of those who, in the past, went to Menzingen to express their concerns. At the end of my Austrian detention, he advised me to do everything to avoid leaving the SSPX. “At least let us save the appearance of unity,” he told me.

As for the Abbe de la Roque, he was one of the four theologians chosen by Bishop Fellay [to participate in the doctrinal discussion of 2009-2011 -SP], a sign of his competence and of the confidence which the Superior General displayed in him. The two Dominicans of Brignoles still remember that the Abbot de la Roque refused them Communion on the grounds that they had perjured themselves by leaving their community.  Recently, questioned by Martial Bild, Fr. de la Roque recalled the rules of obedience to the Superior General, whom he defended vigorously.

Truly, all are examples of respectful submission. There is no shadow of a rebel among these confreres.

But if there is a real question that arises, it is this: How could such confreres have succeeded in publicly opposing what the superiors seek to impose on them unjustly?

The problem is not the secrecy. Secrecy, moreover, which is very relative, since the Abbe de la Roque had asked you for straightforward and clear explanations for several weeks, and had warned you that, without an answer, he would provide the explanations himself. Reading Chardonnet n ° 326 of March 2017 could not leave you of illusion on this subject:

“As far as any satire, it would be indispensable to question Pope Francis on the content of his faith, even before considering the prudential appropriateness of a canonical recognition. For it can not depend on the divine will for one to place his salvation eternal in the dependence of someone who does not profess the Catholic faith. To establish a legal unity without real unity would be a contradiction.”

These words have a price to pay!

Moreover, we learn that Fr. de la Roque had warned you of this declaration before it was made public, and had even indicated to you the names of those who subscribed to it.  This allowed you time to contact each of the signatories without being able to convince a single one to renounce it. It must be noted that the argument of authority is exhausted. All that remains is the solution advocated by Fr. Berteaux:

“When there is mutiny, these are the martial laws – it is the exceptional court – it is necessary to cut in the life- we shoot on the field!”

For two and a half years, with a suppleness that had to be challenging, you endeavored to make believe that the unity of spirits reigned in the district of France. This illusion was shattered Sunday May 7, 2017.

What is the problem? It is very simple: it is the accusatory inversion of subversion. You are guilty of that of which you accuse your confreres.

Who is subversive?  Not these deans who are of a measured and respectful style, but above all, Bishop Fellay and his accomplices who defend him against the evidence. You are inexcusable because you attended the 2012 Chapter. You heard it, maybe even listened to, the statement of the Fr. de Jorna.

I am wondering if servility would not be one of the major selection criteria to become District Superior?

As for the issue of subversion, it was dealt with in detail during my trial and has never been disproved to date. (Pp. 247-255).

You write: “God can not bless such an initiative whose deadly fruits are now manifesting themselves.”  Are you so sure of yourself, to the point of knowing the divine judgment, in this affair? As for your “From now on”, who are you making fun of? It will be seven years since Msgr. De Galarreta warned you in Albano, you were there, that it was necessary “to close as soon as possible the ‘pandora’s box’ [negotiating for a practical accord with unconverted Rome -SP] for the good of the Brotherhood, in order to avoid the discredit and the demolition of authority, disputes and divisions, perhaps without return.”

You reproach these deans for not having had the prudence to submit their text to their superiors. We are no longer in 2012 or 2013. This invitation to trust was inaudible that it was disregarded. The Cor Unum of March 2016 acknowledged a “mistrust of our members, not only of the authorities of the official Church (!), but also to their own superiors. It seems to us that often these attitudes, somewhat desperate, from personal injury, frustration, disappointments with regard to superiors…”

Should we see in these deans, seven desperate, seven wounded, seven frustrated, seven disappointed?

Would not the pilot survey, announced in the same Cor unum, have reached its goal? For you are not unaware that the seven signatories were not the only ones informed. Tomorrow, it is not impossible that you are confronted with a declaration of priors expressing their support to the seven deans, and the day after tomorrow, confronted with a declaration of vicars in solidarity with their Priors and their deans; the day after, we should not even exclude a declaration of support from the Brothers … Are you even certain that your own house in Suresnes
Does not harbor some subversive spirit?

As long as you persist in holding as nothing the content of this declaration and to despise it as “an insignificant thing, good only to be thrown away,” you never find unity – except by expelling all the priests who maintain “that it can not the divine will to put one’s eternal salvation under one who does not profess the Catholic faith.”

Two of the superiors of communities you overwhelm without the slightest authority over them, have undoubtedly not forgotten what they heard at Menzingen, during a respectful visit of confidence: “We know there will be breakage, but we will go all the way.”

In your letter of May 10, you dare write “that the end does not justify the means. An illegitimate means can not be used to attain a good end.”

Ignorant of what your superiors are capable of? Among other means, would identity theft be a legitimate means?

A few weeks after being placed under house arrest in Jaidhof, the Abbe de Cacqueray invited me to be very careful: “They are capable of anything to destroy your reputation.” I leave it to you to identify who “they” are. But unfortunately I personally found that you yourself were not entirely innocent in this area.

There is still much to be said, but to conclude, allow me to relate some of the words you spoke at Bailly on 11 October 2014 on the occasion of the Days of Tradition. This was one of your first interventions as a superior of the district of France; It is still available on La Porte Latine (54 ’51’ ‘).

It is not a monument of ecclesiastical literature, you will agree, but nevertheless these words sums up your attitude so well as to justify saving them from oblivion:

“I beg you to believe that the Fraternity does not give up fighting … Do not listen to birds of misfortune. …
The day when the Fraternity will say to you: ‘The Council after all is not that bad.’
The day the Fraternity will tell you: ‘the new Mass if it is well celebrated, go ahead.’
On the day when she says: ‘Religious liberty has been misunderstood, we must modulate all that has been said’
So throw away the camp and abandon the Fraternity as soon as possible. But we are absolutely not there thanks to God, and I am sometimes worried about seeing some people who live in the virtual:
– ‘The Brotherhood will betray’
– Give me an example. Are your priests silent?
– ‘No, but they could’!
With that one is beautiful! You know, one day I had a parishioner who belonged to the resistance, over there (in South America) I betrothed him. One day he arrives with his fiancée, a tall fellow.
– ‘Here, I want to talk to you both’
They come before me and then I say to the fiance and his fiancée was there:
– ‘Say, I have a question for you, but please, Miss. It seems that you deceive your fiancee ‘
He becomes pale.
– ‘If, I assure you, I have heard about it it, you cheat your fiance’
The fiancé became livid.
“But finally the Abbe, why do you tell me that?”
‘I’ll tell you why?’ You see, for months, you say that my Society to which I belong is in an adulterous position, that she is about to give up the fight.  Well you see it’s disagreeable that I tell you that you might be unfaithful to your fiancee.  Well it is very disagreeable to me that you say without proof that my Society is on the point of abandoning the fight ‘  The poor old man, he found a little color because he realized that what I had said was just one example.
I implore you: the district must regain its unity … “

Without proof? Are you really honest or just amnesic?

Did not Bishop Fellay say that the Council was 95% acceptable?

Did not Bishop Fellay acknowledge the legitimacy of the promulgation of the new Mass?  To recognize the new Mass as legitimate means that the new Mass is not bad in itself. [Note: This is not necessarily true.  “Legitimate” has several meanings and is itself ambiguous, which is why Rome and Menzingen used it in the Doctrinal Declaration, so each side could apply its own meaning to satisfy its own consituents -SP]

Did not Bishop Fellay sign in his answer of April 14, 2012 to the three bishops: “In the Society, we are making the errors of the Council into ‘superheries,’ it becomes like absolute evil, worse than anything, In the same way that the liberals have dogmatized this pastoral council.”

Let us quote Fr. Pflüger, in his memorable recollection of the Brothers: “In the Creed, one does not profess that one renounces Vatican II and religious liberty! ”

Is it sufficient or do we have to multiply examples and quotations? Yesterday was your fiancé wrong to worry as your deans and others do today?

You answer the accusations of adultery against the Society of Saint Pius X by a false example of infidelity which should not convince any of your deans.

Should we not rather inquire, Father, whether you would not be a real deceived husband?


Samuel Loeman Creates New Blog: Tradidi

“When in 2015 the first Archbishop Lefebvre Forum disappeared from the web without a trace, it left behind a hole in the online Trad world. Someone made a rather poor attempt to fill this vacuum, but very quickly his forum became a magnet for pseudo-sedes and gossiping women, who were being made most welcome by the moderator. So I decided to try and do better, by launching

Initialliy the ablf3 forum did very well, with quite a few people making a real effort to raise the bar. We had a drop in numbers when some of Fr. Pfeiffer’s cult followers were booted out because of their dishonesty, and when the other cult followers subsequently decided to leave of their own accord and gather elsewhere. But as the numbers dropped the quality of the forum went up considerably, and for a while, if I may believe the feedback I received, the forum was very useful to quite a few people.

Until a few months ago, it became clear that through lack of serious contributions the forum had become a work of mainly two regular contributors. At the same time I noticed that a certain “forum with a US postal attitude” had also experienced a drop in good quality mail and an increase in “junk mail”. From this I conclude that many serious Catholics either have switched off their computer altogether, or decided to just “go with the flow” (i.e. downstream), or at least to let others do the work.

…a few people made an attempt to unite and strengthen the Resistance by launching a newsletter, by and for the Resistance. Unfortunately, despite the positive feedback after the first issue, it turned out that once again very few people turned up for the “working bee”. And since I have no intention to follow the bad example of another newsletter, i.e. of becoming a one man show, that project with great potential has now been all but abandoned.

So I decided to stop flogging a dead horse and to turn off my computer as well.

However, quite a few people contacted me asking me…to keep fighting. Among them were a few priests, one of whom asked me to come back and to turn the forum into a blog…his advice was “what cannot be changed must be endured”, or in the words of St. Thomas More : “You must not abandon the ship in a storm because you cannot control the winds. What you cannot turn to good, you must at least make as little bad as you can.” And this is the reason why I started this website : to try and help others make the best of a bad situation…

With this website then I will try to collect, translate and organize whatever I believe will be useful for Traditional Catholics in general, and the Resistance priests and laity in particular. Over the coming weeks I will try and recover the best posts and articles of the ablf3 forum and make them available on this website. I am open to suggestions or requests anyone may have, and I am especially open to people wanting to lend a hand (although I won’t be holding my breath). There are plenty of ways in which others can help : from giving feedback to passing on news and even writing articles or letters. Whether many people will pitch in or not, I will try my best not to be found sitting on my behind when Our Lord returns and calls each one of us to account for our time.”

Samuel Loeman

26 May, 2017

The SSPX Marriage Affair: What’s It All About? (Part I)


“Benoit Parvulus”

May 19, 2017

[Google Translation]

On the 7th of May, a divergence appeared among the clergy of the Tradition. This dissension is beyond the scope of the SSPX alone, since the three superiors of the three communities usually used the sacred bishops of Bishop Lefebvre. The divergence, undoubtedly deep and ancient, certainly focused on the alteration of the relations between the movements faithful to Tradition and an ever more modernist Rome. This divergence was revealed in a Roman text published on April 4, dealing with the conditions of validity Marriages between faithful usually using the SSPX ministry.

As is often the case in these cases, the passions are inflamed, as can be seen from the regrettable reactions which took place during the Mass on Sunday, May 14th, in Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet, following the brutal dismissal of the Abbot of La Rocque de His office as “parish priest”. Paradoxically, these passions seem to be stirred up by the very authorities of the SSPX, who, refusing to communicate on the substance of the problem in order to clarify it, deal only with the form of this dissension, acting as the sole pontificate of “revolutionary methods”. Wishing to go beyond this passionate context, I was enlightened by priests, including a canonist. They have corrected and annotated the lines below, although the last paragraphs remain entirely mine.

In this first article, I will address the question of marriage, leaving to later the even more sensitive question of the nature of the relations of the movements of Tradition with a Rome remaining anchored in modernism.


Marriage, between the natural institution and the sacrament

Of the seven sacraments founded by Christ, marriage is the only one in which our Lord took a pre-existing institution to elevate it to the rank of sacrament. From the Eucharist there was nothing before the Holy Thursday if not of the annunciating figures in the Old Testament, and thus of the other sacraments. But as for marriage, before being elevated to the rank of sacrament by Jesus Christ, it was instituted by God Himself at the time of creation. Marriage, therefore, is primarily a matter of natural law, in other words, the divine laws which God laid down in his created work.

Precisely because they come from God, no one can go against these natural laws. Thus, God did not contradict Himself, He Himself respected them when He transfigured human marriage to make it, among baptized, the effective sign of the love uniting Christ and His Church. In its turn, the Church had to respect the natural right of the faithful to marriage when, with the Council of Trent, it was to establish the canonical form of the sacrament of marriage. The Church knew that it did not have the power to limit excessively the natural right of the faithful to marriage by imposing conditions on its celebration which might make the use of this right difficult. And it is for this purpose that besides the canonical form of marriage, she also planned a celebration according to the extraordinary form. This can be found in the old code of canon law in canon 1098, in the code of 1983 in canon 1116.


Canonical form and extraordinary form of the sacrament of marriage

In order to avoid clandestine marriages which impeded the unity of marriage, the Council of Trent in its Tametsi decree imposed for the validity of the sacrament that the exchange of consents should henceforth be pronounced before at least two lay witnesses and one Priest having jurisdiction, namely the parish priest or a priest explicitly delegated by him for this purpose. Thus appeared what has since been called the canonical form of marriage.

Knowing, however, that it can not absolutely confine the sacrament of marriage within this binding framework without in some cases jeopardizing the natural right of its faithful to marriage – a right which it must respect – the Church adds that, Of grave inconvenience to resort to this canonical form, the future married couples are exempt from it. The Church then recognizes as valid and lawful the exchange of consents celebrated before the lay witnesses alone. However, if a priest can be present at this exchange of consent without canonical form, it must be present (CIC 1917, can. 1098 § 2). To this right of the faithful corresponds therefore a duty of the priest, of every priest, to attend this exchange of consents. He then attended as his first witness, without having any jurisdiction for that, whether ordinary, delegated or substitutes.

Concerning the use of this extraordinary form of the sacrament of marriage, voices were heard during the preparation of the Second Vatican Council to restrict its use. They wished to condition him to a prior recourse to the Ordinary, in other words, to the diocesan bishop. But the Church considered that to put this new condition to the use of the extraordinary form was contrary to the very reason of the latter, namely the respect of the natural right of the faithful to marriage. This request was rejected and the right of the Church in its reform of 1983 retained the norms of the old canon 1098, which became Canon 1116. This refusal of modification amounts to recognizing that no Ordinary, He is ordinary of the place (diocesan bishop) or Ordinary religious (Superior General or Superior General of a congregation), can not claim to have control over this natural right of the faithful.


Marriages in the Tradition and the case of conscience of the priests

For all the faithful who habitually use the priests of the SSPX or equivalent, the serious disadvantage allowing the use of the extraordinary form for the marriage is quite obvious. It was in the usual way that they felt obliged to protect themselves from an ecclesiastical authority whose ministry seriously undermines the good of the faith. Moreover, both the “authorized comment” published by the General House of the SSPX and the “letter to the faithful” of the seven deans acknowledge this state of necessity, albeit in different terms. It seems to be recognized by all the clergy of Tradition, whatever the nature of the divergences, the right of the faithful to use the extraordinary form of marriage.

The novelty brought by the “permissible comment” of the Generalate is to make the use of this right depend on the faithful to have recourse to the bishop of the place. The authorities of the FSSPX intend to ask their priests to use the extraordinary form only after having demanded a delegated jurisdiction from the local bishop. This comment indicates it twice: “There is no need to resort to a state of necessity … unless the bishop [of the place] opposes the new provisions by refusing the requested delegation [ By the priests of the SSPX]. And a little further on: “No doubt that, if the Ordinary refused and appointed a delegated priest, [v] and to grant the necessary faculties directly to the priest of the Fraternity, he would validly celebrate Virtue of this state of necessity. ”

From the point of view of the law, the provisions which the General House of the SSPX intends to impose on its priests, and moreover through an unsigned text and therefore of no legal value, are contrary to the general law of the Church . The pressure exerted in this direction by his priests seems therefore to amount to an abuse of power, the Superior General arrogating to himself a power which he does not have, namely to make the use of the extraordinary form of marriage Of a prior recourse to the Ordinary, which the universal Church refused to do in its right.



In this respect, the letter of the seven deans of France may take on a different tone. Rather than being regarded as a subversive revolt against their superiors, these seven deans would only say the present state of necessity, recall the right which ensues for the faithful for the use of the Form an extraordinary form of marriage, and renew their commitment to correspond to this right, as explicitly requested of them by the Church (CIC 1983 Can. 1116 §2).

The seven deans, in all respect for the authorities of the FSSPX, not mentioned in their text, would have made the choice of obedience to the canonical norms of the Church rather than an anonymous text emanating from their General House, In the face of the pressure that ensued in praxis.

The virulent reaction of the authorities of the SSPX, as probably the letter of the seven deans, suggests that the issue is not limited to the question of marriages. Undoubtedly the Roman authorities have used this practical question of marriages in Tradition as a general rehearsal of a potential canonical recognition of the SSPX in personal prelature. Therefore, through the letter of the deans on the one hand, the reaction of the authorities of the SSPX on the other hand, there are two radically different visions which would be opposed as to the nature of the relations to be with the Rome of today ‘hui. The exposition of this second divergence will undoubtedly be the subject of a next article.

Benoit Parvulus



1 The canonical form of marriage is to be distinguished from the sacramental form of marriage. The latter is the exchange of consents, while the canonical form covers the legal conditions for the exchange of consents, otherwise it would be considered invalid.

2. Before the Council of Trent, somebody in bad faith could, for example, marry validly but secretly, and then contract another marriage with great pomp, which appeared to be the first, and therefore valid, It was not. This problem, which was classical before the Council of Trent, makes the intrigue of Chevalier Didaco and his wife Violente, with the Italian Matteo Brandello (I, 42) and the Frenchman Pierre Boaistuau (5th tragic story).

3. There is therefore a lack of precision and a small canonical error when, in the number of articles or interventions emanating from the Tradition, the substitute court is called upon to receive consents of marriage in extraordinary form.

4. On this point, the “Letter to the faithful” of the seven deans of France is in fact true, in fact only taking note in his note 9 of the very detailed study by André Sale, La forma straodinaria e il minro Della celebrazione del matrimonio secondo il codice latino e orientale, Editions Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, Rome 2003

5. This text remains vague as to this delegated priest: is it a priest of Tradition, a diocesan priest, a priest Ecclesia Dei? Nothing is said.

Petition to Bishop Fellay and Ecclesia Dei Exceeds 500 Signatories (and Counting)

The following letter and petition appeared on on 5/13 as an initiative of French District SSPX laymen, in response to the Society’s scandalous acceptance of the “pastoral guidelines” regarding the subjugation of SSPX marriages to the authority of modernist/conciliar officials.

Now extending well beyond the borders of the French District, the petition has received in excess of 500 signatures (at the time of this post) from all over the world.  That number is not insignificant (and will continue to grow over the next 30 days, after which it will be presented to Bishop Fellay and Ecclesia Dei).  When one considers that perhaps 50% of the signatories are attached to supportive families (i.e., rather than single laymen), the actual number of lay supporters is probably somewhere in the realm of 3,000 +/-.

The Sodalitium Pianum blog supports not only the 7 French District priests (and 3 French religious communities) who opposed Menzingen’s acceptance of the “pastoral guidelines,” but also the authentic “Catholic Action” of these French laymen, who are now receiving support for their initiative all over the world.

Please go to this website and sign the petition:

PS: tracks and limits signatures by IP address, so there are few (if any) duplicates



As laymen faithful to the Society of Saint Pius X and to the the struggle of its founder, Archibishop Marcel Lefebvre [1], we declare the following:

–  We wholeheartedly and faithfully adhere to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary for the maintenance of that faith ; to eternal Rome, teacher of wisdom and truth.

– On the contrary, we deny ourselves and we have always refused to follow Rome with a neomodernist and neoprotestant tendency, which was clearly manifested in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms that arose from it.

This modernist Rome has not ceased to attack the true institution of marriage [2]. Vatican II has reversed the ends of marriage, whose first aim is no longer the procreation and education of children but “the self-fulfillment of the spouses” [3]. Many “conciliar” bishops and priests nowadays tolerate and even advise practicing contraception.

Let us remember principally that, on August 15, 2015, by the Motu Proprio Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus [4] for the Latin Church and Mitis et Misericors Jesu for the Eastern Churches, Pope Francis established a kind of “Catholic divorce” in the Church [5]. Since then, any bishop can “annul” any marriage under various misleading pretexts. The new cancellation procedure provides for a 30-day free express examination by only a possibly secular judge appointed by the Ordinary Bishop. The burden of proof is for the defense, which means concretely that at the beginning of the proceeding marriage is presumed void !

Let us also remember that Francis accepts that communion be given to divorced persons who married again.

These destroyers of marriage who claim, according to the words of Cardinal Muller [6] “contribute to reassure the conscience of the faithful,” can not be the judges of our unions.

That is why we affirm our firm rejection that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X recourse to the bishops of the dioceses for our future marriages [7]. We want to safeguard our families for the salvation of our souls and those of our children. Archibishop Lefebvre preserved and left us as an inheritance the greatness and fidelity of the ancient Christian marriage. The faithful are the first concerned with the new marriage legislation proposed by Rome to Society of St. Pius X. We formally oppose it.

This letter will presented to Bishop Fellay and to Ecclesia Dei Commission on June 20th 2017.


Excommunication of Bishop Zendejas: A Badge of Honor

Statement from the Most Reverend Michael F. Burbidge on the Consecration of Father Gerardo Zendejas, Member of an Independent Church–burbidge-on-the-consecration-of-father-gerardo-zendejas,-member-of-an-independent-church/



On May 11, 2017, at the St. Athanasius church in Vienna, Virginia, Bishops Richard Williamson, Jean-Michel Faure and Tomas de Aquino will consecrate Father Gerardo Zendejas a bishop of a schismatic community, that is, a group that refuses to submit to the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman Pontiff.

St. Athanasius is not a church in communion with the Roman Catholic Church or the Diocese of Arlington, and its clergy do not lawfully celebrate the sacraments in the Diocese of Arlington. As the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington, I cannot and will not recommend or condone attendance at St. Athanasius at any time for anyone in communion with the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Catholic Church.

Bishop Williamson was expelled from the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in 2012. Since that time he has affiliated himself with an independent church formed by groups around the country. While authoritative information about these groups is incomplete, it appears that they are currently in schism from the Catholic Church, refusing to submit to the authority of Pope Francis, the legitimately elected and governing Successor of Saint Peter. Under church law, “schism” refers to a refusal to submit to the Pope or a withdrawal from communion with the members of the Church subject to him (Canon 751).

The illicit consecration of a bishop is an act of grave disobedience, a wounding of the unity of the Church and a source of serious scandal. Canon law states, “A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae [that is, automatic] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See” (Canon 1382). Since Bishop Williamson previously consecrated Bishop Faure and Bishop Tomas without a mandate from the Holy See, these three bishops who plan to participate in the consecration scheduled to take place on May 11 have each already incurred excommunications under Canon 1382.

Please join me in praying that all those involved in this illicit episcopal consecration may, through Our Lady’s intercession, return to full unity with the Catholic Church.


Chronology of the Internal Resistance Uprising in France

The following chronology is excerpted from a private email which I distributed amongst approximately 50 friends and allies, clerical and lay, yesterday, concerning the recent opposition of 7 deans of the SSPX French District, and the superiors of the three allied French monasteries of Bellaigue (Benedictine), Morgon (Capuchin), and the Transfiguration, to Menzingen’s acceptance of the “pastoral guidelines” of Pope Francis regarding the subjection of SSPX marriages to diocesan control and authority.

We will continue to update it as events unfold.


3/27/17: Cardinal Gerhard Muller authorizes “pastoral guidelines” for marriages in SSPX chapels, which envisage that “Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite…”

4/4/17: The pastoral guidelines are published by Rorate Coeli, and ignite an instantaneous firestorm (even amongst conservative/indult media outlets like The Remnant):

4/4/17: Rather than rejecting this interference and entanglement with diocesan authorities, the SSPX “conveys its deep gratitude to the Holy Father for his pastoral solicitude.”

4/16/17: Fr. Phillipe Francois in his Easter Sunday sermon denounces both the pastoral guidelines on marriage specifically, and the ralliement movement generally, and exhorts Menzingen to return to the path of Archbishop Lefebvre.  I am not aware of any public updates regarding Fr. Francois’ fate since this sermon was given.

4/18/17: Attempting to justify support for these pastoral guidelines, GREC collaborator (and former SSPX Communications Director) Fr. Lorans, publishes a bizarre account titled “The Adventure of Georges” which depicts the psychological evolution of “Georges” who has benefited from all the concessions Rome has made to the SSPX since the ralliement began.  He is now at peace.  For the original DICI publication, as well as some insightful responses to this fictitious account, please see the French Resistance forum here:

5/7/17: French media outlet publishes a collaborative work of 7 of the 10 French District deans, and all three major French religious congregations: The Benedictines of Bellaigue, Capuchins of Morgon, and the Transfiguration, denouncing the acceptance of ordinary jurisdiction for SSPX marriages, and the pastoral guidelines generally.

5/7/17: Fr. Bouchacourt (SSPX French District Superior), at the direction of Menzingen, immediately denounces all 7 SSPX deans, and removes them all from their positions of leadership.

5/10/17: Fr. Bouchacourt addresses all the priests of the French District with an encyclical, and denounces the 10 signatories as “rebels” and “subversives.”  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

To date, I am not aware of a response from the 7 deans and 3 religious congregations to Fr. Bouchacourt.

Various SSPX priests, Resistance priests, and laymen have made responses (mostly in French).

If a response from the 7 deans is forthcoming, it will be posted here.

More Internal Resistance in France

Fr. Phillipe Francois (SSPX, France)

[That which follows is a surprisingly good Google Translation of a transcription of Fr. Phillipe Francois’ Easter Sunday sermon, in which he directly contradict’s Bishop Fellay’s August/2016 Australian conference contention that the prelature is not a trap, and exhorts Menzingen to return to the prudence of Archbishop Lefebvre regarding relations with Rome.

It also evinces that not all SSPX clergy have mush between their ears, and quivering goose flesh in their loins.  Not all have “succumbed to the siren song of legality” (as Dom Lorenco Fleischmann once put it).

It probably also evinces why internal resistance is always temporary: Menzingen is not likely to remain idle while “rebellion” (i.e., fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre) is fomented.  If Fr. Francois gave a sermon like this, it presumes he foresaw the danger, and was willing to let the chips fall where they may.

How can we do anything but commend and encourage him?



We propose you the transcription of the sermon delivered by Abbé Philippe François on the feast of Easter 2017, April 16, at the Monastery of Trévoux. The Abbot is the chaplain of the Little Sisters of St. Francis.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. So be it.

My reverend sisters,

My dear brothers,

Our Lord is risen. He was resurrected as he said: “Resurrexit sicut dixit”. And we will sing to the Creed just now: “And resurrexit tertia die secundum scripturas – He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures.” Saint John tells us in his first epistle: “This is the victory that has conquered the world, our faith” (John 5: 4). For if Christ is not risen as he predicted, our faith is vain; But he rose again on the third day. Only God is the master of life and death. He is risen, therefore He is God. And this is the proof of the divinity of our holy religion. It is the mystery of this Easter day, it is the joy of the alleluia. It must be the grace of Easter. What particular grace does it bring to our souls, as every feast? Well ! Is to strengthen our faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen our faith in the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen our faith in the social kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is true God and true Man. Because he is true Man, he could suffer and die. Because it is true God, he resumed his life offered to snatch us from the eternal hell. Therefore, Easter strengthens our faith in Our Lord, true King. And if our faith in Our Lord is fortified, thereby also strengthens our faith in His unique and beloved Bride, the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

And this is very necessary in the time of trial that we live.

A fortnight ago, as you learned, Rome gave certain conditions to the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (FSSPX) to make marriages. ” Good news ! “Said my cobbler,” we are approaching the exit of the tunnel. In reality, this jurisdiction is already given to us by the Church in the principles of law which apply in times of crisis, in the state of necessity in which we find ourselves. For nearly fifty years, marriages, which are made in the priories of the SSPX and in the Tradition, are valid. But if one accepts the decision of Rome, one must accept the new code of canon law and the conciliar tribunals that apply this new code. This new code destroys marriage. It changes the definition of marriage. This sacrament no longer has for the first purpose the procreation and the catholic education of the children, but it puts in the first end the good understanding of the spouses and their mutual support. And this definition, you see, has led to the declaration of tens of thousands of marriages for forty years, because, as the spouses no longer agreed, the conciliar ecclesiastical judges said that there had been no of marriage. And these declarations of invalidity of marriages, validly concluded and declared null, have been further accelerated by the procedure which the Pope himself established a year and a half ago and which facilitate them more .

This was a fortnight ago; And then nearly two years ago, it was the powers of confessing that were granted to the priests of the Fraternity, as if they had not yet had them. Now these powers of confessing validly, the Church gives them to your priests in crisis, because canon law provides in the exceptional circumstances that we live, the jurisdiction of substitution. Monseigneur Lefebvre often reminded us of one of the great principles of the Code of Canon Law of St. Pius X: “the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church.”

These two events and others show us that a process of canonical regularization has been under way since Benedict XVI and with Pope Francis vis-à-vis the SSPX, but also of the whole family of Tradition.

This canonical regularization process currently under way can be compared to the process of igniting a green wood log. When a log of green wood is thrown on the flame, it is incapable of catching fire, for there is an obstacle: it is the sap. Then the flame begins to lick the log to warm it and sap the sap. When the latter is out, the log ignites. Similarly, in our case, there would be an obstacle to canonical status, it is the reciprocal mistrust between the conciliar world and ourselves. The gestures of “benevolence” on the part of the pope have the role of bringing down this obstacle. These gestures do not formally imply a canonical dependence on the Roman authorities.[*] The obstacle of mistrust once it has fallen, the greater will not prevent the granting of the definitive status, which is the status of the personal prelature, which has been discussed for six years between the superiors of the SSPX and the Holy See. There would then be the granting of this personal prelature, this time with effective dependence of the Holy See. In particular, the bishop, superior of the personal prelature, will be appointed by the Pope and may therefore also be dismissed by the Supreme Pontiff.

Then the question arises: can we enter into such a canonical structure?

To answer this question, my dear brothers, we must ask ourselves whether the situation in Rome has changed to such an extent that today we could envisage a canonical solution, something that we consider impossible today. Alas! We have to admit that nothing essential has changed. The acts of the Pope are increasingly serious. The accumulation of scandals during the four years of his pontificate makes us think that with him modernism became flesh. The reaction of some conservative cardinals or prelates, if it is courageous and deserves to be hailed, this reaction does not call into question the principles of the crisis; On the contrary, we always cling to the Second Vatican Council, well interpreted so-called by Pope Benedict XVI. The attitude of the Holy See to what is traditional is not benevolent, far from it. The experience of the Franciscans of the Immaculate reminds us of this, as well as the treatment of Cardinal Burke and the other cardinals who opposed the synodal declaration on the family “Amoris laetitia” . Finally, Rome’s demands on us are basically always the same. It is necessary, even if asked with less insistence, to accept the council with its religious freedom, ecumenism and collegiality.

So what are precisely the foundations of our previous refusals of an agreement with Rome? More precisely, can we accept an agreement with a neo-modernist Rome? Such acceptance would lead us into conciliar pluralism. It would silence our attacks on modern errors and put our faith in a near danger. Consequently, the canonical solution can only be envisaged with a doctrinally converted Rome, which will have proved its conversion by working for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and by fighting against the opponents of this reign.

By placing ourselves in the hands of the Roman authorities, we would jeopardize our particular good, no less than the common good of the Church.

Our particular good first: for we are responsible for our soul and therefore for our faith. Now, without faith, one can not be saved (Heb. 11: 6) and no one can discharge himself from this responsibility over others.

Second, we would jeopardize the common good of the Church. Indeed, we are not masters of faith in the sense that we can not change it at our will. Faith is the good of the Church, for it is by faith that she lives by the life of her divine Spouse. Faith is a common good not only because it is common to all Catholics, but also because it is necessary that everyone should cooperate, though not to the same extent for all, in order to preserve it. Confirmation makes you, my dear brothers, soldiers of Christ. Every Christian must be ready to expose himself to defend the faith. And the sacerdotal character, joined to the mission of the Church, gives priests the sacred duty of preaching it and defending it publicly by fighting error. We are in the militant Church, which is attacked on all sides by error. No longer publicly raising his voice against it is becoming his accomplice. And this is what we live in Tradition, especially since 2011. In 2011 the abominable scandal of Assisi was renewed and the authorities of the Fraternity, unfortunately, we deplore, have fallen silent. In 2015 there was the unthinkable canonization of John Paul II and the authorities of the Fraternity were silent.

So it is impossible today for us to put ourselves through a canonical solution in the hands of the neo-modernist authorities because of their neo-modernism. This is the real obstacle to our recognition by these authorities.

In so doing, mark it well, my dear brothers, far from calling into question the authority of the Pope, we are convinced that he will render him the first service, that of truth. By our prayers we beseech the Immaculate Heart of Mary to obtain the grace of doctrinal conversion from the Sovereign Pontiff so that he may “confirm his brethren in faith” (Luke 22:32). For we are Roman Catholics, we are Roman Catholics unwaveringly attached to the See of Peter, to the infallible teaching of all the successors of Peter until the Second Vatican Council. We are of eternal Rome, which is the irreconcilable enemy of neo-Protestant and neo-modernist Rome. There is no peace with the conciliar Church.

And we pray every day for the superiors of the SSPX so that they do not fall into the trap that is tended to our dear Brotherhood. Let them regain the prudence, the intrepidity, and the firmness of Monseigneur Lefebvre in his struggle for Christ the King!

So we can not – not possumus – enter into a canonical structure subjecting ourselves to a modernist authority.

We say this because it is our duty. What do you mean ?

It is our duty first of all towards our Lord and His Holy Church. We have no right to expose ourselves to making peace with those who betray them.

It is our duty then for ourselves, because we have our soul to save and can not be saved without integrity.

Finally, it is our duty to the faithful to use our ministry. We have no right to lead them slowly to the poisonous pastures of Vatican II.

My dear sisters, dear brothers, in the current turmoil and confusion, we must remain faithful to and adhere to authentic Catholic principles. And so that they may be the light that enlightens us and guides our steps, we must draw the practical consequences and apply them rigorously in our everyday life and in our daily attitudes. Coherence and non-contradiction are the logical consequence of full and complete adherence to the Truth, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ. As Cardinal Pius said, charity, which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by truth, and it is in this spirit of charity that we must act.

Then, on this Easter Sunday, the present hour is the hour of the beautiful virtue of hope, for we see, perhaps with more lucidity, the inadequacy of human means. But Our Lord today comes out of the tomb, as yesterday, and with him his Church!

May the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Holy Hope, who alone on Easter morning have kept hope, may the Holy Virgin Mary also maintain in our hearts the divine hope, Holy Hope, Which pleases God, that which will not be disappointed for eternity!

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. So be it.

[Transcription of Christian LASSALE for MPI]

[*] Be careful with this sentence.  The pastoral guidelines promulgated by Cardinal Muller (with the approval and permission of Pope Francis) most certainly do presume a canonical dependence of the SSPX upon the conciliar authorities, which consider as a norm the delegation of faculties by the local bishop to a “fully regular” priest to witness marriages in SSPX chapels “insofar as is possible.”