Translation courtesy of Samuel of ABLF3.com (Here):


Father Giulio Tam, a member of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X of Italian origin, who receives daily the “Osservatore Romano”, the official journal of the Roman Curia, has thought good, for the information of his confreres, to gather together the most significant passages from the discourses of the Pope and the Roman authorities about the most topical subjects.

The collection sheds such brilliant light on the doctrinal Revolution officially inaugurated in the Church during the Council and continued up to our days that one cannot help thinking of the “seat of iniquity” foretold by Leo XIII, or of Rome losing the faith foretold by Our Lady at La Salette.

The diffusion and adherence of the Roman authorities to the Masonic errors many times condemned by their predecessors is a great mystery of iniquity which ruins the Catholic faith in its foundations.

This harsh and painful reality obliges us in conscience to organize on our own the defense of our Catholic Faith. The fact of sitting in the seats of authority is no longer, alas, a guarantee of the orthodoxy of the faith of those who occupy them. The Pope himself now ceaselessly spreads the principles of a false religion, the result of which is a general apostasy.

We therefore give herewith the texts, without commentary, for the year 1990. Readers will be able to judge for themselves and by the texts of the Popes of before the Council.

Reading them amply justifies our conduct for the maintenance and restoration of the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Holy Mother on earth as in Heaven.

The restorer of Christianity is the priest, by offering the true sacrifice, by conferring true sacraments, by teaching the true catechism, by his role of vigilant shepherd for the salvation of souls.

It is around true and faithful priests that Christians must group themselves and organize the whole Christian life. All spirit of distrust towards the priests who merit confidence diminishes the solidity and the firmness of the resistance against the destroyers of the faith.

Saint John closes his Apocalypse by this appeal : “Veni Domine Jesu,” Come Lord Jesus, appear at length upon the clouds of Heaven, manifest Thine omnipotence. May Thy reign be universal and everlasting.

Écône, 4th March 1991

+ Marcel Lefebvre

 
 
 
Commentary:
 
This letter comes only a couple weeks after Archbishop Lefebvre had published Spiritual Journey (which Bishop Tissier de Mallerais called Archbishop Lefebvre’s “last will and testament” to the priests of the SSPX), and three short weeks before his death.
 
Prominent in that slim volume was the Archbishop’s contention that, “It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith” (p 13),” an idea which receives reinforcement in this handwritten letter: We must work outside Rome (de facto, and without denying Rome’s authority) in defense of the faith, until they return to it.
 
In this connection, one recalls the interview Archbishop Lefebvre had given 18 months earlier (one year after the episcopal consecrations), in which he said:
 
That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” (http://sspx.org/en/one-year-after-consecrations)
 
In combination with other post-consecratory interviews, conferences, and writings (such as the well known Fideliter interviews Here and Here), one senses in Archbishop Lefebvre an obsession with justifying the SSPX apostolate independent (de facto) of Rome.  It is almost as though he fears a weakness in his priests; a worry that perhaps they will be deceived by the siren song of legality after he dies.
 
This thought is not such a stretch, when one considers that Rome had desired to outlast Archbishop Lefebvre in all their rused negotiations prior to the 1988 consecrations.  Why did Rome think prospects for the capture of the SSPX would be better with the Archbishop out of the way?
 
Well, we know from Bishop Tissier’s “Biography” that not all the SSPX clergy were on board with Archbishop Lefebvre.  Bishop Tissier himself opposed the consecrations, and favored carrying on negotiations.
 
And Bishop Tissier says of Fr. Aulagnier (Former 1st Assistant to the Superior General and District Superior of France), that he was willing to trust in the course determined by Archbishop Lefebvre (which is not at all the same thing as believing Archbishop Lefebvre was correct).  
 
The fact of having high ranking authorities in the SSPX not on board with the Archbishop’s principles and wisdom was bound to result in betrayal eventually.
 
Consequently, we can see in July/1988, Fr. Aulagnier willing to sign the open letter of SSPX District Superiors to Cardinal Gantin, declaring their will not to be in communion with the conciliar church  (See Here).  Yet by 1992 (only one year after Archbishop Lefebvre’s death!), Fr. Michel Lelong (GREC member) quotes Fr. Aulagnier in his book “Towards a Necessary Reconciliation” as saying:
 
Beginning in 1992, as District Superior of SSPX in France, I was happy to initiate new contacts with recognized ecclesiastical authorities. One day, when passing by Randol . . . Abbot Dom de Lesquen was talking to a young man in the forecourt of the monastery. Knowing the role he had played with Dom Gérard during his rapprochement with Rome on July 10, 1988, I approached him and spoke with him . . . about the rapprochement with Rome, of a normalization of the SSPX with Rome . .” (p. 104)
 
It is not difficult to understand why, with this incomprehension or opposition to Archbishop Lefebvre’s position viv-a-vis Rome, Fr. Aulagnier would later be expelled for endorsing Campos’ 2002 capitulation, using arguments nearly identical to those now being used by Bishop Fellay, and Bishop Rifan and Dom Gerard before him (See Here).
 
The point being this: It is indisputable that many of those closest to Archbishop Lefebvre, and among the highest ranking officers in the SSPX (Fr. Bisig , formerly of the SSPX was also Assistant to the Superior General; Fr. Aulagnier was Assistant to the Superior General; Bishop Tissier opposed the consecrations; another who refused to attend the 1988 consecrations for moral reasons, later became a District Superior; etc.) did not agree with his position regarding Rome.  Yet they went along with him out of human respect while he was alive.
 
Very clearly Bishop Fellay is also among these.
 
 
 
 
print