A NOVUS ORDO WATCH SPECIAL REPORT
Quo Vadis, SSPX?
The Society of St. Pius X after the
Lifting of the “Excommunications” of 1988
Special Guest Commentary by Gregorius
used with permission
“The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she
is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity
of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly”
―St. Cyprian, cited by Pope Pius XI, Encyclical
Mortalium Animos, 1928, par. 10
“We must be on guard against minimizing these
[Traditionalist] movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian
zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too
―Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology
(Ignatius Press, 1987), pp. 389-90
On January 24, 2009—almost
exactly 50 years since the calling of Vatican II by John XXIII—, the Vatican
released a decree of the Congregation of Bishops, dated January 21, 2009 and
signed by “Cardinal” Battista Re on behalf of Benedict XVI, declaring that
the “excommunications” the four SSPX bishops had allegedly automatically
incurred in 1988, were being lifted. [Clarification: Gregorius says
“allegedly” as the New Church's canon law is null and void, and no Antipope
has the power to excommunicate anyone anyway.] The full text of the decree
of rehabilitation can be found here:
On May 20, 2005, about a month after the election of
Fr. Joseph Ratzinger as “Pope” Benedict XVI, Novus Ordo Watch published the
following prediction on its web site regarding Ratzinger's expected modus
operandi as chief modernist of the Vatican:
have hitherto been the last great resistance against the New Church's
complete destruction of Catholicism. In order to succeed fully in
implementing the New Religion, therefore, the Novus Ordo Church must once
and for all break down the traditional Catholic resistance. In what follows
we propose what we believe Benedict XVI has planned to bring about the
demise of Traditional Catholicism. We put these considerations before you
today, before the plan is carried out, that you may know to beware of the
great dangers ahead and identify them as such as they come to pass.
(1) Benedict XVI will seek
to destroy the traditional Catholic resistance not by attacking it, but by
neutralizing it: he will seek to undermine its reason for being.
As time goes on, Benedict XVI will bend over backwards to appear
conservative, even traditional; he will do everything in his power to
reconcile with and fully regularize the Society of St. Pius X and similar
traditionalist groups. He will allow all Novus Ordo priests to say the
traditional Mass and perhaps even command that the traditional Mass be said
on a regular basis in every Novus Ordo parish. (This reintroduction of the
traditional Mass in regular parish life will be absolutely essential.) He
will lure good-willed but confused and battle-weary traditionalists by
letting them voice their concerns concerning Vatican II and the New Mass and
fully accept their reservations concerning these. He may even reform the New
Mass into a more conservative liturgy. He will say that it is time to come
to the aid and comfort of the one faction in the Church still marginalized
and neglected for so long, namely, the traditionalists. He will pretend to
have an open mind and heart for them and do everything in his power to
regularize their status, with the ultimate goal of having all
traditionalists be part of the New Church, under the tacit banner, however,
of "unity in diversity."
(5) Benedict XVI will be
very successful in this endeavor. He will be successful mainly because many
traditionalists are tired of fighting. They are worn out from the battle.
They will welcome the illusion of a "traditional Pope" who will finally
"restore the Church." Benedict will take advantage of this unique moment.
As stated, Novus Ordo Watch published this prediction
before Fr. Ratzinger would do his damage, precisely so that
good-willed but battle-weary Traditionalists would not fall prey to the
snares of the man who has so often manifested his opposition to the True
Alas, not everyone has heeded the warning.
comes to Ratzinger's Defense
Christopher Ferrara, columnist for the pseudo-Traditionalist newspaper
The Remnant, is hailing the lifting of the excommunications as a
“courageous” and “decisive” act “in favor of Tradition” on the part of
Ferrara's pre-2005 misgivings about Ratzinger being an “ecclesial termite
... tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up”
The man he once sarcastically referred to as “our only friend in the
Vatican” is now—without having changed anything other than the color of his
clerical garb—the Great Restorer of Tradition!
The blindness of the pseudo-Traditionalists is
staggering. Ferrara wastes no time critiquing the position taken by Novus
Ordo Watch: “Nor can the Pope’s decision be dismissed by the usual
conspiracy-mongers as part of a sinister neo-Modernist plot to capture and
neutralize the Society.” Imagine that—a sinister neo-modernist plot against
the Church! Who in the last 50 years could possibly have thought of such an
idea?! It is hard to believe that the Remnant would seriously
criticize the very thing the effects of which they have been reporting in
their newspaper since its inception in 1967! What did the great Pope St.
Pius X do if not attempt to crush a sinister modernist plot bent upon
destroying the Church and neutralizing the Faith?
One cannot help but be shocked at the incredibly silly
and gullible position of Ferrara, who appears to have learned nothing from
50 years of modernism in action: “That the Holy Ghost is at work in our Pope
is seen in his decision, contrary to all worldly wisdom, to regularize the
Society despite the worldwide scandal caused by one of its bishops.”
Why is the Remnant showing such a colossal lack
of good judgment, having apparently let go of all defenses against the
snares of neo-modernism? Where is their understanding of the nature of
liberalism? Why are they so gaga over union with a modernist? Why do they
lose all common sense when they hear a concession concerning a “silent
apostasy” that comes from the lips of the very Great Apostate who was—to a
very large extent—responsible for it and its most driving force for nearly a
quarter of a century (John Paul II)?
However the case may be, after 20 years of canon-law
gymnastics, the Society of St. Pius X now no longer labors under the onerous
Novus Ordo censure of “excommunication,” one which, however, they always
considered null and void to begin with.
Some serious questions must now be asked: What
difference does this removal of the “excommunications” now make – to Rome,
and then to the SSPX? Is the SSPX now Novus Ordo? Is the SSPX now in “full
communion” with Ratzinger?
It is probably impossible to answer of all these
questions right now with certitude, especially as the New Church's novel
ecclesiology (doctrine on the church) as well as the SSPX's own ideas about
their union (or lack thereof) with Rome are both extremely vague, confusing,
and contradictory. What can be said with certitude at this point, however,
is that both the Vatican and the SSPX have a total mess on their hands.
Let me explain.
True and False Ecclesiologies: The
SSPX must now decide
The current situation
forces the SSPX to live up to its confused ecclesiology. Are they, or are
they not, in union with Rome? Do they, or do they not, even want to be
in union with Rome? Ah, but which Rome? Is it “Eternal Rome” or
“Neo-Modernist Rome,” as decried by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre? Which dogmatic
Catholic theology manual allows anyone to make such a distinction to begin
with? No, this time the SSPX will have to stop the ecclesiological nonsense,
which is reminiscent of the confused and heretical “partial communion”
ecclesiology of Vatican II. The question will be quite black-and-white: Will
you, or will you not, submit to Benedict XVI? The bizarre dances about just
being in union with the Catholic part of Benedict's brain will have to stop.
Affirming that Benedict XVI is a true Pope, as the SSPX has always done, has
its consequences, after all, and these consequences the SSPX will now have
to live up to.
At the same time, Rome has to answer the same question:
Is the SSPX a part of the New Church? Is it in “full communion” or just
“partial communion”? But if the communion is only partial, why are they then
not partially excommunicated? Doesn't a decree of “ex-communication,” at
least on the legal side of things, re-establish the very communion
out of which (“ex-”) the cleric was put? Or could it be that the penalty of
excommunication, a leftover from the True Church that the Vatican II Church
has decided to retain, simply does not fit the new ecclesiology of partial
vs. full communion?
To show what a difficult situation the SSPX now faces,
let us go back in history a bit and examine what the SSPX has said in the
past about its own excommunication and severance from Rome.
June 17, 1988, the Vatican, knowing of the impending episcopal
consecrations, sent an official “canonical warning” to Archbishop Lefebvre,
signed by “Cardinal” Gantin, in which it threatened to excommunicate the
bishops involved should they indeed proceed with the consecrations.
Disregarding the warning, on June 30, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. De Castro
Mayer went ahead with the consecrations as planned, and a day later, all six
bishops involved were declared excommunicated by the Vatican.
On June 30, during the consecrations, Abp. Lefebvre
gave a sermon in which he said: “There is no question of us separating
ourselves from Rome.... Far from us be this miserable thought of separating
ourselves from Rome! .... [W]e are convinced that all these accusations of
which we are the object, all penalties of which we are the object, are null,
absolutely null and void, and of which we take no account” (http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_v_1988_consecration_sermon.htm).
On July 6, no fewer than 24 high-ranking SSPX priests,
headed by Fr. Franz Schmidberger, then the Superior General of the Society,
signed and sent an open letter to “Cardinal” Gantin in which they declared:
“...[W]e have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the
Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missae, an
ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society.
Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the
religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or
of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this.
We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this
adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last
twenty-five years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of
this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord
Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain
faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman
To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six
Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness,
would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful.
They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are
not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution,
pentecostalism and syncretism.”
The foregoing speaks for itself. The SSPX does—and then
does not—belong to Rome. And then it does—and does not—even want to
belong to Rome. In fact, in their minds, Rome itself is divided into Eternal
Rome and Neo-Modernist Rome. With a completely novel ecclesiology, the SSPX
somehow manages to hold that Rome both is and isn't Catholic; that it is a
counterfeit church but still somehow the true Church; that the Pope is a
Modernist Ecumaniac but at other times the Holy Father to whom they profess
filial submission. In their minds, the Vatican itself has no power to
declare who is and isn't in communion with the Catholic Church. It is
perhaps ironic that Abp. Lefebvre detected two-sidedness in liberals but not
in his own position: “The liberal Catholic is two-sided; he is in a state of
continual contradiction” (Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
[Angelus Press, 1986], p. 149). In that sense, the SSPX has a lot in common
with liberals and even with the novel “partial communion” ecclesiology of
Can anyone make sense of the SSPX's absurd position?
Without intending in any way to judge the souls of those who profess this
position, it must be pointed out quite forcefully that such a position is in
no wise found in the traditional Catholic dogmatic manuals on ecclesiology,
and therefore the SSPX can hardly claim to be handing on the traditional
and true teaching of the Church in all its parts. The Catholic Church's
traditional ecclesiology and the SSPX's ecclesiological novelties are simply
irreconcilable. Bottom line: The SSPX's teaching on the Church is not
traditional but novel and erroneous. The SSPX has modified Church teaching
in order to make it fit the current situation. But this is surely an
exercise in futility: changing the Church's teaching in order to keep
Church teaching from being changed!
And what about the Vatican? The Vatican asserts that
Benedict XVI, out of the sheer goodness of his oh-so-benevolent heart,
having heard Bp. Bernard Fellay's alleged plea of unease about the
excommunications—which Fellay himself has been insisting for 20 years was
null and void—has decided to remove this most severe censure. The motive, so
the Vatican claims, is to “intensify and grant stability” to the
relationship between Rome and the SSPX and allow for greater confidence to
flourish between the two quarreling parties, as a “sign to promote unity in
the charity of the universal Church.”
Surely it will not be long before the first
“clarification” will have to be issued by Rome, as the January 21 decree
leaves, as usual, many questions open. In typical “Frankenchurch”-esque
fashion, Rome, though having lifted the excommunications, still insists that
the SSPX is not yet in “full communion” with Benedict XVI, and hopes that
this will soon be accomplished, “thus testifying true fidelity and true
recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the
proof of visible unity.”
Before John XXIII and Vatican II, there was no such
thing as “full communion” vs. “partial communion” with the Church; one was
either in communion with the Church or not, much as a woman can only be
either pregnant or not.
His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, taught quite clearly:
“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have
been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so
unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been
excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. 'For in one
spirit' says the Apostle, 'were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews
or Gentiles, whether bond or free.' As therefore in the true Christian
community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so
there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the
Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a
publican. It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be
living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its
one Divine Spirit.”
( Pope Pius XII,
Encyclical Mystici Corporis, 1943, par. 22;
No “partial communion” business here! The teaching of
the Pope is clear, and is entirely consistent with what his predecessors
taught, notably Pope Pius IX, who, convoking the First Vatican Council, sent
an Apostolic Letter to Protestants and schismatics, begging them to return
to the fold:
“Whoever thus gives proper attention and reflection to the situation which
surrounds the various religious societies, divided amongst themselves and
separated from the Catholic Church - which, without interruption, from the
time of Christ the Lord and of His Apostles, by means of her legitimate
sacred Shepherds, has always exercised, and exercises still, the divine
power conferred upon Her by the Lord - it will be easy to convince [them]
that in none of these societies, and not even in all of them taken together,
can in some way be seen the one and Catholic Church which Christ the Lord
built, constituted, and willed to exist. Neither will it ever be able to be
said that they are members and part of that Church as long as they remain
visibly separated from Catholic unity. It follows that such societies,
lacking that living authority established by God, which instructs men in the
things of the faith and in the discipline of the customs, directing and
governing them in all that concerns eternal salvation, they continuously
mutate in their doctrines without that mobility and the instability they
find one end. Everyone therefore can easily comprehend and fully reckon that
this is absolutely in contrast with the Church instituted by Christ the
Lord, in which the truth must always remain constant and never subject to
change whatsoever, deposited as if it were into a warehouse, entrusted to be
guarded perfectly whole.”
(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes, 1868;
What a remarkably different position from that of the
Modernist Vatican today! Does anyone who buys into this “hermeneutic of
continuity” nonsense honestly believe that what Pope Pius IX teaches here is
essentially the same as that of Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI?
Let's not be ridiculous.
Against this clear and reasonable Catholic teaching,
Paul VI promulgated the following drivel at Vatican II:
“The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being
baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess
the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the
successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it
as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They
lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God
and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with
Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own
Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the
episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the
Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual
benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us
in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He
is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has
strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.”
(Vatican II, “Dogmatic Constitution” Lumen Gentium, 1964, par. 15;
Note the “precise” language! The Vatican II church says
she is “linked” in “many ways” with those who are baptized but not Catholic.
Furthermore, Protestants are said to be “joined” to the Vatican II church
“in some real way” that is attributed to the “Holy Spirit”—amazing! No
wonder this council was nothing but a source of confusion and error. In
saner days, any student at the Pontifical College putting this kind of
nonsense in an exam would have received a failing grade. How different are
true Catholic councils, which clarify Church teaching rather than muddying
it or introducing novelties. Immediately, Pope Pius VI comes to mind, who
warned the faithful of the deceitful innovators of the 18th
century, who sought to introduce new teachings and confuse the faithful:
Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In
order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties
of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as
would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner.
Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes
or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is
necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their
eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious,
regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good
reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory
consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all
danger of error.
"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one
sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking
affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in
other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the
possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it
up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the
fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It
allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present
the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually
come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are
published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the
same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such
matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of
error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal
errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who
found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and
which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity.
Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and
confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true
things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in
such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied
while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences
which he confessed.
"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a
certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the
following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise
some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must
denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic
truth is camouflaged."
(Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution “Auctorem Fidei,” 1794;
What a stunning indictment of the false council and the
false church! Could the difference between the True Church and the New
Church be any clearer? Nothing here about a “hermeneutic of continuity,”
The New Church's novel ecclesiology allows it to hold
the position that the SSPX, though not excommunicated, is somehow in
“partial communion” with the Church. Precisely what it would take for the
SSPX to enter into “full communion” with Rome is not mentioned in the decree
lifting the excommunications, but it will probably amount to signing some
sort of agreement regarding Vatican II, the New Mass, and Benedict XVI.
Williamson's Statements on Swedish Television
The ecclesiological mess
is just one of the problems both sides have to deal with now. The other
problem is the SSPX's Bp. Richard Williamson.
Just before the lifting of the excommunications,
Swedish television aired an interview with Bp. Williamson wherein he was
asked about his thoughts regarding Nazi atrocities committed against Jews
during World War II. Williamson explained that based on scientific and
historical evidence he had seen, he was convinced that about 200,000 to
300,000 Jews died in concentration camps at the hands of the Nazis, but not
one of them in a gas chamber. (See the video of the interview here:
The liberal press, of course, immediately interpreted
this as “anti-Semitism,” and news has been making the rounds now that the
“Pope” has received an “anti-Semite” into the “Church” who “denies the
Holocaust.” In Germany, denying that six million Jews died in gas chambers
during World War II is a crime punishable by imprisonment (towards
abortionists who, collectively, might kill six million babies in the first
trimester of gestation, German law is a bit more lenient), and so the public
attorney of Regensburg (Ratisbonne) started an investigation to prosecute
Bp. Williamson for “Holocaust denial” (the precise name of the crime over
there is Volksverhetzung, “incitement of the people”).
All this, of course, leaves Benedict XVI with more than
the proverbial eggs on his face—he's practically got a whole omelette to
deal with right now. “Pope rehabilitates Holocaust Denier” — such were the
headlines in newspapers and on internet sites. On January 28, the
Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper reported that the Chief Rabbinate of
Israel had severed ties with the Vatican until further notice. Is this
perhaps something that Bp. Williamson intended? It's possible, but it seems
unlikely. The interview was recorded in November of 2008 but not aired until
shortly before the removal of the excommunications.
At first, the reaction of Bp. Fellay, Superior General
of the SSPX, was moderate. In a letter to Swedish television, dated January
21, 2009, Fellay said that Bp. Williamson was “personally responsible for
his own private opinions,” and that “a bishop can only speak about questions
of faith and morals with any ecclesiastical authority” (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/images/fellayresponds.jpg).
A few days later, as the damage done to the SSPX and Rome's relations with
the Jews became more clear, Bp. Fellay and Fr. Franz Schmidberger, SSPX
Superior of the German District, declared:
“The mission of the priestly society is the distribution and restoration of
authentic Catholic teaching and how it is laid down in dogmas. For that we
are well known worldwide, accepted and appreciated.
It’s with great sadness that we recognize the extent to which the violation
of this mandate has done damage to our mission. The affirmations of Bishop
Williamson do not reflect in any sense the position of our Fraternity. For
this reason I have prohibited him, pending any new orders, from taking any
public positions on political or historical questions.
We ask the forgiveness of the Supreme Pontiff, and of all people of good
will, for the dramatic consequences of this act. Because we recognize how
ill-advised these declarations were, we can only look with sadness at the
way in which they have directly struck our Fraternity, discrediting its
At the same time we must be clear that these remarks in no manner represent
the views of our fraternity. Therefore I prohibit Bishop Williamson until
further notice from speaking in public on political or historic questions.”
“As District Superior of the Society in Germany, I am very troubled by the
words pronounced by Bishop Williamson here in this country.
The banalization of the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi regime and of its
horror are unacceptable for us.
The persecution and murder of an incalculable number of Jews under the Third
Reich touches us painfully and they also violate the Christian commandment
of love for neighbor which does not distinguish ethnicities.
I must apologize for this behavior and dissociate myself from such a view.”
See the full text of the declarations here:
Bp. Williamson's statements—which he always prefaced by
“I believe” as opposed to “It is fact...”—have become a PR disaster for the
SSPX and Rome, but at this point it has only clouded the real issue between
the SSPX and Rome concerning the Jews, and that is, the teachings of Vatican
II about the Church and the Jewish religion, the Vatican's acceptance of the
Old Covenant as a means of salvation for the Jews, and the continued
bowing down of the Vatican before today's Jews as supposed “elder brothers
in the Faith.”
A Grotesque Situation
Meanwhile, the Novus Ordo
“bishop” of Regensburg, Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, has banned Williamson from
entering any of the churches or buildings of his diocese—as though
Williamson actually cared to enter any of these—presumably in “punishment”
for his statements.
Further, Matthias Kopp, spokesman for the German
Conference of “Catholic” Bishops, appeared on German television to explain
how Williamson was at odds with Catholic [i.e., Novus Ordo/Vatican II]
teaching on the matter, but it was clear that Kopp was treating Williamson
as though he were simply another “Novus Ordo” bishop, for whom he was now
somehow obliged to answer.
What we see emerging here is an entirely grotesque
situation: The New Church is now treating the SSPX bishops as “brother
bishops” in the faith – their Vatican II faith, mind you! — as part of their
church, their false counterfeit church, and of course, this is a picture
that does not fit at all. The religion of the Vatican II Church and the
religion of the SSPX are irreconcilable; they are two different religions,
and it will be impossible for the New Church to integrate the SSPX as long
as both the SSPX and the Novus Ordo Establishment remain unwavering in the
profession of their respective beliefs.
Just picture Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais (SSPX)
next to “Cardinal” Walter Kasper, the Vatican's Chief Ecumenist, who denies
the dogma of the Resurrection of Our Lord. Could anyone honestly say that
these two men have the same religion? The idea is laughable. Not to mention
the fact that Kasper, whose “episcopal consecration” occurred in the Novus
Ordo rite in 1989, is not even a valid bishop (the same goes for his boss,
Benedict XVI), whereas the SSPX bishops all are.
It is quite possible that Bp. Williamson's comments
will serve to keep the entire SSPX from becoming Novus Ordo, as Bp. Fellay
now so has to humble himself before Benedict XVI, the New Church, and the
world's Zionists in order to show himself worthy of having been freed from
the excommunication, and this may simply be too much for many in the SSPX to
Quo Vadis, SSPX?
SSPX believes itself to have the mission to “re-catholicize” the Holy See
(an utter absurdity) and to “restore Tradition” in the “Church”—but how
shall this be done from the outside? Bp. Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger may go
very far to be accepted by Rome. How far, we shall see, but it is quite
possible, perhaps likely, that the SSPX will break apart, and the wing of
the SSPX that wants to keep “resisting” will stay with Bp. Williamson or
whoever may not wish to rejoin Rome.
In the event that the SSPX should rejoin Rome whole and
entire, it is clear that the SSPX will disintegrate. It will be caught up in
the whirlwind of modernism, of vague and ambiguous ideas, of excuses and
shenanigans, and their own stated goals of keeping and restoring Catholic
Tradition will evaporate. Under an illusion of “restoring Tradition to the
Church,” the SSPX will then simply become another indult/motu order whose
practical irrelevance will only manifest itself in due time. The SSPX's fate
will then be the same of the Society of St. John Vianney in Campos, Brazil,
which rejoined Rome in 2002, a move which the SSPX then vigorously opposed
In his letter to adherents of the SSPX dated January
24, 2009, Bp. Fellay wrote:
“Dear faithful, the Church is in the hands of her Mother, the Most Blessed
Virgin Mary. In Her we place our confidence. We have asked from her the
freedom of the Mass of all time everywhere and for all. We have asked from
her the withdrawal of the decree of excommunications. In our prayers, we now
ask from her the necessary doctrinal clarifications which confused souls so
This is absolutely frightening. Gone are the days when
the SSPX was honored to have been declared excommunicated, as they wanted no
union with the modernist church. The picture the bishop paints here is that
of a Society headed to be fully embraced by the Modernist Vatican, pending
some mere “clarifications” on doctrine. In a press release of the same day,
Fellay says that he hopes to “obtain soon the recognition of the rights of
Catholic Tradition.” Is that what it is about now? A simple “recognition” of
the “rights” of “Tradition”? More vagueness, please! It looks like Fellay is
indeed looking to have a traditional side altar in the modernist cathedral,
an utter absurdity. If this is so, he has understood nothing of the nature
of the Church and the Faith.
Be forewarned: The SSPX will soon be history, sunk in
its own irrelevance as a part of the Novus Ordo Establishment. So, “be
afraid, be very afraid!”
A Plea to All of Good Will
Let me make a plea to all
people of good will at this point:
both the false church in Rome and the Society of St. Pius X.
The New Vatican is a false church, a counterfeit
mocking the True Church, which has been eclipsed since 1958. Fr. E.
Sylvester Berry, in his work The Church of Christ, makes this
prediction: “The prophecies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate
the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in
opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of
Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope, and there will be imitations
of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in
imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church” (Herder Book Co., 1927, p.
119; italics in original).
Catholic of good will, can you not see it? What counterfeit church are you
waiting for? Does the Vatican II Church not fit the bill? Under the guise of
“updating” the Church, they have set up a new one, a different one, with a
new theology, new sacraments, a new Rosary, a new Mass, a new papacy, a new
evangelization, a new Pentecost, and a “new springtime.” It is a church that
does not preach her own necessity for salvation. It is a church that
humiliates Christ before those who reject Him (as Benedict XVI did in the
Cologne Synagogue), that invites the pagan-demonic religions of the world in
an effort to bring about “peace” (see Assisi 1986 and 2002), that seeks to
declare its union with every heretic under the sun but will not tolerate the
previous teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church of 1958 and before.
This new church is false. It is not the Church of Christ, who must always
remain faithful to her Spouse: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to
her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she
guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly” (St.
Cyprian, as quoted by Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, par.
But the Society of St. Pius X does not acknowledge
this. They falsely believe that the True Church can become corrupt and that
the deposit of Faith must temporarily be held by them until Rome is ready to
“convert” and the true teaching can once again be “restored” there. But a
church that does not preach the true Faith and that pollutes the sacraments
and sacred discipline is a false church altogether, and no amount of
“negotiations” or “discussions” or “clarifications” can make a false church
into the True Church.
The truth is that Benedict XVI is not the Pope of the
Catholic Church. The church he leads is not the Catholic Church. If you wish
to be truly Catholic, reject the false church whole and entire. Have nothing
to do with it. Join the sedevacantists, who will be the last true resistance
against the New Church. The sedevacantists have retained the true faith
whole and entire; they have not “adjusted” Church teachings to justify their
resistance to the new religion of Vatican II or the evil disciplines
emanating from modernist Rome. Sedevacantists would be offended to have
Benedict XVI declare them in union with his false church!
The seriousness of the situation calls for a serious
decision: Are you, or are you not, in communion with Benedict XVI?
Sedevacantists are crystal clear: We are not! Far be it from us to declare
ourselves to have anything to do with the wicked works of the new religion!
We have no part whatsoever in the Vatican II Church! We are not in communion
with the Roman modernists, not fully and not partially, and we beg for
nothing more than to be declared out of communion with them!
The SSPX, however, still thinks that somehow it will be
able to make Modernist Rome into Catholic Rome again. This will not happen
because it cannot happen. Instead, Rome will make the SSPX Novus Ordo.
Many more issues could still be raised. For example,
what will happen now to the marriage “annulments” and marriage tribunals
unlawfully erected by the SSPX? Will Rome recognize them? Will the SSPX
recognize Rome's? What will happen to the properties hitherto owned by the
SSPX? Will the modernists try to gain control over them? No answer shall be
attempted here, but it is an interesting question to ponder.
Come to think of it, perhaps Rome should be
congratulated. After all, they now have four more valid bishops in
PS: A final communiqué to Mr. Ferrara: The True
Restoration of the Church will look different. It won't have a Pope
apologizing to Zionists, and it won't require a lawyer from New Jersey to
point it out.
* NOW Update: After Gregorius supplied
us with this article, Bp. Williamson followed up the Bp. Fellay/Fr.
Schmidberger apology by posting one of his own on his blogsite,
This "apology" was in the form of a brief letter sent to "Cardinal"
Castrillón Hoyos, in which Williamson expressed his "sincere regrets" to
Hoyos and "the Holy Father" for the "media storm" following his "imprudent
remarks." It is significant that at no time does he actually apologize for
having said anything wrong, but merely expresses regret for the
headache his comments caused Modernist Rome. Likewise, he neither repudiates
his controversial views nor attempts to mitigate or explain them.
Considering this, given the level of outrage Williamson's generated, it
would not surprise us in the least if he is strongly urged by the Vatican to
take classes in Jewish Studies before he's permitted to be fully integrated
into the counterfeit church. Should he refuse, as we presume he'd do, there
could be serious repercussions for the SSPX, meaning Bp. Fellay could
order him to take the classes. This is a situation that bears watching
over the weeks and months to come.
Back to News