+ Elijah Patriarch of the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate
With the Immaculate draws the attention of his readers ( especially priests still in the SSPX ) on new seminar that gives Father Pfeiffer. seminarians Twenty waiting in the world, the opening seminar of the Resistance. This is one more reason for the good priests of the Fraternity leave and go help.
Will you let Father Chazal to serve alone Japan, Korea, Australia and Singapore and more teach the seminar Phillipines? It is true that it will, if we understand, with another recovering priest. But is it enough?
And Father Cardozo will he ensure only the course of the pre-seminar in Brazil, in addition to his ministry?
Do you want your students to be trained in small Écône where Father Gleize teach them a different doctrine from that of Bishop Tissier, the conciliar church? Would you like us instills acceptance of the six conditions? Do you want to come and Bishop Fellay regularly indoctrinated with the spirit of the doctrinal statement of 15 April 2012?
If you do not want it, come and help please.
Since an unprecedented crisis crossed the SSPX last year, Father Joseph Pfeiffer, an American priest forties with a fiery temperament, is particularly illustrated in the resistance to the agreement between “Lefebvrist” traditionalist and modernist Rome.
RIVAROL: dear sir, could you start, please, introduce yourself to our readers who do not know you yet …
Father Joseph PFEIFFER: I am a priest of the Society of St. Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970. I was ordained a priest in Winona, Minnesota. I then officiated in various priories and houses Retreats United States for eleven years later, I moved to Asia in 2005 for the Asian district of the Society, whose headquarters is located in Singapore . I officiated in the Philippines for one year and three and a half years in India and then again six months in the Philippines. And then the crisis of the last year came the visible crisis of the SSPX. I was expelled Oct. 4, 2012, however, a valid document that the “expulsion” was given to this date expulsion. Also, since last year, myself and other priests have evolved in the resistance against the new direction taken by the SSPX.
R. Could you briefly remind us what the Society of St. Pius X, its history and its goals?
Father JP: Yes … The SSPX was founded when a disaster in the Church [note: the “council” Vatican II] was away a large majority of Catholic Bishops of the Catholic doctrine taught for 2000 years, the fact that they approved modernism and errors of the modern world. They wanted to bring the church and the world, resulting in the loss of millions of souls. A considerable body of Catholics then rejected faith in the disaster of the 1960s until today. It is in this atmosphere that Archbishop Lefebvre founded an International Seminar of the SSPX to combat liberalism in the world and the organization was very strong in the fight against the errors of our time. Fighting errors of our time means preserving the Catholic priesthood and all things under the priesthood offering the Holy Sacrifice to God and resist against all modern errors that sends souls to Hell. The Brotherhood was faithful to this work over the last forty years, but since then there has been a change. The Brotherhood was supposed to follow a path, but slowly, she deviated from its direction. This new direction became visible last year when it was made public. This is why approximately fifty priests rose. These were, moreover, not all members of the Brotherhood – the latter being of the order of twenty or thirty, since we must also mention the friendly communities who refused the new theology. This new doctrinal approach is evident when the leaders of the SSPX claim in the new line of official communication of the SSPX, the new “Mass” is legitimately enacted, which was stated in a letter of April 15, 2012 Bishop Fellay Rome, which was officially declared and doctrinally in the Official Bulletin of the SSPX in March 2013. In this last statement, the SSPX officially confirms that it considers the new “Mass” as legitimately enacted. I also think the new “Canon Law” is accepted in all ecclesiastical laws, not only in disciplinary laws that are not contrary to the Faith. And many other things that we’ll see … All this is a major turn toward liberalism in the Society of St. Pius X that no longer allows it to defend ourselves against clear errors of the council. Therefore, we as priests, we got up to the resistance against the agreement with Rome that was released last year. The agreement with Rome would have led to a loss of faith and a massive loss of souls. Clairvoyants, we got to resist this new policy. They ordered us all to be quiet. But we refuse to remain silent in the defense of the Faith, which is why some of us were expelled from the Brotherhood.
R. : The resistance movement is still relevant given recent pronouncements of Bishop Fellay since the new doctrinal statement of the three bishops of June 27, 2013 The SSPX does not she demonstrated his loyalty to the principles of its founder, in the end?
Father JP: There were these last two months for signs of a reversal, an apparent return this agreement with Rome and liberal statements of Bishop Fellay dating last year. He has also said he did not intend to change the position of Archbishop Lefebvre. He recently told the Carmelite nuns the exact opposite of what he said in 2012. Thus, there seems to be an apparent withdrawal. But when we look closer to a current doctrinal content, we find that there is no withdrawal. And one important about this document – a document which I believe will be essential for the future – is that of 27 June 2013, ie the declaration of the bishops of the Society on the occasion of the 25th anniversary.
R. : This document has yet welcomed many traditionalists … Is it not in contradiction with the previous attempt of doctrinal agreement with modernist Rome?
Father JP: Think again … This joint declaration is the new doctrine, not the former. One of the arguments of our enemies – the enemies of our resistance movement – is that the new text is a reiteration of the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre and a reiteration of the traditional teaching of the Society of St. Pius X. As if there was no change. This is false. To begin with, we can take a look at item 3 of the 12 points of the declaration. Here is what is said: “Following Lefebvre, we affirm that the cause of serious errors that are tearing down the Church is not in a bad interpretation of the conciliar texts – a” hermeneutic of rupture “that precludes a “hermeneutic of reform in continuity” – but in the same texts, due to the incredible choice made by the Second Vatican Council. “The first time you read this, you see the keywords and you start to think that Bishop Fellay, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Bishop Galarreta strongly condemn the errors of the council. But in reality they do not. What this says is that the cause of serious errors is the result of a choice in the texts. The cause of the error in the texts under a choice … But cause and effect are two different things. You know that the clouds are the cause of the rain. But clouds and rain are two different things. Thus, the cause and effect are not the same. So if we say that the cause of the error in the text, this means that the errors are not in the text. This 3 makes it clear that the errors are not in the text. The cause (which?) Of the error in the text under a choice (which one?). We note that this document, the new statement says a new doctrine, and not that of the Society of St. Pius X. Another example, the number 6 point: “Religious freedom exhibited by Dignitatis Humanae and its practical application for fifty years, leading logically to ask God made man to waive rule the man who makes himself God, which equates to dissolve Christ. “This speaks of religious freedom Dignitatis Humanae and its practical application today. He explains that religious freedom led to demand that God made man renounces his kingdom. This is completely false. Religious freedom does not lead to what God gives up His Kingdom. Religious freedom is a heresy condemned by the Popes in the 19th century, it is a heresy which is the negation of the rights of God made man. It does not lead to the negation, it is the negation. One could say, for example, the husband who beats his wife, who did not give him money, and that is a drunkard can take his wife to divorce. He can bring his wife to leave the house. But that does not mean that she will divorce. This does not mean that she will leave the house. So if you say that religious freedom leads to the requirement that God renounces his kingdom, this means that religious freedom is not a denial of the kingdom of Christ! This reasoning is seriously flawed and can also be regarded as a heretic. And then, shortly after, in the same point number 6, we find an indirect attack, but very clear and very dangerous against the importance of the Blessed Virgin Mary for our time. He continues: “Instead of driving inspired by a strong faith in the real power of our Lord Jesus Christ, we see the Church shamefully guided by human prudence and doubting herself so that she asks for nothing else than the United Masonic lodges willing to concede: the common law, in the middle and at the same level as other religions do not dare call it false. “Thus, the new church, the” Church today, “would now be guided by human prudence and self-doubt. This is not true. The Blessed Virgin Mary in La Salette said that Rome would become the seat of the Antichrist, which does not mean that it is guided by human prudence but guided by a diabolical prudence. It is the devil who fights God. It is God who fights the devil. And here we see exposed human naturalistic explanation of the crisis in the Church. Bishops should not communicate this way naturalist. It is not a question of human wisdom but an error problem, a problem of demonic caution. So this is a very serious issue.
R. : Point 11 of this statement also seems to debate …
Father JP: Yes, we can finally talk about the number 11, we pass the others … The number 11 point is simply a repetition of the problem last year. This begins with this sentence: “This love of the Church explains the rule that Archbishop Lefebvre always observed: follow Providence in all circumstances, never afford to get ahead. “It is not good to make such a statement like that, without giving any examples or explanations. We should “follow the Providence”? So give us an example for us to follow Providence. This idea is issued without any reference, this is dangerous. More … “is that Rome return soon to Tradition and the faith of all times – which will restore order in the Church – or that we explicitly recognize the right to profess full faith and reject errors contrary to it, with the right and the duty to oppose publicly errors and instigators of these errors, whatever they are. ” 11 This is very serious because it says that we expect Rome Rome converts or simply allow us to recognize our right to be Catholic and to condemn errors. What do we do in the meantime? Because Rome did not recognize our right, so what do we do now? Either we expect Rome convert, option A, or we expect that Rome fulfills all the conditions, namely the six conditions of the crisis year of 2012, so we always want an agreement with Rome. If they convert, it’s nice. If they do not convert, it is. The conversion is no longer necessary. It is very clear and very serious point 11 education. According to Lefebvre, the conversion of Rome is required. Now, with this statement, it is no longer necessary. There are other problematic issues in this document. But this declaration of 27 June confirmed the new doctrine of the Brotherhood and makes it all the more necessary as the priests of the Society of St. Pius X wish to remain faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre rise and clearly condemn these false teachings.
R. : What is the future of the resistance? Would you build an organization or remain at a mere association of priests? Will you run a seminar?
Father J. P. : We have two points. Firstly, every priest – and – need to when they see an attack against the Faith, stand up, and, even if they rise only. As St. Jerome said: if everyone listens, I will preach the Truth. While some listen, I will preach the Truth. If nobody listens, I still preach the truth because I know that God hears and He will judge me and ask me if I preach the Truth. We simply continue the work of the Brotherhood we were unjustly expelled. In our meetings, we discussed the importance of maintaining an international connection, keeping a kind of association in the continuity of the work of the Society of St. Pius X. The key to this organization is that we will provide a seminar. Necessary. There must be a seminary for the training of future priests. At least five priests have told me that there was an absolute necessity to launch a seminar faster because we can not recommend sending young men to six seminars Brotherhood due to the change of doctrine met Within these seminars. More than twenty young men from around the world await the start of the seminar. The place has been established in Kentucky. We have some priests who take part in the education of seminarians with the support of priests in Brazil, Mexico, Europe and Asia. And if we rely on Divine Providence, the protection of Our Lady, we firmly defend the truth and move forward in the defense thereof. Regarding our struggle, we must clarify that if we fight the new twist is that the Society of St. Pius X, we are not against the people within it. We fight just for the Catholic Truth, Catholic Doctrine, against modern errors, and in a way that is clear so that we can preserve the Catholic Faith and protect the sheep who call us from all over the world to receive the doctrine without compromise.
Interview by Jean-Michel ERICHE
Many days our Holy Priests travel the World to tend their Sheep. The above video records one praying the Most Holy Rosary on his way to the airport; scenes of airport arrival and his jet taking off are included.
“As these holy priests fulfilled the duties of their divine vocations, an army of laymen rose up and challenged the godless government. They were the Cristeros. Their battle cry was “Viva Cristo Rey!”
To donate to the priests please scroll down to the Paypal link below. Make a note on your donation if you wish it to be applied to a specific priest or monastery. It will go directly to them. You will receive a thank you note and a tax receipt from us by and through Paypal acknowledging your donation and thereby assuring your money went to where you sent it.
¡Ave María Purísima!
+ PAX +
July 24, 2012
St. Christina, Virgin & Martyr
“CHANGE OF DOCTRINE? …WHERE?”
Dear N., Dear N.,
As N. remarked in his letter, the Second Vatican Council’s great success for the Revolution was in the ambiguous documents.
The same success was accomplished in the Society by ambiguous phrases found in the CNS Interview on May 11, 2012, DICI Interview on June 7, 2012, the General Chapter Statement & Six Conditions of July 14, 2012, the April 15, 2012 D O C T R I N A L Declaration and the June 27, 2013 Declaration.
The change of doctrine is found directly or indirectly in the texts of the above documents & interviews. The new doctrines are:
1. The errors of the Council are surmountable, open to discussion and not really from the Council, “but from the general interpretation of the Council.”
2. Religious Liberty and Ecumenism are surmountable and “limited”. The new, erudite wording fails to condemn these heresies as the pre-Vatican II popes had done, and treats them as occasions of error rather than condemned errors that DIRECTLY attack Christ the King and the Faith.
3. The New Mass is now declared to be “legitimately promulgated” which is equivalent to calling it a legitimate Mass. (See talk of Fr. De La Rocque on May 18, 2012, proving this). This compromise has lead many other groups to accept and celebrate the New Mass. At best, the new Declaration charges the New Mass as “diminishing” Christ’s Reign, it also “curtails” and “obscures” the Sacrificial nature of the Mass, rather than saying that, in fact, it directly ATTACKS and UNDERMINES by omission, these essential qualities of the Mass, which Cardinals Bacci, Oddi and Ottaviani’s Study proves. Furthermore, since “how one prays expresses how one believes” (“lex orandi lex credendi”), for the SSPX to acknowledge as legitimately promulgated a way of prayer that fundamentally attacks what Catholics must believe, is to call that which attacks and undermines the Catholic Doctrine a legitimate prayer, pleasing to God!
4. Consequently, the New Rites and New Sacraments are also considered valid and legitimate. Where does this put our conditional Confirmations and Ordinations?
5. The New Code is accepted, with no distinctions. The New Code is penetrated with the errors and heresies of Vatican II, which must also be implicitly approved by accepting the New Code.
6. The new ecclesiology of recognizing the Conciliar Church as ONE with the Catholic Church of all time is now taught. Abp. Lefebvre always recognized the pope is head of TWO churches, as a result of the crisis; the Conciliar Church by his Modernism, and the Catholic Church by his lawful authority. Faithful Catholics are obliged to acknowledge him and resist him, simultaneously. This state of the Pope’s right to our disobedience exists until Rome returns to Tradition!
7. The acceptance of Vatican II as “enlightening” and “deepening” Tradition as well as admitting that there are doctrines “not yet conceptually formulated” as part of the “living transmission” of the Faith, constitutes a betrayal and unacceptable compromise of the Faith that every Catholic is bound to resist!
This answers your question: “Change of Doctrine? Where?” Vatican II & its Reforms attack the doctrines on:
– The One True Church
– The Social Reign of O. L. Jesus Christ
– The Eternal Priesthood of O. L. Jesus Christ & the priesthood
– The Union of Church and State
– The true and false notions of Liberty & Human Dignity
– The Monarchical Structure of the Papacy
– Outside of the Catholic Church, No Salvation
– The Sacrifice of the Mass
– The 7 Sacraments and their Institution
– The Faith as a whole! (since Modernism is the “synthesis
of all heresies” and permeates the entire texts of the
To say “the affirmations of Vatican II…must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition” as Bp. Fellay does, is to admit a blatant CONTRADICTION! Why? “…Because I do NOT believe that the Declarations of the Council on Liberty of Conscience, Liberty of Thought, and Liberty of Religion can be compatible with what the Popes taught in the past! Therefore we have to choose. Either we choose what the Popes have taught for centuries and we choose the Church OR we choose what was said by the Council. BUT WE CANNOT CHOOSE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME SINCE THEY ARE CONTRADICTORY” (Abp. Lefebvre, Press Conference, Sept. 15, 1976; in a special issue of “Itineraires”, April 1977, p.299).
8. The lies continue perpetrating that “nothing has changed” while the docrinal compromises, listed above, exist in official documents, officially sent to Rome, in an official capacity! Remember, La Barroux, Campos, Good Shepherd Institute, etc., all boasted that “nothing has changed” and they maintained the right to criticize Modernism & Vat. II! All of them have compromised AFTER their agreements with Modernist Rome. The only difference for the SSPX is that the compromise came BEFORE the written agreement!
9. Tactics are the same as all Revolutionaries; two steps forward, one step back. “…But the annoying thing is that the Liberals themselves practiced this system in the text of the schemas: assertion of an error or an ambiguity or a dangerous orientation, then immediately after or before, an assertion in the opposite direction, intended to tranquillize the conservative conciliar fathers” (Abp. Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him, ch. 24,p.168).
10. All the above new doctrines are further confirmed by the silencings, punishments, threats, refusals of Holy Communion, punitive transfers, canonical monitions and expulsions for all those who openly oppose the new doctrines and orientation expressed by the Superior General and official documents.
Moreover, the fact that the Resistance is not a reaction specified to one location, but all over the world, shows it is a universal problem of the FAITH! The 3 bishops, on April 7, 2012, tried to alarm and warn Bp. Fellay, but they were rebuked and ignored. The fruits of the new doctrines have since appeared, as they had forewarned: division, loss of Faith, confusion and loss of trust in the SSPX authorities.
Even if, by a sudden change of mind, a truly solid, Traditional Catholic Declaration appeared from Menzingen tomorrow, it would still not undo the scandal and compromise of the Faith in the official documents expressing the SSPX’s new position! As Fr. Girourd remarked, it would take an equally serious General Chapter and Statement publicly denouncing, rejecting and correcting the scandalous compromises and errors against the Faith, found in the official documents and interviews since early 2012.
The Society would have to simply reaffirm the clear position and mission of its Founder, as before the “Vatican II-B” in July, 2012, and obviously replace the leadership with non Liberals.
“In practice our attitude should be based on a previous discernment, rendered necessary by these extraordinary circumstances of a Pope [or Superior General (addition, mine)] won to Liberalism. This discernment is this: when the Pope says something that is consistent with Tradition, we follow him; when he says something that goes contrary to our Faith, then we cannot follow him! The fundamental reason for this is that the Church, the Pope, and the hierarchy are AT THE SERVICE OF THE FAITH. It is not they who make the Faith; they must serve it. The Faith is not being created, it is unchangeable, it is transmitted.
“This is why we cannot follow these acts of these Popes that are done with the goal of confirming an action that goes against Tradition: by that very act WE WOULD BE COLLABORATING IN THE AUTODEMOLITION OF THE CHURCH, in the destruction of our Faith!
“…Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign, that you accept everything; and then you continue as before!’ (The May 5, 1988 Protocol). NO! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH HIS FAITH!” (Abp. Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him, ch. 31, p.229).
I hope this answers your question. How we must pray to the Immaculate Heart to hasten Her hour!
In Christ the King,
Fr. David Hewko
Taken from the Resistance web site
Walsigham England Resistance Chapel, July 2013
H.E. Bishop Williamson conditionally confirmed and conditionally ordained Fr. Juan-Antonio Iglesias, a Spanish priest from Santander in Spain. Fr. Iglesias accompanied the faithful of the English Resistance on the Pilgrimage of Reparation, leading the rosary, hearing confessions and offering Mass. We hope later to introduce him in his own words. Please keep in your prayers this priest who is giving an outstanding example of fidelity to Tradition no matter what the cost.
Pray for those brave souls in England::
“O Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and our most gentle Queen and Mother look down in mercy upon England, thy dowry, and upon us who greatly hope and trust in thee.”
This is an interview on what is the resistance to the SSPX leadership, why the resistance and what is its future as well as the future of the mainstream SSPX.
>> Okay, we’ll start with a prayer. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.St. Vincent Ferrer, pray for us. St. Jude, pray for us. Our Lady of Victory, pray for us. Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us. Our Lady Help of Christians, pray for us. Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us. St. Ignatius, pray for us. St. John, pray for us. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, amen.
>> Padres, who are the resistance priests. Please introduce yourselves and explain how this resistance came to be and why have priests entered into resistance, disobeying your lawful superiors within the Society of St. Pius X.
>> So then we’re priests of the Society of St. Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970. And my name is Father Joseph Pfeiffer, and was ordained a priest in Winona, Minnesota, in 1994 in one of the six Society of St. Pius X seminaries and then stationed for about 11 years in the United States in various priories and retreat houses and then sent in 2005 to Asia to the Asian district of the Society, whose headquarters are in Singapore and there was stationed in the Philippines for a year and then again 3.5 years in India, and then back 1 1/2 years in the Philippines, and then this crisis of last year came up, the visible crisis of the Society of St. Pius X and ended in my expulsion from the Society of St. Pius X on October 4, 2012, an invalid expulsion but nonetheless the paper expulsion was given on that date. And since last year, myself and many other priests have been involved in this resistance against the new direction of the Society of St. Pius X.
>> My name is Father David Hewko. I was ordained in 1992 by Bishop Williamson. And I’ve always served happily in the Society of St. Pius X all my years, 21 years now, in the United States. And the crisis of the Faith is what alarmed me to react because the Faith was put in danger. The Faith was put at, as Bishop Fellay himself said some years ago, the Faith is put at stake with these false compromises with Rome and the steps towards changing the doctrine. So that’s what brings me to the resistance as well with the help of God and Our Blessed Mother.
>> Essentially, what has happened is that the Society of St. Pius X was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre at a time of crisis in the Catholic Church, a great crisis of Faith in which the Catholic bishops and the Catholic hierarchy of the Catholic Church were walking away from, going away from the Catholic doctrine of the last 2,000 years, bringing in the doctrine of Modernism and the errors of the modern world, making the Church one with the modern world, and this caused a loss of millions of souls. And so many millions left the Faith during that time, the ’60s until the present. So in the late ’60s, Archbishop Lefebvre founded an international seminary and the Society of St. Pius X to combat this Liberalism in the world and that the foundation of our Society is built on a combat against the errors of our time. Combatting the errors of our time by means of the preservation of the Catholic priesthood and all things with which the priesthood is related, which is offering the true sacrifice to God and resisting the modern errors in a combat against those things that are bringing souls to hell. The Society was faithful to this work for the last 40 years, but in recent years there has been a shift, a change, there’s like a shift that has been going on one path, has been slowly turned into a new direction. And that new direction became visible last year. It became public last year, and that is why approximately 50 priests stood up, not all these priests Society of St. Pius X priests, but other priests friends of the Society, but 20 to 30 Society of St. Pius X priests, and another 20 or 30 priests that are friends of the Society of St. Pius X, stood up and said no to this new direction and new theology. And the new direction is essentially the SSPX leadership and the new SSPX official lines of communication saying that the New Mass is legitimately promulgated, which was declared on April 15 of also year, 2012, in a letter sent by Bishop Fellay to Rome and it was that official doctrinal declaration was published in the official bulletin of the Society of St. Pius X in March of 2013, this year, to confirm this new teaching, that the Society of St. Pius X now accepts the New Mass legitimately promulgated, point number 7 of the third part in that document, and then also the new Society says that the Vatican II enlightens and endeepens the Council. We were trained when we were in the seminary us priests from all the different seminaries of the Society trained in the United States, trained in Mexico, Argentina, trained in France, trained in Switzerland, trained in Argentina and all of us were trained with the doctrine given to us by our founder and by the Catholic Faith and that is that the Catholic Faith is the only true Faith it cannot compromise with error and that Vatican II is a major compromise with error. And so there is the new teaching of the Society of St. Pius X, Vatican II enlightens and endeepens the teachings of the past, which is false. Tradition must be understood as the — in the light of Vatican II and Vatican II must be understood in the light of Tradition in such a way that there are no clear errors in the Council, where as we know there are errors in the Council; the New Mass is legitimate, and not only valid but legitimate. And the new Code of Canon Law is accepted in all its ecclesiastical laws, not only disciplinary laws which are not contrary to the Faith but in all its ecclesiastical laws. This is a major shift leading to Liberalism within the Society of St. Pius X and making us no longer stand up clearly against errors of the Council. Hence, we priests have stood up and resisted, spoke against an agreement with Rome, which was brought into the public last year, and this agreement with Rome would lead to a loss of Faith and the loss of souls and that we would lose our clarity as to where we were standing as Catholics, and this resistance, we stood up and resisted our superiors saying publicly what the traditional teaches of the Society was. The result was we were commanded each of us to be silent. We refused to be silent in order to defend the Faith, and then some of us were expelled from the Society.
>> Is the resistance still relevant given the recent retractions of Bishop Fellay vis-a-vis the June 27, 2013, doctrinal declaration? Hasn’t the SSPX leadership demonstrated its fidelity to the founder’s principles by this declaration and, thus rendered the resistance as Father Themann calls it a mere meaningless resistance to what?
>> There have been in the last couple of months signs of a stepping back, of a seeming stepping back from this agreement with Rome and this seeming stepping back from the liberal statements of last year where Bishop Fellay has said I never intended to change the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, I mean to following the founder, and he told some Carmelite nuns in
[ Indiscernible ]
, four separate times a few weeks ago, I never intended a deal with Rome. And so that — I never intended to have an agreement with Rome is what he told the Sisters which of course is the exact opposite of what he said last year. So there seems to be a retraction. However, when we look at the actual doctrinal content, we find that there is no retraction. And one of the important documents which I think will be very important for the future is this June 27, 2013, declaration of the bishops of the Society on the 25th anniversary. And this declaration has in it the new doctrine, not the old doctrine. One of the arguments of our enemies, the enemies of our resistance movements, is that this new declaration is a reiteration of the teaches of Archbishop Lefebvre and it’s a reiteration of the traditional teaching of the Society of St. Pius X and it shows clearly this new declaration of June 27th of the three bishops on the occasion of 25th anniversary, it shows clearly the Society is the same as it always was and there’s no change in that. And this is false. We go first to point number 3 of the 12 points of this declaration. point number 3 says, following Archbishop, we affirm that the cause of the grave errors which are in the process of demolishing the Church does not reside in a bad interpretation of the Conciliar texts, a hermeneutic of rupture which would be opposed to a hermeneutic of reform and continuity, but truly in the texts themselves by virtue of the unheard of choice made by Vatican II. This choice is manifest in its documents and in its spirit. And so when you first hear that, you hear the keywords, errors in the text and Vatican II. And so you think by when you first hear this number 3, well, hear we see that Bishop Fellay, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Bishop de Galleretta are clearly condemning the errors of the Council, but they’re not. What it says is, the cause of the grave errors is in the texts by virtue of a choice. The cause of the error in the text by virtue of a choice. Cause and effect are two different things.
You see that the clouds are the cause of rain. Cloud and rain are two different things. So the cause and the effect are not the same. And then never are the cause and the effect the same. So when we say the cause of the errors is in the text, it means that the errors are not in the text. It says clearly the errors are not in the text. The cause of the error is in the text by virtue of a choice. So also it says the cause of the error is in the text by virtue of a choice. If this were given on a, say, a religion test or philosophy test or English test, they would be given an “F.”
The author of this would be given an “F.”
Why? Because he mentions cause and he mentions choice. But he never explains what the cause is. And he never explains what the choice is. This is very grave. The cause of the errors is in the text. What’s the cause of the errors that’s inside the text and why is it in the text? Because of a choice, an unheard of choice made by the Council. This choice is manifest in its documents. This choice is obvious. But what is the choice? The choice is a decision, the choice is not a doctrine. So this is a very deceptive number 3, extremely deceptive. It gives one the impression that error is in the Council and yet it explains very clearly, there is no error in the Council, and furthermore, the errors referred to are not the errors of the Council. You go back to the first line. We affirm the cause of the grave errors which are in the process of demolishing the Church. That is, the cause of the errors today in 2013, not the errors of the Council in 1962 to ’65. So number 3 is very grave, very confused, very grave. And then also later on, we don’t have time to go through every mistake in this document. But we find that this document, this new declaration, affirms a new doctrine, not the Society of St. Pius X doctrine. For instance, number 6, religious liberty as exposed by Dignitatis Humani and its practical applications, these last 50 years, logically leads to demanding God made man to renounce his reign over man who makes himself God which is equivalent to dissolving Christ. Religious liberty in Dignitatis Humani and the practical application of today, religious liberty leads to demanding God made man renounce his reign. This is completely false. Religious liberty does not lead to God renouncing his reign. Religious liberty is a heresy condemned by the popes in the 19th century and religious liberty is a heresy that is the denial of the rights of God made man. It does not lead to the denial. You could argue, for instance, as an example, that the husband beating his wife and not giving money to his wife and being a drunkard may lead to the wife asking for a divorce. It may lead to the wife leaving the home. But it does not mean the wife will ask for a divorce. It does not mean she will leave the home. So if you say the religious liberty leads to the demanding that God renounce his reign, it means that religious liberty is not a denial of Christ’s Kingship and that is gravely erroneous and could also be said to be heretical. And then later on in the same number 6 we find a very grave indirect but clear attack against the importance of the Blessed Virgin Mary for our times. Number 6 continues, in the place of a conduct which is inspired by a solid faith in the real power of Our Lord Jesus Christ we see the Church being shamefully guided by human prudence with such self-doubt that She asks nothing other than from the state than that which the Masonic lodges wish to concede to her, a common law in the midst of and on the same level as other religions which She no longer dares call false. So the new church, the Church today, now guided by human prudence and self doubt. That’s not true. The Blessed Virgin Mary said in La Salette Rome will become the seat of the anti-Christ, which means not guided by a human prudence but guided by a diabolic prudence. It is the devil who is fighting God. It is God who is fighting the devil. And here we see a human naturalistic explanation of the crisis in the Church. And bishops should not be communicating in the human naturalistic way. There is not a problem of human prudence.
It’s a problem of error.
It’s a problem of demonic prudence. So this is also very grave. And then also, the number 11, we pass over the others. Number 11 is simply a repetition of everything last year. Number 11 says, this love of the Church explains the rule that the Archbishop Lefebvre always observed, to follow Providence in all circumstances without ever allowing oneself to anticipate it. This isn’t good because one shouldn’t make a statement like this without giving an explanation or without giving an example. We should follow Providence, here’s an example of us following Providence, here’s an example of anticipating Providence. This statement is made without any reference or without any explanation.
It’s just an empty statement to follow Providence in all circumstances.
We mean to do the same, which means we intend to do the same, not we are doing the same, but we intend to do the same. Either when Rome returns to Tradition and to the Faith of all time, which would reestablish order in the Church, or when She explicitly acknowledges our right to profess integrally the Faith and to reject the errors which oppose it. Number 11 is very grave because it says, we are waiting for Rome to convert or for Rome to allow us to acknowledge our right to be Catholic and to condemn the errors. What are we doing in the meantime? Because Rome has not acknowledged our right, so what are we doing now? And also, why mention we’re waiting for Rome to convert if we’re waiting for — if we’re not waiting for Rome to convert? Number 11 says, we are not waiting for Rome to convert. We’re waiting for either Rome to convert, option A, or for Rome to allow us to have all the conditions we ask for in the six conditions of last year of 2012. We still want an agreement with Rome. If they convert, nice. If they don’t convert, fine. Conversion is not necessary. That’s the clear teaching in number 11, very grave. Archbishop Lefebvre, conversion of Rome is necessary. Now it’s not necessary. There are other points of trouble in this document. But this declaration actually of June 27th confirms the new doctrine of the Society and makes it more necessary for the priests of the Society of St. Pius X who wish to remain faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre to stand up clearly and condemn such false teaching.
>> What is the future of the resistance? Is there any organization or just a loose association of priests? And is there a seminary in the future?
>> We have two points. First of all, each priest needs to — and faithful when they see an attack against the Faith or wounding of the Faith, needs to stand up, even if they stand up alone. Like St. Jerome said, if everyone listens, I will preach the truth. If few listen, I will preach the truth. If no one listens, I will nonetheless preach the truth because I know that God hears and He will judge me when I do and asks, have you preached the truth? So first of all, even if there were no organization, it is necessary for every Catholic, faithful Catholic priest and faithful and Bishop, to resist the modern errors wherever they find themselves, even if that happens to be within the Society of St. Pius X. But the ideal way to do that is in an organization. We should try to establish an organization. We already have an organization. I am a priest of the Society of St. Pius X. Father Hewko and I are priests of the Society of St. Pius X. We are maintaining our statutes of the Society of St. Pius X. There’s no need for us to change those statutes. We simply continue the work of the Society. We were unjustly expelled from the Society. We’re still doing the work of the Society. So there does need to be a continuation of an organization. And we have had several priest meetings so far with some of the different priests of the resistance in Brazil, in Asia, in the Philippines, and then also in India and also here in the United States. And in these meetings, the priests have discussed the importance of keeping a connection together, keeping a kind of organization, and that there will be a continuation of the work of the Society of St. Pius X. Several different Religious have asked myself and some others to make sure that we keep an organization together. The key to this organization is that we have to provide a seminary. There must be a seminary. There must be a seminary for the training of future priests. At least 15 priests have told me that there is a need — absolute need for a seminary right away because we can no longer recommend sending young men to the six seminaries of the Society and because of the change of doctrine found within those seminaries; therefore, we have to establish a seminary. There have been more than 20 young men that have requested around the world for the starting of a seminary so we are attempting to establish the place which would be here in Kentucky, and then the priests, a few priests that will be helping in the teaching of the seminarians and then gathering the seminarians together with the support of priests in Brazil, in Mexico, in Europe and then also in the Asia. And so we depend on Divine Providence, the protection of Our Lady but we stand firmly on the truth and we have to continue moving forward in the truth. And in our combat, it must be noted as we are combatting the new leadership of the Society of St. Pius X, it must be noted that we are not against any individuals or any persons. We don’t have any personal gripes or difficulties with individuals. We are simply fighting for the Catholic truth, Catholic doctrine on the basis of Catholic truth and Catholic doctrine, against the modern errors in a way that is clear so that we can preserve the Catholic Faith and protect the sheep who have been calling us throughout the world to give them the clear doctrine without compromise.
>> If may ask one final question, Reverend Father Hewko, clearly this situation created by Menzingen troubles your soul deeply. Do you have any words of comfort at this time that you might say to your sheep that are looking for direction that just don’t know which way to turn or are unsure? Would you, please, give a few words of comfort to those sheep and some direction for them, please?
>> Well, like Father Pfeiffer pointed out, the diabolical disorientation that the Virgin Mary foretold would affect the Church, she is the only one that can help us. She told that to Sister Lucia, she is our last hope. So she gave us the weapons, the daily Rosary, brown scapular, should be very devoted to these and to be anchored in the Faith, to know well our catechism, especially the Council of Trent, the catechism of St. Pius X, the Baltimore catechism, also read. Do your homework on this crisis of the Church. Read the Archbishop’s writings, especially “They have uncrowned him,” that goes into the engine of the problem. It condemns religious liberty.
It’s clear that religious liberty is a direct attack against Christ himself. And that’s why Catholics have to rise up to defend the Faith. And this is a duty by the First Commandment and duty by our baptism, and with the help of God and the Virgin Mary, we will do what we’re supposed to do right now which is maybe not to see victory, but certainly to combat, certainly to fight in the trenches. The victory is in God’s hands.
It’s for us to fight now, as St. Joan of Arc said.
>> Thank you, and God bless you, padres.
>> You’re welcome. We’ll close with a prayer. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, amen. Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end, amen.
[ Prayers ]
I entrust this whole matter in the hands of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, “Mother of the Priest par excellence, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and through Him, of all priests in whom she forms her Son”.
Santa María de Guadalupe Esperanza nuestra, salva nuestra patria y conserva nuestra Fe.