Wednesday, 25 April 2018


By Tradcatresist

Due to the actions of Pope Francis (and arguably Bishop Fellay's trajectory i.e the refusal of the SSPX to loudly condemn those actions) sedevacantism has made great gains throughout tradition over the last couple of years.

Personally, I have never known as many people question a Pope's legitimacy, and never expected that even conservative Catholic's would be asking the same thing.

Perhaps due to a combination of a conspiratorial nature, and ahem "quirkiness" that one finds in the resistance, the question of sedevacantism has now begun to divide cleric and layman alike. This is only to be expected, if one has left behind a "comfortable" existence with the SSPX for 'refusing to compromise with error' then one can hardly blame people for 'blowing a gasket' when they find themselves fighting needless arguments within a remnant of a remnant.

The question of how to deal with this problem is difficult indeed. Some obviously believe that to argue publicly helps sedevacantists achieve their aim. There is a logic to this, many traditionalists are historically open to easy black and white solutions Also, many laymen are ignorant of the issues involved and susceptible to those with convincing reasoning.  I myself was shocked when I left the SSPX by the quite incredible lack of understanding of basic SSPX arguments by the average member of the laity. To give one example, supplied jurisdiction. (Indeed, many people attending should not be, as they are only doing so for geographical reasons, rather than a necessity for supplied jurisdiction. They would be just as content at a local diocesan Latin Mass.)

On the other hand, how are people ever going to be convinced of error if they are not debated. I hope that this is the aim of Fr Chazal's new work and concede that forums are not always the best avenue. Particularly, when they seem to attract people with a seemingly limitless time to cut and paste but not enough time to reflect that what one says to another member of Christ's mystical body is there for all the world to see now and forever. However, without such forums would we have been made aware of GREC, Krah, the letter of the three Bishop's etc etc? The moderator of the most popular resistance forum rarely says something I disagree with, indeed I sometimes am shocked at the response he gets when he simply states truths that were common place in every SSPX parish fifteen years ago. However, some regular contributors need to ask themselves what is in their heart when they argue their point, love for souls or destroying an opponent?

Possibly, a part of the problem is a lack of direction from above. Small positive initiatives can often distract laity from their 'bug-bears' and I do believe that not enough is being done to encourage laity in this way. In Ireland one such small initiative is streaming a fortnightly Mass by Fr Edward MacDonald. This will enable those unable to attend Mass that day to unite with those in attendance. (see here) Only a small initiative but a positive one to help souls in need.Could we not put sermons onto audio CD's for others? Could we ourselves not print off interesting articles for non-internet savvy elderly parishioners? Could we offer to help a large family struggling with the demands of small children? Even a lift somewhere, a meal or a kind word can be all that is needed. Or perhaps a fund raising drive for a missionary effort can often unite those in conflict. I am sure that a certain Brazilian monastery, or a bamboo seminary would not say no.

One of the most charitable clerics in these situations is perhaps the most hated and vilified by those who do not know him (and sometimes by those who do, to their shame) Bishop Richard Williamson. Whilst publicly disagreeing with their non-una cum position he still recognises souls in need and will help them in his capacity as Bishop if necessary.

Fr Roy, one of those misguided in conflict over this unnecessary issue, recently said -
"Of course, making the decision to leave the Society of St. Pius X is something serious. Despite the very serious reasons that convinced the various priests to take this step and probably because of the inertia of so many other confreres, we always wonder a little if we made the right decision. As time passes and in front of a situation that has been worsening within the fraternity in recent years, it is clear that this was the right thing to do. In fact, if you speak with most priests who have left, they will tell you that they consider their departure as a great grace.

Providence does not fail to give us clear signs either. A few weeks ago, for example, the ceremonialist who was assisting me in Montreal at the Mass on April 17, 2016 (the date of my first compromising sermon), was getting married in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in front of the modernist priest of the Novus Ordo parish, before the amazed eyes of the priest of the Society of St. Pius X, serving as a flower pot and preparing to celebrate the Mass under the eyes of the amazed modernist priest. The marriage of two young traditionalists, but the marriage especially of two churches. Alice in Wonderland! Priest of the Brotherhood tell me who you frequent, I will tell you who you are . Nothing really surprising about this is the arrangements made by Pope Francis and accepted with boundless gratitude by Bishop Fellay. The principle being accepted, the practice will gradually follow, when the spirits will get used to it. Nothing new under the sun. The mechanisms of the revolution are known. Only those who will oppose the whip will survive as always. The others will become accustomed to this umpteenth compromise, the compromise in these domains being a lack of love for God and his Church, and the lack of love being always punished by the blindness of the mind and the lukewarmness of the heart.

Like all those who have lived in closed worlds, the fact of being outside also allows us to consider things with a little more hindsight and to make a more just judgment. Many, seeing us leave the Society of St. Pius X, behave with us as if we had left the Church. In fact, we have left a religious congregation and continue to serve the Church where Providence guides us. The Fraternity is a means permitted by God and not an end, and if this means is corrupted and becomes an obstacle to the good of Tradition and souls, we must know how to detach ourselves from it. It is Ignatian indifference: I will only use creatures to the extent that they guide me towards the end that God has given me, and I will detach myself from them to the extent that they become an obstacle to this end. How many priests should practice what they preach in the Spiritual Exercises!

The fact of leaving the Society also brings us into contact with a small world that abounds outside of it and allows us to open our eyes to a different reality: no, the Brotherhood is not the Church and is not Tradition, contrary to what many members seem to preach. She is one of them, but the flock of the Lord is at this moment truly scattered all over the earth, and everywhere are souls of good will who remain faithful to God as best they can. There is no shortage of rising voices or gestures that arise within what is called "Resistance" and that tend to recreate a small world just as cloisonné and impervious. This could only be done to the detriment of the souls of the faithful and we pray Providence to give everyone "a heart as wide as the sand that is by the sea." 1 Kings, 5.9" (End quote)

A good point well made. Let us all make an effort to act with charity towards one another and recognise what this crisis has done to us all. I end this article with the words of a former sedevacantist, Don Curzio Nitoglia,  talking sense as always, who all should listen to due to his experience and love of souls. here

Tuesday, 24 April 2018


Excellent, hard-hitting article (here)

Here is a taster
"..a Tradition that seeks to live unmolested within the walls of the perfidious Modernists, in peaceful coexistence with the accursed Second Vatican Council and the liberals who incense it, a tradition without risk, dialoguing, fearful, lukewarm, bourgeois and at the same time proud of itself: there we find the conservatives, the line-media and the groups Ecclesia Dei (IBP, IVE, ICR, FSP, Le Barrou, Campos, etc.)., all of them Benedictine or Ratzingerian, to a greater or lesser extent, and of course, “St John Paul-ists” to whom now the FSSPX is added, which may well be called Neo-FSSPX: In these times of decaffeinated coffee and non-alcoholic beer, a “de-lefebvrized” version of the FSSPX is now offered, more concerned with its aesthetic aspects than with the fight against faith: see the last Cor Unum where in the midst of these calamitous times Mons. Fellay is always talking about “colours and typographies” to comply with the corporate branding policy that builds and sells a commercial image of the company….sorry, of the religious congregation, well dressed up and with the necessary decorations and shavings so as not to scandalize the Roman hierarchies and the whole world, widely satisfying their desire to please. Their only concern is that they will be left “as they are”: soon we will see them singing the Beatles’ “Let it be” chorus, while on the other side Francisco responds “All you need is love”, sweetening their ears with such a slimy melody"

 The original article is (here) but Mr Johnson's translation is a little better.

Monday, 23 April 2018

More revisionist history from the SSPX

In this quite shocking article from Fr Simoulin we see more of the revisionist history making seen lately from Fr Robinson. One sympathises with laity who have supported the SSPX for longer than ten years, to have to witness arguments put forward by a Society Priest which resemble ones we have had to tolerate from Ecclesia Dei clerics for so long! 

"The real question, in fact, is whether we have reasons to be afraid of the ostrich, fear of the future, fear of not holding and falling apart, fear of being betrayed or led to misfortune or betrayal, fear of being accomplices of the ostriches ... all absurd and without any foundation! And that's why some are restless!"

Why on earth did we attend the SSPX over others all these years if it were not for the fact that we doubted that we would receive the Faith in its entirety from Ecclesia Dei? The Society is signing its own death warrant with such articles, as how can it continue to warn people away from other "approved" orders if they do not believe that there is a substantial threat to ones faith by attending? Is such an attitude (in attending) not the "fear" that Fr Simoulin disdains so much? And what of those married by the SSPX? The more articles written the more scruples are encouraged not allayed. We are now in the quite incredible situation where Ecclesia Dei could be a better option than the SSPX regarding weddings! 

Read and weep (and excuse google translate)

Sunday, 22 April 2018

Wednesday, 11 April 2018

More conciliar compromises.

The recent news documented here by the excellent revamped tradidi site mentions the SSPX in Australia encouraging its laity to join the conciliar Dominican Friars Rosary Crusade in Queensland. Of course, this is in preference to the Dominicans in Avrille, whose Rosary Confraternity SSPX laity were until recently, encouraged to support.
Oh please Holy Father let us in, we've changed!

It has also been revealed that the SSPX in France will no longer marry laity who refuse to adhere to the ‘new marriage guidelines’ ie being married by a Diocesan presider whilst the SSPX Priest stands (as Fr Roy says) “like a flower pot in the corner”. How many more instances will it take before more laity and Priests say “enough is enough!” and join those resisting the compromising neo-SSPX?

We now hear that the SSPX Legion of Mary in Canada have appealed to its conciliar counter-parts for permission to join its ranks under their conciliar control. Can anyone really claim that this is entryism? That this is an attempt to convert their misguided masters? Of course this is nonsense and instead is yet another attempt to be seen as relevant by the modernist authorities and of the SSPX having shed their polemical past.

Thursday, 5 April 2018

Starting to wake up?

The following is from Andrew Senior (son of the late, great John Senior) and Professor at St Marys College (SSPX)

"I just read this article by Fr. Robinson, and my head is still spinning. He is very clever, but his reasoning is faulty; it is tautological and circular. Once having assumed the conclusion he finds ways of arguing for it. He sets up several false dichotomies, making it seem that he is arguing for the only possible via media.
He says that Archbishop Lefebvre did not use the term "Conciliar Church." Perhaps he should read the Consecration Sermon: "This Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ is disappearing everywhere in the Conciliar Church. They are following roads which are not Catholic roads: they simply lead to apostasy."
He says that Archbishop Lefebvre did not resist the authority of Rome, when it was acting in accord with Tradition. Again, in the Consecration Sermon, the Archbishop states explicitly that the Roman authorities are doing the exact opposite. He clearly says that they have made a break with Tradition, that they can no longer be trusted, that there is an extraordinary State of Necessity:
"Indeed, since the Council, what we condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. . . . Thus, we find ourselves in a case of necessity. We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome. We have tried by these talks, by all these means, to succeed in making Rome understand that, since the Council and since aggiornamento, this change which has occurred in the Church is not Catholic, is not in conformity to the doctrine of all times. This ecumenism and all these errors, this collegiality—all this is contrary to the Faith of the Church, and is in the process of destroying the Church. . . it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the Conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world!"

The Archbishop never advocated any halfway measures: the Roman authority should be obeyed in some instances and in others not obeyed. He never makes the case that as long as they let him be then everything else is just fine. He wouldn't even get in the car they sent the night before! Fr. Robinson is in the car, and more than halfway across the Alps on a dark night!
By a not so strange coincidence, I received in the mail today a fundraising letter from Fr. Wegner. It begins by saying: "It was tumultuous year, filled with great expectations and great confusion. . . Indeed it was a year in which so much confusion emanated from Rome that our own Bishop Bernard Fellay signed a public filial correction of the Pope for the grave errors presented in Amoris Laetitia." So far so good, but then he goes on to add to the confusion by saying: "In March, we received the surprise announcement that Pope Francis had taken the steps to remove all doubt concerning the validity of marriages celebrated by priests of the Society." 

I contend that this announcement was not a surprise at all, it was a pre-arranged trap. And there never was any doubt about the validity of marriages, or confessions (or the bogus excommunication!) certainly not in the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre! It is indeed a very confusing situation, and intentionally so, when the faithful are being lead to believe that we should all be waiting breathlessly for the wonders of "canonical regularization." That is never what Archbishop Lefebvre sought. He said very clearly that Rome needs to explicitly reject its errors and return fully to Tradition.
Pope Francis is in no way returning to Tradition, except by way of appearances as part of the diabolical dialectic. He is leading the way to the Great Apostasy. It is more obvious now than ever. To wish to be "recognized and regularized" by him is to join the ranks of the Masonic traitors who have infiltrated the Church. Pope Leo wrote the famous prayer to St. Michael the Archangel more than a century ago: "These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where the See of Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth has been set up as the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety." And one of the first acts of the Conciliar Church was to eliminate this prayer! 
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the battle and in the terrible warfare that we are waging against the principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, against the evil spirits.
God help us all!
In Christo Rege,
Andrew Senior
St. Mary’s, KS

Taken from the Remnant newspaper combox.

Monday, 2 April 2018

Wanting To Help You Hate Facebook And Cohorts

I always told you I hated Facebook and such other gismatic fling-flang, and I feel vindicated now, following the scandal revealed last week about Facebook.

Instead of Facebook and such other sites, people should meet in person or at least phone or write.
Moreover, this kind of social media encourages people to be prideful and to try to attract the attention and “likes” of other people. Facebook users are in fact trying to create a group of fans who will follow them and “like” them. What they want, in reality, is to become some kind of little stars. This is really nothing less than a form of “Cult of Man”, where one is worshiping oneself and wants to have as big a group of “faithful” as possible…

Not a Christian attitude at all. Just think of Our Lord who has humbled himself to the point of becoming a man, taking our sins on His shoulders, and dying on the Cross in our stead. The same Our Lord who said we had to learn from Him (and imitate), that He was “meek and humble of heart”.
Can you imagine the most humble Blessed Virgin Mary on Facebook (or other such sites), showing virtual “friends” pictures of her new blue veil? Or telling them what she ate last night? Or showing them the recipe for the cake Her Son likes most? Or telling them what she is going to buy next time she goes to the big market in Jerusalem? No, really! What nonsense!

Let us not be like Paul VI and Vatican II! Let us have the Cult of God instead of the Cult of Self!!
I have to stop here, as Facebook and other such sites are raising my blood pressure… Not good…
Let us all be real, and be serious in trying to please the Father by imitating His Son. Let us pray the Blessed Virgin Mary to obtain us the grace of humility!
Have a Holy Holy Week!

Fr. Girouard

Original here

Sunday, 1 April 2018

Easter Eleison Comments.

Church Resurrection?

The Church will rise again if every man
Will, in his state of life, do what he can.

And the day before Easter should be a good moment to think of how Mother Church is going to rise from her present stricken state. By our Catholic Faith we know with absolute certainty that she will rise again, and that she will last to the end of the world (Mt. XXVIII, 20). But it is a great mistake to think that she will rise this time by human means, because then I start believing for instance in human means to come to her rescue, like for instance “theological discussions” or diplomatic negotiations with her present masters in the Vatican.
Thus the theological discussions of 2009–2011 led nowhere, which is why we have heard almost nothing of them ever since, because they proved that the doctrinal gulf between Conciliar Rome and Catholic Tradition cannot be bridged. And diplomatic negotiations can lead at most to the mere appearance of a rescue for Tradition, because today’s Romans have 2000 years’ experience of diplomacy, and they do not want Tradition, because it is a serious obstacle in the way of their New World Order, where Our Lord Jesus Christ has no business to be doing any more reigning. The problem is a wholesale rejection of God on the part of mankind in general, and on the part of His own churchmen in Rome in particular.

Therefore the problem is not going to be solved by merely human means. As Cardinal Villot (1905–1979), a former Secretary of State in the Vatican under three Conciliar Popes (1969–1979), admitted on his deathbed, “Humanly, the Church is finished.” And it is a great lack of supernatural spirit, not without some arrogance, on the part of the present leaders of the Society of St Pius X to argue as they do that the Society must negotiate some settlement with the Church officials in Rome because there is no other solution for the crisis of the Church. Do these men really think that the Lord God is short of means to come to the rescue of His Church? Do they really think that the arm of God is shortened by the wickedness of men? Here speaks His prophet Isaiah (LIX, 1–3):—
1 Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; 2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear. 3 For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness. 4 No one enters suit justly, no one goes to law honestly; they rely on empty pleas, they speak lies, they conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.

Men’s iniquities are the problem. And is it likely that God has no solution? No. And is it likely that
He wants men to play no part in His solution? No. And is it likely that what He wants them to do to save His Church is specially difficult or compli cated? No. But is it likely that it will require some humility? Yes, because “God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble” (James IV, 6). And will it require some faith? Certainly, because “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb.XI, 6). And is there any chance that God will not have told mankind, on the brink of destroying itself, what humble means He wants men to believe in and to apply, for Himself to step in and save them from destruction? There is no such chance at all. Then what has He in fact told mankind for His Church to be able to rise again?

He said it through His Mother, at Fatima, in 1917, in Pontevedra in 1925, and in Akita in 1973. In Fatima: Russia must be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope with all the Catholic bishops. In Pontevedra: Catholics must practise the Devotion of the First Saturdays. In Akita; Catholics must pray the Rosary, for the Pope, for bishops, for priests. Are these three points humble? Yes. Ar e they supernatural, requiring supernatural faith? Definitely. Are any of them too much to ask, for the Church to rise again, and for mankind to come back from the brink of destruction? Definitely not. Then let nobody complain that there is nothing they can do!

Kyrie eleison.

Wednesday, 28 March 2018

The Marriage arguments continue..

I have been a Remnant newspaper reader for around twenty years now. I remember well how the tone of the paper began to change after the scandal of the Fraternity of Saint Peter and Protocol 1411/99. A paper which only gently sympathised with the SSPX began to display an ardent support, in-spite of its ecumenism towards Ecclesia Dei groups. However, who would ever have imagined a time would come when the Remnant, without changing its stance, would find itself more hard-line than the SSPX itself?

The Canadian marriage episode has now heightened since the groom was allowed to put forth his personal view on the official SSPX Canada website. I like to avoid personal attacks, and therefore point people to his own words and let readers themselves judge if these are the words of someone who should be defending the position of the SSPX.

The comments on the Remnant website are extremely interesting as it shows that some people still attending the SSPX are aware of the changes and are not happy. However the longer things carry on the more 'new-style SSPX attendees' (for want of a better word!) will gain positions of authority and influence within the laity.

See here for just a snippet of the debate - note particularly the words of the Remnant moderator-


Tuesday, 27 March 2018

Recent news on the SSPX

When I first heard of the uproar over the SSPX  technology-detox challenge, I admit I thought that it might be an over reaction. Who could deny that there is an enormous problem within tradition concerning social media? I was recently told of an SSPX Priest returning to a former parish that he had left six years previously, and was horrified to see the youngsters he had helped form, being glued to social media immediately on leaving Mass. Even those who have been blessed to have not attended public schools or whose parents railed against television appear no different than the average student on this issue. Youth that are still no more than children have social media accounts and publish foolish statements and often questionable pictures for all the world to see and record, and for the  marketing companies to manipulate. Where has common sense gone or are the priests too concerned about the children being 'different'?

However, once I had actually watched the video, I saw that either the SSPX have completely lost the plot altogether or else this is yet another project handed over to the branding company exposed by Fr Girouard. God is not mentioned and it truly is no different from any mainstream Novus Ordo facebook post. Watch it and weep here technology detox all those who remember what the SSPX used to stand for.

There has also been a concerns by many SSPX laity over a marriage in Canada by a Novus Ordo priest which was followed by a Mass by Fr Vachon.  The Remnant newspaper covered it and its online moderator seemed as perplexed as many by the Fraternities actions. One contributor added the following from Bishop Tissier from the Chartres pilgrimage in 2013 - 

"I spoke this morning to the children about Saint Hermenegild. He was a young martyr, seventeen years old, who lived in the sixth century. He was Catholic, but his father was a heretic, an Arian. He was supposed to inherit the throne of Spain, but his father, furious that his son was a Catholic, forbade him the throne and sentenced him to prison. Hermenegild – whom we celebrate on April 13th (a month ago) was in prison for several months as Easter approached. He wanted to receive Communion, Holy Communion for Easter. His father was thinking the same thing and sent him a bishop carrying Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament! What a joy for Hermenegild to be able to make his Easter communion! Except that when the bishop entered the prison cell, he presented himself thus: “I am the Bishop of Huesca, I am an Arian and I bring you Holy Communion!” “I am Arian,” that is to say “I am a heretic, I'm not Catholic.”

It was a bishop who was not Catholic, dear faithful, who brought Holy Communion to Hermenegild. What did Hermenegild do? What would you have done in his place? Would you still have accepted to receive Holy Communion? In order to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, is it not worth making some compromises, receiving even from unworthy hands the Lord Jesus? This bishop celebrated Mass validly though he did not believe that Jesus is God, because that was the Arian religion. He did not even believe that Jesus was God! But we do think he could validly celebrate Mass and he was bringing Jesus in the Eucharist!
Well, in the twinkling of an eye, inspired by one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost – whom we are celebrating today; the gift of Counsel, he said: “No. I will not receive communion from your sacrilegious hands! As for me, I am in chains but I am free to work my salvation. You, my lord, are free but you are a slave of the devil because you have a false faith, you're not Catholic! And I will not receive Holy Communion from sacrilegious hands!”

What an example for us, my dear faithful! All the beautiful gifts coming from Rome, we are not prepared to accept them without examination, without considering the circumstances in which this gift would be made. We demand to be able to maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith. We cannot receive poisoned gifts that would condemn us to compromise with Modernism. This is the example of Saint Hermenegild, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Poor Bishop Tissier, does he truly believe that the picture above represents what he has valiantly fought for during his lifetime? A true Priest waiting in the wings for permission from the presider of the assembly to offer the Mass?

Many married by the SSPX are now wondering about the validity of their own marriages and questioning whether their children should avail of Ecclesia Dei priests rather than this compromise that the SSPX is offering. 

See here for more information Canada Marriage

Saturday, 24 March 2018


Superb conference by Bishop Williamson from March 2018. Excellent camera work, a real top quality recording. Note the link to schemas underneath the video.

Thursday, 22 March 2018

Bishop Williamson - Passion Sunday 2018

See here

                                            Also here is an excellent new talk on Church/State relations

Monday, 19 March 2018

Subtle, but not subtle enough.

 And here we were thinking that the SSPX was against revisionism..?

When we first heard this we refrained from bringing it to our readers attention as we could not find the actual link where the original SSPX comment appeared, but sadly here it is.
How the official website FSSPX makes us swallow the council smoothly

A very serious article has just been published on the official website of the SSPX. Father Pivert rose to the front to remind us of the eminently subversive aspect of the Second Vatican Council and at the same time defend the honor of Archbishop Lefebvre, still dirtied by the General House of the SSPX.

by Father Pivert

  Pope Francis has just dedicated the Monday of Pentecost to Mary Mother of the Church. The Fraternity of Saint Pius X immediately reported the information and subtly used it to report that Archbishop Lefebvre had rejoiced at the proclamation of Mary as Mother of the Church by the Council. Like what would be good things to accept in this council ...!
But the Fraternity of Saint Pius X is careful not to mention that Archbishop Lefebvre wrote this in 1965, that is to say, before the mischief of the Council was finally revealed by Paul VI's trip to the United Nations, the proclamation of religious freedom, the schema on the Church in the modern world, the declaration recognizing a value of salvation to non-Christian religions and Judaism, the rallying of Cardinal Ottaviani and the dismantling of the Holy Office, the closing of the Council with the proclamation of the cult of man.

Archbishop Lefebvre hoped that these horrors would not happen, as he still hoped in 1987 that the modernists would not try to kill Tradition by refusing him bishops.
All the conferences of Archbishop Lefebvre after the Council will denounce these errors.

The Fraternity of Saint Pius X enthusiastically quotes the affirmations of Archbishop Lefebvre according to which the honor given to the Blessed Virgin is necessarily opposed to any proclamation of ecumenism or religious freedom.

Archbishop Lefebvre still hoped that the conciliar Fathers who had just proclaimed Mary Mother of the Church could not contradict each other by proclaiming ecumenism and religious freedom. But he had to disillusion at the fourth session which proved the duplicity of the Council. This duplicity is its own mark, as it is the mark of all revolutionaries. The Council was not a classic betrayal, it was a subversion. Subversion of words, to allow that of ideas, of the Church, of the whole faith.

All the conferences of Archbishop Lefebvre after the council will denounce this subversion. The Fraternity of Saint Pius X is not honest in not reporting words like these:
"We did not succeed in purifying the Council of the modernist spirit that had penetrated it, because it was those who had this modernist spirit who were the editors of what was presented to us. But when a whole set of documents is written with a false mind, with a modernist spirit, it is practically impossible to expurgate it completely. It should be completely recomposed to give it a Catholic spirit. (Conference, Ecône, Dec. 14, 1978)

Or these writings: "It is therefore a strict duty for any priest wishing to remain a Catholic to separate from this conciliar Church, as long as it does not find the tradition of the Magisterium of the Church and the Catholic faith. "( Spiritual Journey , The Divine Life, 29)" The [Council] is the greatest disaster of this century and of all past ages since the founding of the Church. ( They discouraged Him , Introduction)

If they had a little filial piety, the superiors of the Society of Saint Pius X could point out the miracle operated by Mary Mother of the Church, that of having aroused Archbishop Lefebvre to save the faith perverted by the Council.

My conclusion is that this seemingly trivial article of the Saint Pius X Fraternity is the sure sign that the Society of Saint Pius X wants to not only rally but accept the Council. Oh, yes, she will accept it by pouting, making reservations like Bishop Schneider, but she will accept it. His superiors have already accepted it.

(with thanks to

Friday, 16 March 2018

Fr Denis Fahey

Fr Denis Fahey, perhaps one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century is unfortunately admired more outside his own nation than within it. For years those who wished to read his works had to make do with photostatted versions of his classic books. Also, sadly there has been a concerted effort (since Bishop Williamson's 'Swedish interview') by the SSPX to remove Fahey's works from their book repositories as he points out the real cause of world unrest.

Thankfully Loreto Publications have started to reprint them newly typeset.
They have just announced the reprinting of Fahey's magnum opus 'The Mystical Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ And The Reorganisation Of Society'. If you are only going to buy one Fahey book, make it this one.

“I repeatedly promised Saint Peter that if I ever got the chance, I would teach the truth about his Master in the way he and his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, wanted it done. That is what I have striven to do and am doing.”  
—Rev. Denis Fahey

Originally published in 1945, just eight years before his death, this is Fr. Fahey’s magnum opus. All of his written work is centered around the Kingship of Christ and His right to rule over all human societies and governments. Just as we daily pray that God’s will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven, it follows that all human works, especially the government of all of our human societies (the family, the state, the Church in her human aspects) must conform to God’s will and not He to ours.

This book details the Rights of God in human governments. He has the RIGHT to be obeyed, even by the state. It proposes the RE-organization of society according to God’s will for us on earth and within the context of the Mystical Body of Christ. Human governments will only be as good as they can be in this fallen world insofar as they conform to God’s Divine Plan for Order in establishing and running society. Here is that plan as laid out by God and His Church and explained by Fr. Fahey. Only when man puts God’s Rights first, will there be any hope of human rights being respected or upheld.

Here are the details, including the excellent new introduction.

Thursday, 8 March 2018

Summary of Bishop Zendejas' lecture in Avrillé February 2018

On the occasion of his visit to France to confer minor orders, Bishop Gerardo Zendejas gave the following day a lecture on his apostolate in the United States and on the difficulties and obstacles facing the apostolate and the Catholic life in France. this country. These difficulties are specific to the modern world and are therefore widespread everywhere, but particularly present in this country.

His Excellency has especially emphasized the extreme harm of modern music and the virtual life in which children are immersed from a very young age.

Music, recalled Mgr, is composed of melody, harmony and rhythm, and these three elements must come in this precise order. If rhythm, as is the case in most new music, takes the main place, then it is the sensitive faculties of the soul, the passions that are hypertrophied.

As for movies, video games, and all the virtual paraphernalia of which the modern world is so rich, they do not get the young people to be confronted with the reality of life, which is often hard. These young people, as soon as they have a problem, will try to escape into the unreal.

This hypertrophy of the passions and the senses, allied to this disconnection of the real, considerably hinders the intellectual clairvoyance and especially the firmness of the will in the Good. It becomes impossible to engage forever, and at the slightest difficulty, we try to escape into a virtual world.

The disastrous consequence of this situation is the virtual disappearance of priestly and religious vocations: to commit forever to a life that will not always be as pleasant as the virtual "American Way of Life" is a prospect that puts off most young people while the saints insisted on the great number of vocations in the families: a third or a quarter of the young people would be called, according to the Saint Curé of Ars and Saint John Bosco.

Another great obstacle to vocations: the commitment in the long term disappearing, the number of divorces increases, which still hurts vocations.

With regard to his apostolate in the United States, Bishop Zendejas in person today regularly serves five mass centers: in New York, Texas, Philadelphia and Saint Mary's (Kansas). A number of friendly priests work in connection with him, such as the abbots Ringrose, Ortiz, Voigt. He has a small school of twenty students, and a spiritual retreat house. Only the lack of priests limits this apostolate, and the faithful look with hope towards the seminary and the Dominicans of Avrillé.

To conclude, Monseigneur strongly insisted on the absolute duty of fidelity, recalling the examples of our ancestors of Vendée and Cristeros of Mexico; the example of the young José Sanchez del Rio, cruelly tortured and martyred, whose sole answer to the executioners Viva Cristo rey, illustrates this duty we all have, even to the youngest. 

(Original here -

Saturday, 3 March 2018

Fr Paul Morgan's Jubilee interview

With Fr Morgan pledging to support those brave enough to take a stand against the liberal trend of the SSPX, we thought it a good idea to reprint the following article from the now defunct magazine Mater Dei. In it Fr Morgan tells his life story on the occasion of his Priestly jubilee in 2013.

Read rest here..

Thursday, 1 March 2018

Menzingen (FSSPX) refuses to ordain the Capuchins of Morgon

Interesting article here from Whilst we may not agree with the final conclusion that the Capuchin's are avoiding a trap by not asking, for example, Bishop Faure to ordain their Priests, the thrust of the article is correct.

The news is confirmed. The superior general of the Fraternity of St. Pius X has just signalled to the Capuchins of Morgon his refusal to confer the priesthood on the two Capuchin deacons who were to be ordained in June. Unfortunately, this is not a first.
Already in 2012, Bishop Fellay had already banned the candidates of the Dominicans in April and those of the sons of St. Francis from ordination. Reason: their "non-confident" attitude regarding the doctrinal preamble which was to endorse the rallying of the FSSPX to conciliar Rome, a preamble which Bishop Fellay withdrew a few months later...

The reason given for the 2018 denial is again a confidence problem. As early as June 2016, the Capuchins had made known their disagreement to the authorities of the Fraternity, who were seeking to conclude a purely canonical agreement with Rome. Such an agreement turned the very serious doctrinal differences into profits and losses, forcing the current Roman authorities to be regarded as heresy suspects.

A little earlier, in March 2016, Father Antoine, Guardian of the convent of Morgon, declared in a video made by MPI-TV, that he could not "celebrate and participate in this Jubilee of Mercy", as it was celebrating both a false mercy and the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. Such a statement had indisposed Menzingen, who publicly encouraged this celebration.

What has also greatly angered the Superiors of the Fraternity is an intolerable act of charity on the part of the beggar order which has dared to welcome, to receive, rather, simply helped sometimes, some confreres in cold weather with their superior general, so as not to share the "chordist" line of Menzingen.

But the trigger was the support of traditional friendly communities to the seven deans. We recall how they expressed their reservations in May 2017 about the "marriage affair": it was not so much Rome that recognized our marriages as the FSSPX, which placed all marriages of Tradition under the new canonical law, which was unacceptable in this matter. Here again, the profits and losses were substantial: the true nature of the state of necessity engendered by the Church's crisis. Hence the unanimous support of friendly communities for the seven deans.

Some thought that Bishop Fellay's "electoral tour" at the end of October 2017 in all friendly communities was a sign of appeasement, or at least a truce, pending the General Chapter of July 2018. Father Bouchacourt, who accompanied Bishop Fellay on this tour, had clearly stated so. We can see that this is not the case, despite the allegations of the latter, who today forcefully demands "loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, I want loyalty" (sic)!

Let him rest assured, the lack of loyalty is certainly not the fault of the Capuchins of Morgon, nor that of the priests who do not share Menzingen's recent options. It is enough to convince oneself of this to return to what is true loyalty, so well described recently by General de Villiers ("Serve", prologue):

     "True loyalty is to tell your leader the truth. True freedom is to be able to do so, regardless of the risks and consequences. Lyautey said:"When I hear the heels click, I see the spirits closing. True obedience doesn't care about blind obedience. It's friendship obedience. Loyalty is not the spirit of court or the permanent assent to what can be useful in making oneself clear. Silence is sometimes close to cowardice. Loyalty loses legitimacy when legalism begins."

Coming back to our dear Capuchins, they, as usual, will not complain. They will accept this new humiliation Menzingen (FSSPX) refuses to ordain the Capuchins of Morgon as a very small participation in the forthcoming Passion of Our Lord. Nor will they fall into the gross trap set for them : they will wait, rather than seek the help of another "bishop". Thus, in Menzingen, we will not be able to say " you see, we told you, they are the ones who broke up ".

Because the string is a little big, even bigger than the cord worn by our dear religious, so big in fact that even the little Marcelino, from "Pan y vino", would have seen it without any problem...

Posted by Christian Lassale on 26 February 2018 in Religion Catholique

Tuesday, 13 February 2018

Will Bishop Fellay follow Bishop Rifan?

Non-Possumus recently poked fun at The Fraternity of Saint John Baptist Vianney and their laughable ‘continuing the fight' statement, whilst having the craic with Pope Francis, enforcer of the continuing destruction of the Church.

It is hard to comprehend just how far they have fallen from the publication of their ‘62 reasons not to attend the Novus Ordo’ and ‘Catholic, Apostolic & Roman’.

When we look at Bishop Fellay and the SSPX, it is difficult, even in our most cynical mood, to imagine such a fall but… who would ever have thought that The Society of St John Baptist Vianney would have capitulated to this extent?

We have the numerous examples of the concelebration of the new mass (indeed with Pope Francis himself in 2013!) and the following comments on Vatican II from 2007

The Council must be understood and interpreted in the hermeneutic of continuity and not of a rupture with the past, as Pope Benedict XVI explained. This was the understanding of Pope John Paul II when he spoke of the “integral doctrine of the Council,” that is, “a doctrine understood in the light of Holy Tradition and referring to the constant Magisterium of the Church.”

The expression often used in traditionalist milieus of “interpreting the Council according to Tradition or using the criteria of Tradition” is not very precise and can be badly used. We should replace it with the expression employed by Pope John Paul II: “understood in the light of Holy Tradition and referring to the constant Magisterium of the Church.” …

In our declaration to the Holy See on January 18, 2002, the date of our canonical recognition and establishment of our Apostolic Administration, we wrote on this topic: “We recognize Vatican Council II as one of the Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, accepting it in the light of Sacred Tradition.” … (
Apostolic Orientation Bishop Rifan p. 33)

Also not forgetting this attack by Bishop Rifan on his former comrades in the fight.

Many of those who fought for the liturgical and doctrinal tradition of the Church did not remain within these limits and, for this reason, ended by falling into schism and heresy. Many of those who consider the New Mass as invalid, heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, non-Catholic, sinful and therefore illegitimate, ended by taking the logic theological consequences of this position and applied them to the Pope and the whole Episcopate throughout the world.

They sustain that the Church officially promulgated an illegitimate and sinful worship, conserved for decades and offered every day to God. From this, they logically concluded that the Hierarchical Church as she exists today is no longer the Catholic Church because she officially fell into error. She only subsists in a small group, to which they obviously belong.

From this argument
ex absurdo, that is, from the absurdity of these ideas, one should conclude the opposite: the Church cannot – a priori – and actually did not – a posteriori – adopt an invalid, heretic, sacrilegious, heterodox, non-Catholic, sinful and hence illegitimate Mass. ( p15) (With thanks to TIA website)

When we witness such words it is difficult to envisage Bishop Fellay stooping so low. But, looking again, once relations are good with our former adversaries it gets so much harder to name names. Look at the cringe inducing Conflict Zone interview (if you are able!) where Bishop Fellay appears completely unable to defend 'former' positions held. 

Even to a lesser extent, his recent interview with Maike Hickson on Fatima, where he appears to go out of his way not to offend. Plenty of pious platitudes, but every effort possible to avoid being misquoted as condemning modern Rome. Does he have any fight in him anymore?

As for Bishop Fellay condemning former comrades, à la Rifan, one has only to look at the laughable response from Menzingen to the consecration of Bishop Faure, where its argument is embarrassingly nullified by the SSPX Bishops' own consecration of Bishop Rifan's predecessor Licinio Rangel!

Let us pray, over the holy season of lent, for the scales to fall from the eyes of the SSPX superiors, and let them admit their recent folly and get back to defending the Faith in its entirety.

Thursday, 8 February 2018

Conciliar Church or Official Church?

In the latest Eleison Comments Bishop Williamson states the following

"One needs to be very careful with words, because words are the handle of our mind upon things, and things are the stuff of everyday life. Therefore upon words depends how we will lead our lives. At the flagship parish church of the Society of St Pius X in Paris, France, there is a Society priest taking due care of words. Fr Gabriel Billecocq wrote in last month’s issue (#333) of the parish’s monthly magazine Le Chardonnet an article entitled “Did you say ‘official Church’?.” In it he never once mentions Society Headquarters in Menzingen, Switzerland, but he does complain of the “wish” coming from somewhere, presumably on high, that the words “Conciliar Church” should always be replaced by the words “official Church.” And he is right, because the words “Conciliar Church” are perfectly clear, whereas the words “official Church” are not clear, but ambiguous.

For on the one hand “Conciliar Church” signifies clearly that large part of today’s Church which is more or less poisoned with the errors of the Second Vatican Council. Those errors consist essentially in the re-centring upon man of the Church which should be centred on God. On the other hand “official Church” is an expression with two possible meanings. Either it can mean the Church officially instituted by Christ and officially brought to us down the ages by the succession of Popes, and to that “official Church” no Catholic can object, on the contrary. Or “official Church” can be taken to mean that mass of the Church’s officials devoted to Vatican II who for the last half-century have been using their official power in Rome to inflict upon Catholics the Conciliar errors, and to this “official Church” no Catholic can not object. Therefore “Conciliar Church” expresses something automatically bad, while “official Church” expresses something good or bad, depending upon which of its two meanings it is being given. Therefore to replace “Conciliar Church” by “official church” is to replace clarity by confusion, and it also stops Catholics from referring to the evil of Vatican II." (end quote)

Here is a recent article from the Dominicans of Avrille reminding us of the (conciliar) terms origins and the reason for its use.

Wednesday, 7 February 2018

Sermon on the Family by Fr Fuchs

Good sermon highlighting how true Catholic family life teaches the acceptance of the cross.

Tuesday, 30 January 2018

Nice try, Mr McCall!

Another Priest destroys Brian McCall's reasoning -
.."If, therefore, Satan's goal was to create situations where the priests and the faithful of Tradition are forced to face real problems of conscience where they have to choose between loyalty to faith or fidelity to a work that they loved and served for years? And what if his success lay not in the departure and dispersion of some to the four winds, but rather in the fact that most prefer compromise to discomfort?"

(Note, the highlighting of this superb article should not imply support of the Non-Una cum position of its author.)

Saturday, 27 January 2018

On the SSPX Defenders

This superb (as usual) article from Psalm129 blog, examines recent articles defending the SSPX against Resistance accusations. Well worth reading.

Saturday, 13 January 2018

Don't tell Fr Themann

The recent heavily advertised essay by Fr Robinson may mean the SSPX will have to bin the rest of their Fr Themann "Resistance to what" audio CD's! The key word here is CHANGED! 

Tuesday, 9 January 2018

Have things got so much better since then?

The article by Fr Paul Robinson on "the real Archbishop Lefebvre" makes a mockery of the position held by the SSPX up until 2012 regarding the importance of a doctrinal solution before a practical one. No more than those married by the SSPX prior to the recent marriage agreement, laity must be wondering why on earth they made the stand they did over the years at the cost of friends, family etc.

This flip-flopping is reminiscent of the Abbé Georges de Nantes, a brilliant mind, but whom Archbishop Lefebvre once called "the weather cock," (constantly changing with the wind.) The article below is a clever "interview" with Bishop Fellay made up of quotes from between 2001-2007 answering questions on a deal with Rome. Can anyone honestly say that he would say the same in 2018? Have things got so much better?

Tuesday, 2 January 2018

On speaking the (absolute) truth

From time to time friends still attending the SSPX justify their stance by claiming that " once the Priest starts promoting the new mass, that's it for me, I''m off!"

This argument always mystifies me. For if that argument is valid and all that matters is the true Mass and the preaching of beautiful sermons etc, then why are we all not attending the FSSP? Many of our extended families would no longer regard us as schismatic, we could enjoy the often vibrant parish life, we could argue our beliefs with Novus Ordo Catholics far more easily without the added caveat of explaining the (so-called) excommunications.  Does anyone doubt that their are some excellent priest's in the FSSP who preach wonderful sermons on the life of Our Lord and Our Lady etc?

Yet we cannot, because as Archbishop Lefebvre remarked concerning the Indult in 1989 - 
"Their speech is paralyzed because of this acceptance. The bishops are watching them! It is very regrettable that these priests are not aware of this reality.  But we cannot fool the faithful" 

Therefore we witness when it comes to the crisis in the Church, these Traditional Orders suddenly turn all Michael Voris and refuse to state clearly from the rooftops what they know to be true, that the rot goes all the way to the top.

This is what awaits, and indeed is, the present reality for many attending the SSPX. Not outright Modernism, not the New Mass but a refusal to speak what they know to be the absolute truth. This one wonders is what eventually persuaded the likes of Fr Morgan to leave, the inability for him to preach the truth unhindered. We should never forget dilexisti justitiam et odisti iniquitatem” (Hebrews I, 9) "The love of good goes hand in hand with the hatred of evil." Love of the faith is not enough, we must hear doctrine to understand error! We should not justify our stance and ignore what we know to be true for our own comforts. The SSPX was always supposed to be so much more than this.

As evil as this present Papacy is, the Ignatian two sides are becoming easier to choose than ever before. Are we with God or man? In the superb article below Hilary White gives her take on how the FFI chose the wrong side and their attempts to placate Rome ended in their downfall in any case. Which side will the SSPX choose?