‘Remain firmly attached to the traditional doctrine that you have been taught, so that you can preach according to right doctrine and refute those who contradict it.’
FROM, The Remnant Newspaper:
Our Lady of Fatima, may The Consecration of Russia to Your Immaculate Heart come soon!
Thank God our good Catholic Resistance priests, nuns and religious and growing in number every day.
Prayers for all.
WAKE UP FROM YOUR WONDERLAND, BP FELLAY!
Deo Gratias, Archbisop Lefebvre!
Bishop Fellay: Quo Vadis? 😦
Pray for The Consecration of Russia to The Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Reblogged from: Our Lady of Good Success Mission
Bishop Fellay Calls the Resistance a Caricature
by Tony La Rosa
Rorate Caeli pubished today a post regarding a recent interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay in which His Excellency, amongst other things, calls the Resistance a caricature. Here is the quote of interest:
“Look at the caricature of Tradition that calls itself the “Resistance”, for example: it is a non-Catholic spirit that is almost sectarian. We wish to have nothing to do with it; it is a movement that is withdrawn into itself, with people who think that they are the only good and just men on earth: that is not Catholic.”
Bishop Fellay must be really confused. He has directed the term “caricature of Tradition” to the Resistance when in fact it is his neo-SSPX that is the “caricature of Tradition”. It is his neo-SSPX that has betrayed Catholic Tradition by accepting Vatican II in the light of Tradition. It is his neo-SSPX that has betrayed the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre….. [read the rest here].
Tony La Rosa | June 29, 2015 at 12:55 pm | Tags: Neo-SSPX, SSPX-Marian Corps | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p3grvv-1hz
Fr. Thomas Aquinas, OSB. A Menzingen Confession
by Br. Joseph
Fr. Thomas Aquinas, OSB.
A Menzingen Confession
Translated by Michael email@example.com
The communication from Menzingen on the 19th of March, although brief, teaches us a good number of things. Among these, we find a confession here: that Bishop Williamson was expelled from the Society of St. Pius X because of his opposition to the accordist policy of Bishop Fellay.
Up until the present, Menzingen spoke about disobedience: Bishop Williamson was undisciplined, a bad subordinate that does not obey the orders received. Now, Menzingen confesses the true reason: “the violent criticisms” of Bishop Williamson regarding the relations of Menzingen with the Roman authorities. The same as Bishop Faure. This is where they fail.
The affair of the letter of the 3 bishops to Bishop Fellay and his assistants was not digested well by them. Relations with Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre had them as well, but with the hope that Rome recovered, that it would return. In fact, Archbishop Lefebvre was who directed the negotiations and he did it with invincible certitude, because his criteria was the Faith of all times. Including, that while doing this, he nearly fell into Rome’s trap. “I went too far”, he said.
On the contrary, with Bishop Fellay, everything happens in a completely different manner. It’s not him that directs the negotiations. It is not him that has the strength to say to Rome: “It is I, the accused, who will have to judge you.” No, Bishop Fellay does not present himself as a judge of the errors of Rome. He presents himself more like a guilty one “in an irregular situation” who must reintegrate himself into the fold and suffers because “his” Society does not follow suit.
Allow us to add with emphasis: Judge Rome? Isn’t this the role of the superiors and not of inferiors? Of course. But the superiors have already cast their judgement. It is Quanta Cura, Pascendi, Quas Primas, etc., that condemns the liberal popes. It is Rome, Eternal Rome, who has already judged neo-modernism and neo-Protestantism. Bishop Fellay seems to have forgotten this and he makes it forgotten with his “visible Church of today.” End of emphasis.
Bishop Williamson was in the way of the negotiations of Menzingen. He constituted an obstacle. We knew it well, but the General House gave another version. Now, they confess it. It’s the “violent criticisms” of Bishop Williamson against their operation suicide that have been the cause of his expulsion. It was about time that Menzingen said it and now they finally have.
Nevertheless, Menzingen misrepresents the question in saying that these violent criticisms were about “any relations with the Roman authorities”. No. This is not true. The criticisms were regarding an incorporation into Rome, that would put the Society under its modernist and liberal yoke, by which the devil tries to arrive at what Gustavo Corção called “the terminal sin”: to bring down the last bastions in one last, monumental affront to God.
And to do this we could not lend our support. The devil will not achieve his goals because Our Lady is watching over: Ipsa conteret. Here is where our hope is. She will not be let down if we are faithful by the grace of God: Fidelis inveniatur.
Br. Joseph | March 27, 2015 at 10:45 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p3grvv-152
New post on Our Lady of Good Success Mission
Brief response of Fr. Thomas Aquinas OSB on the communication from Menzingen of the 19th of March 2015
by Br. Joseph
Menzingen denounces the consecration of Bishop Jean Michel FAURE as not having anything in common with the 1988 consecrations. In order to do this, the general house of the SSPX makes a certain number of considerations. We will examine four of these:
1) Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure have been expelled from the Society because they were against any relations with Rome.
This is false. They are against the way that Bishop Fellay and his assistants are doing this, including the general chapter of 2012, because they are seeking a practical agreement without Rome’s conversion.
2) Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure do not recognize the Roman authorities.
This also is false. Neither one of them are sedevacantists.
3) Menzingen insinuates that the publicizing of the event was insufficient and compares this to the large scale publicity of 1988.
Compared with the consecrations of 1988 the one in 2015 was not as great, but in and of itself this is not to say that it is any less important. If we count all the participants of the ceremony, we have people representing the following countries: England, France, the United States, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia and Brazil. [note from translator: I, myself was present and am American] A hundred or so faithful attended the ceremony. The media was called and received well.
4) The fourth question refers to the state of necessity.
It seems that this is where we only begin to see the tip of the iceberg, already so very well-known: the state of necessity of 1988 is no longer applicable in 2015. Rome is no longer so aggressive against Tradition like it was in 1988. [seriously?!] This is the same old song: Rome has changed! Yes! Rome has changed… for the worse! And this is even since Benedict XVI.
All in all, what is at risk here, is what Archbishop Lefebvre spoke about during his historical sermon of Lille in August of 1976:
In the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me: “What have you done with your priestly and episcopal graces?” I do not want to hear from the mouth of Our Lord: “You have contributed to the destruction of the Church with the others.”
Neither do we. It is for this reason that we continue the fight, and for that reason we need bishops. This is the reason for the consecration of the 19th of march. There is no other reason but this.
translated from Spanish here and the original in French here