Sede-Resistance letter.

Check out this line in a recent SSPX article:

"At the Society of St. Pius X’s General House, they are wondering about Archbishop Pozzo’s intention in the last statement, which does not correspond to reality: Is this his view of the situation? A personal wish? Or an attempt to introduce division within the Society?" [emphasis added]

Source: sspx.org/…/sspxs-relations…

Considering that what he said is false (or at best: delusional and not fitting reality), one wonders if the cardinal is just purposefully saying that to provide fodder and false material to the Resistance people to encourage them to continue in their delusion that there is some secret betrayal of Bishop Fellay with Roman authorities. And sure enough, in the bishop's latest Eleison Comments......:

Monsignor Pozzo went on: The Pope is waiting for the Society to make up its mind to enter the Church, and we are always ready with a familiar canonical project (a personal prelature). A little time is needed for things to become clear within the Society and for Bishop Fellay to obtain a broad enough consensus before taking this step.

What more can anyone need to see the writing on the wall?
It seems that the Bishop took the bait. All the cardinal is doing is providing misinformation, which is highly convenient for them to try to cause division. The SSPX article sort of saw through it by prudently suggesting that very thing.

From the latest Remnant:

(Mr. Fox taught English Literature at St Thomas Aquinas College, while I was there in Tynong VIC Australia
.
Here is a very fine article, God bless him. Fr KR)

Letters to the Editor Cont...

What, pray, are they Resisting?

Editor, The Remnant:

Clearly, I’m
not getting it. What exactly is t

he so-called
‘Resistance’ resisting? I won’t
pretend to be an expert in the matter.
Since moving to Sydney from rural
Tynong, the epicentre of SSPX activity
in Australia, a significant portion of
my waking hours has been taken up
with earning a crust for the family. I
certainly haven’t had time to read the
apparently voluminous commentary
doing the rounds of Traditional Catholic
websites, chat rooms and other forums
(or fora, for the purists). The charge
seems to be that, theologically and
ecclesiastically speaking, SSPX HQ has
shifted unconscionably close to Rome.
And Rome is the enemy, and you don’t
co-habit with the enemy, for fear of
adopting their plumage.
I recall His Lordship, Bishop Richard
Williamson, saying to the faithful at a
conference he gave in Moorabbin Town
Hall (Melbourne), in 2001, that we are
all, first and foremost, Roman Catholics;
while we may flock to the SSPX to
sustain us in our sacramental lives, we
are in no sense bound to the SSPX as
we are bound to the Catholic Church.
Indeed, he went on, if ever the SSPX
lost its direction, he would be the first
to jump ship, and advised us to do the
same. I agreed with his admonition then,
and I agree with it still.

But has the SSPX lost its way? That
was certainly a question that exercised
me in early 2013 when word of
Menzingen’s alleged betrayal of its
founding principles was going viral
across Traditional Catholic media, and
in whispered conversations outside
Mass centres worldwide. “Did you
know that Bishop Fellay said such and
such?” “Did you know that Bishop
Fellay has committed to such and such?”
Personally, I didn’t know. At that time
my thoughts were all: “If I don’t earn
such and such this month, the bank is
going to be a real so and so.” While
Menzingen maintained radio silence,
and the rebelliously-inclined urged each
other on to ever more dogmatic depths of
dissent, I waited, somewhat impatiently,
for a reply.

It came on the feast of Our Lady of
Perpetual Succour, June 27, 2013, in the
form of the SSPX Bishops’ “Declaration
on the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary
of the Episcopal Consecrations”. This
was an occasion of clear confirmation
and genuine sadness.

What was confirmed? Bishops Fellay,
de Mallerais and de Galaretta confirmed
before God that the SSPX continues to
be true to the same “love of the Church
which guided Archbishop Lefebvre”,
and clings steadfastly to his “desire to
‘pass on the Catholic priesthood in all
its doctrinal purity and its missionary
charity’.” Concerning relations with
Rome, the three bishops again affirmed
the SSPX’s intent to remain “at the
service of the church”, in a spirit of
charity predicated upon an insistence
that Roman Authorities “regain the
treasure of doctrinal, moral and liturgical
Tradition.”

Why, then, was it a sad occasion? The
sadness lay in the fact that there were
only three signatories to the document.
The fourth man elevated to epicopal
office in defence of the Faith of all times
was absent. He could not, because he
would not, stand by his fellow bishops in
declaring that the SSPX has stayed true
to the spirit of its founder, and obedient
to the Rome of all times. As I understand
it, it was not the disciplinary action taken
by the SSPX that prevented Bishop
Williamson— a man of exceptional
intelligence, obvious integrity and long
service to the Faith—from lending his
voice to this affirmation; it was in fact
quite the reverse. The balance between
his reason and passion had evidently
collapsed into the latter polarity. Sure, it
could happen to any of us. Fallen nature
ensures that. But it is always sad when
the heroes we so willingly immortalize,
alas, display their mortal flaw.

That’s why I find this whole ‘Resistance’
thing so disappointing and frustrating.
If the SSPX has sold out, or is intending
to sell out, to Rome, where are the
fruits of this treason? I certainly haven’t
seen them. I don’t hear it in sermons,
observe it in the liturgy, or read it in any
communications I receive from official
SSPX sources. From the corner they
have backed themselves into, Resistors
have been heard to snap that treason is
proved by the SSPX’s having dialogued
with Rome in the first place. But that’s
madness, like unto the madness of the
modernist. Didn’t Archbishop Lefebvre
come when Rome called? We know that
he did. Did he not sign an agreement
with Rome, under pressure from the
Vatican, which he later refused? History
tells us that he did.

Much has been said in the Traditional
underground about Bishop Fellay’s
negotiations with Church authorities, and
scandalous deals he is alleged to have
struck. Unfortunately, I am not privy to
the bishop’s correspondence, far less to
his conversation, so I don’t have much to
say on that count. What I can say is that
the character of the man, as I perceive
it in his many conferences, letters to
the faithful, and a couple of personal
interviews, does not at all dispose me to
credit such rumours. Moreover, as far as
I can judge, Menzingen is no closer to
Rome than it has ever been; the distance
may even be greater under the present
papacy.

In any case, it is a mistake to think that
the distance between ourselves and
the Vatican is, intrinsically, a good or
necessary thing. In point of fact, it is an
evil. Admittedly, such is the historical
moment we find ourselves in that it is a
lesser evil than that of participating in
the destruction of Catholic truth, which,
wittingly or not, is what the Conciliar
Church is hell-bent on achieving.
For many war-weary, battle-hardened,
warrior Catholics of the Resistance—
may God bless the wounds they have
long endured— the distinction, between
the Rome they must love, and the Rome
they find it increasingly difficult to
abide, has become a contradiction they
seem entirely prepared to live with.
But the moment we fail to separate the
sinner from the sin; the moment we see
only one Rome, and that Rome ‘the
enemy’, then every prayer for the pope
at daily Mass, and every rosary offered
for the Holy Father’s intentions becomes
mere sentimentality. In fact, at that
stage, our whole insistence on so-called
“Tradition” has descended into actual
nonsense, and the one true and worthy
object of our resistance has triumphed.

Francis Fox

Sydney, Australia