With the Immaculate

Communiqué of La Sapinière about the letter to Bishop Fellay March 4th 2013

english translation by Cathinfo forum
french source :

Whatever thinks Jacques-Régis du Cray, the February 28th letter to Bishop Fellay was written by some Society priests of the district of France.

Mr. Ennemond (Jacques-Régis du Cray), who claims he knows the SSPX well, stated that no priest of the district could have acted this way. He is mistaken; not all the priests share the ideas of Father Lorans or Célier. Some writers of his forum Fecit believed they could blame us for our anonymity. This is laughable when we know how Mr. Jacques-Régis du Cray uses and abuses it [anonymity].

Mr. Jacques-Régis du Cray put our bravery into question. Anonymity is not necessarily a sign of cowardice. To publicly resist the lies of our Superior General, we think opportune not to leave the Society. As Archbishop Lefebvre reminded to Dom Thomas Aquinas, prior of the Santa Cruz Monastery in Brazil, after the rallying of le Barroux (French Benedictine Monastery in Provence): “the goods of the Church belong to Christ the King, one shouldn’t sell them off and hand them over to the enemies of his universal reign”.

Anonymity is not an escape from the cross, as Father de Cacqueray [district superior] thinks in a fax sent to all the priests of the district on March 1st 2013. We bear the cross. It is even a heavy one. For a recent time, the meditation of the anguish of the heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ facing the betrayal of Judas has been deeper and renewed our inner priestly life.

We have met some cries of horror from liberals and ‘agreementists’. We understand them without agreeing with them. They had an idol that they took for a saint and they realize he is a liar. They wanted his policy of rallying Rome to be saint because they shared his liberalism. Rather than submitting to the facts, they preferred to deny them. They don’t want to see the lies because they don’t want to set the conclusion that this policy doesn’t come from the good spirit.

Yes, liberalism is a sin that ends up making blind its people. Those cries of horror are only hypocritical. One takes offense of an anonymous letter which denounces the repeated deceptions in a serious matter, of a superior towards his inferiors, but one doesn’t want to take offense of the lie itself. This is backward. For them, subversion doesn’t involve lying but denouncing a lie. What strange morals!

Father de Cacqueray, who is not liberal, but who is rather victim of his benevolence, in the fax, blames us for our “objectively destructive behavior”. But, we may wonder what is objectively destructive, lying or denouncing the very lie?

Father de Cacqueray thinks ludicrous the number of 37 priests agreeing with this letter. This is amazing to us, because he knows more than anyone else the number of priests who showed him their total loss of confidence toward the General Superior and his Council, is over that number. Moreover, the value of the facts doesn’t rely on the signers but on the trustworthy eye witnesses, mentioned in a circumstanced way. At last, Father de Cacqueray thinks also ludicrous the judgment of this Chapter member: “It is necessary to recognize that the [General] Chapter failed. Today it is okay to have a liberated Society [of St. Pius X] inside the Conciliar Church”.

Father de Cacqueray invites us to have a “frank and respectful” attitude toward the superiors. But we then ask him how long we will have to put up with lies directed to us and the faithful?

Your Excellency, dear colleagues, dear faithful, an original version received by all the Society priests on January 24th 2009 that we had to read on the pulpit, said: « the decree of January 21st quotes the letter of December 15th to Castrillon Cardinal Hoyos in which I expressed our attachment “to the Church of O. L. Jesus-Christ that is the Catholic Church”, stating our acceptance to its bi-millenary teachings and our faith in the primacy of Peter. I reminded how much we suffer from the current situation of the Church where this teaching and this primacy are trod, and added: “we are ready to write the credo with our blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of the faith of Pius IV; we accept and make ours all the Council until Vatican II, about which we make some reservations.”

But, several days later, this passage has become:
“We are ready to write the credo with our blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of the faith of Pius IV; we accept and make ours all the Council until Vatican I. But we can only make some reservations about the Vatican II Council, which wanted to be a “different one” from the others.

How to justify such a difference? Back then, Bishop Fellay said to the priors that it was a mistake of the Secretary General who, by working the whole night, made that mistake. But, eventually, after deleting the first version, the corrected version was published, the very one which is now on all the websites of the Society, … Today, we know that this is the first text which was the thought of Bishop Fellay because he seeks to submit to the official Church. On the 29th of October 2009, the editor-in-chief of the Osservatore Vaticano, Vini Ganimara, published an article entitled: “strengths and weaknesses of the diplomacy of Bishop Fellay”. In it, we read:

Bishop Fellay knew how to take up a moderate language, language which has his past statements forgotten, not like the aggressive speeches of the other bishops of the SSPX, and which takes weapons away from the episcopal “public opinion” (in Germany for instance), trying to captivate the good will of the pope. This third point – decisive, for there is no negotiation without compromises on both sides - shows its diplomatic capacities, at the same time as the weakness of his possibility to maneuver. I quote an example: after the lift of the the excommunications, he sent a “letter to the faithful” by fax to all the priories of the world (24 january 2009), containing the quotation of his own letter to Castrillon Cardinal Hoyos (15 December 2008) which allowed the lift of the sanctions: “we accept and make ours all the Council until Vatican I. But we can only make some reservations about the Vatican II Council, etc…” This is the first version that received Cardinal Hoyos. The 2nd version is not a fake: this is a translation useful for the public opinion of the SSPX.”…/dos-articulos-d…

Bishop Fellay and the communication of the General House lied in the past, they lied again recently in their communiqué; why believe they will stop doing so in the future? This scandal and this mascarade have lasted too long. They have to stop and they will stop.

La Sapinière