FATHER ALTAMIRA’S RESPONSE TO HIS SECOND CANONICAL ADMONISHMENT
Response to the Canonical Admonishment
Your Excellency Bishop Fellay (cc Father Bouchacourt, cc Father Pablo Billoni),
I have recently received your Second (and last) Canonical Admonishment before my coming expulsion (invalid) from the Society of Saint Pius X.
As a French priest wrote to you a short while ago, all this is a masquerade, a parody.
As for the FORM of these legal aspects, this type of procedure used to expel priests through purely administrative mechanisms, not even judicial ones (as one can observe in the Society), ARE INEVITABLY NULL since they violate in their very process certain elementary norms of “due process”, for instance:
Bishop Fellay is at the same time “judge and party”, there is no principle of impartiality even if he hides behind a District Superior; nor is there a principle of double instance, the possibility of appealing to a higher court; and the recourse to Rome of course doesn’t exist (the See is occupied), etc. On this last point, and only to keep playing the game you have started (“to go to Conciliar Rome”), I request the Recourse to Rome, and I would like to know what you will answer me.
However, above legal forms (procedural law), the most important thing here is the question about the ESSENCE: The heart of the problem is that which we, priests of the Society of St Pius X, are suffering from. And above all it is this particular point which nullifies the expulsion with which you want to proceed.
Because, either all of this is fiction, or there is a real problem (and it is serious). And if there is a problem, “someone” has created it. The problem is not a fiction, and you are the one who created it.
Under normal circumstances, one could lodge a grievance with Rome, and the Holy See could even remove the Superior-General from his functions. But we know that this isn’t a possibility, and that the Modernist, Conciliar Rome is very likely quite happy with what you are doing.
What would our founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, have said, if he had heard and seen what you say and do? Let us briefly examine what may be the four most grievous points that we suffer in this (“apocalyptic” said Archbishop Lefebvre) crisis:
(1) Council Vatican II
Archbishop Lefebvre said that this was the worst disaster which had befallen us, that “its value was null” (since it was qualified as ‘pastoral’, etc), and so many other things that we know.
What did Bishop Fellay say about the Council? That we agree with it 95% (!!); “we accept it with some reservations” (we accept it!); many errors are in reality errors of interpretation (“of the understanding”) of the Council (so similar to the argument of many conservative groups from the middle ground: “the problem is not so much the Council but the interpretation which is made of it”); to justify the said Council, he (Bishop Fellay) uses the argument of Benedict XVI, the hermeneutic of continuity – “there is no break with the Catholic doctrine of all time” – (refer the Doctrinal Declaration of Bishop Fellay dated April 2012 presented to Rome in our name); what you answered the three Bishops in your famous letter of 2012: one must not make a super-heresy out of Vatican II (of course, since you agree with it 95%) and “in the Church there are more important things” than the problem of the Council; your expression according to which certain points are “not easy to reconcile” with the Catholic doctrine (only “not easy”?, they are “impossible” to reconcile!).
What does the Second Assistant of the Society, Father Pfluger, say? That if we do not accept Vatican II as part of the Magisterium, if we do not accept “the magisterial value of the Council”, “then WE ARE NOT CATHOLICS”. We are not Catholics! It is the absolute opposite: To be Catholic, one must not accept the magisterial value of the Council!
Well then, what I just said, it is either fiction, or it is Truth. And if is Truth, something must be said, something must be done. The curious thing is that, amongst ourselves, those who are invested with the most authority are not talking publicly.
(2) Religious freedom and the Council
Archbishop Lefebvre and the Catholic theology of all the different eras, together with the Popes, have taught us that it is the point in which is seen the most clearly the false and erroneous teachings of Vatican II. “Tons” have been written about it.
What does Bishop Fellay say about it? That the conception which Vatican II has of religious freedom “is very limited” (such a “special” way to express oneself on something like this, such a “suave” way). And it is on religious freedom that you excused the Council, saying that they are in reality things from the “common understanding of the Council”, “of the common interpretation” which is made of the Council.
Again, either it is fiction, or it is Truth, and if it is Truth, something needs to be done! And our brothers with the most authority stay silent, they do not say anything publicly.
(3) The modern mass
Archbishop Lefebvre, very strongly, said that it was “a bastard mass”. We are all aware of the number of works which have been written to explain the risks of INVALIDITY of the modern mass. Already Cardinal Ottaviani, in his 1969 work, was talking about INVALIDITY “including if you have the intention to do what the Church does” (one of Bishop Fellay’s arguments to defend “the validity” of the new mass), and this without taking into consideration the numerous members of our own Society who have also written about it.
The modern mass is an ILLEGITIMATE mass (by its definition, by its illegitimate rite, by its errors, by its protestant tendencies, by its promulgation itself).
On this point, the impertinence of Bishop Fellay, yourself, was very explicit: the modern mass (and all the modern sacraments) are valid if they are celebrated “with the intention of doing what the Church does” (ut supra)[i], and have been “LEGITIMATELY PROMULGATED” (your declaration of April 2012 ut supra). And the incredible lack of respect towards Archbishop Lefebvre when you said to Cardinal Cañizares that if he [Archbishop Lefebvre] had seen modern mass celebrated properly, “he wouldn’t have taken the step he took”. Is that saying that this whole fight of Archbishop Lefebvre against the modern mass was bad, was exaggerated? Is that saying that the only problem is one of excesses committed by some when they celebrate it? Is that saying that we can attend modern masses when whoever celebrates it is a conservative, such as in the monastery where you saw it celebrated by a priest – for instance – of the Opus Dei? All this is incredible! And it is quite scandalous. And no one, no one of those who govern us is saying anything! No one says anything publicly. I am thinking, with some hope still, of one of our Bishops.
Furthermore, you, Bishop Fellay, now admit the validity of all modern sacraments. Incredible! Perhaps there isn’t any doubt on the validity of the “MODERN” PRIESTLY ORDINATION? That would explain why we haven’t done that many “re-ordinations” – in the rite of all time – of priests who came from the Conciliar Church? Perhaps there isn’t any doubt on the validity of the modern confirmation? That would explain why we have not given many conditional Confirmations recently to those who received it in the Conciliar Religion? What is all this, Bishop Fellay! Something has to be done!
(4) And Ecumenism
How did Archbishop Lefebvre behave and react at the congregation of all religions on earth during the meeting of Assisi I, meeting organised by John Paul II? How did you behave and react at the congregation of all religions, meeting organised by Benedict XVI at Assisi II? What did Archbishop Lefebvre say in his time and what did you say?
Ecumenism will maybe end up in the creation of “The World Religion” for the world government of the Antichrist: How can you stay like this?
And that expression coined by this current, used by the conciliar Popes, by John Paul II, by Benedict XVI, etc, all in pursuit of the ecumenical and masonic ideal, to talk about one of the numerous false religions and its adepts: “The Jews are our elder brothers”. What did Archbishop Lefebvre say about this expression? What are you saying, you, our Superior-General, of that same phrase? Well, you know it: You have repeated this expression word for word, without any problem.
And we answer you: The saints are our elder brothers! And every Catholic must try – if they can – to convert the Jews (and anyone else belonging to a false religion) to Catholicism, to the only true religion.
This happens, and no one is saying anything PUBLICLY!
For the last time: either everything above if a work of fiction, or it is the Truth. And if it is the Truth, something must be done!
TO CONCLUDE, and to follow the questions of ESSENCE: it is for resisting these things, for these true motives, that you, Bishop Fellay, are seeking my (invalid) expulsion from the Society.
For this reason, “in essence”, your measures will not have any value, it will be null. We must only hope that one day God will decide to clarify these matters.
Every time I have raised these issues, I have tried to talk seriously, but without lacking respect towards you. I believe, and I hope, that I that have always done so. Reread my sermon of December 22nd (which was the beginning “of the end of my case”), reread my letter to Father P. Bouchacourt.
Why couldn’t we talk publicly about these problems? We both know, as trained priests, that if that is indeed the rule, numerous circumstances demand that it be done publicly. I think what we are experiencing now in the Society, in such proportions, demands imperiously that we speak publicly. Archbishop Lefebvre did it, even though not with a Superior, but with the Pope himself, and in front of the entire world.
And still, to continue playing your game, and making myself the echo of what you published to justify the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre, “ad hominem”, I will tell you, in my defence, the following arguments: the “subjective” appreciation of the topic demands the diminution or the mitigation of the measure to be applied (to compare: the New Code of Canonical Law, which you support as well).
Instead of remaining silent, it is the obligation of every Catholic priest, of ourselves as priests of the FSSPX, to resist you, with respect, but it has to be done!
Archbishop Lefebvre endured all these situations with the whole Church and towards the Conciliar Popes; you have created a similar situation: We, priests, endure all of this with our Society and “towards Bishop Fellay”.
My letter is becoming drawn out.
I have the feeling that you are going to destroy our Society, the work of Archbishop Lefebvre. I hope I mistaken, I don’t think I am. And as I said to you before, I think it will happen even WITHOUT THE NEED TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCILIAR RELIGION. If it so happens: What a sad role – to say the least – will you have played in the History of Eternity! You will be remembered as the one who destroyed the Society of Saint Pius X.
Hopefully these words will be useful to you. Hopefully they will be useful to these “eminent” members who can see the problem with great clarity, but haven’t spoken publicly. God will tell.
As for me, I only wish and ask God and the Blessed Virgin Mary to help me be a faithful priest. I hope that They will grant me this grace.
Respectfully, in Mary Most Holy.
Father Fernando Altamira – Monday March 3rd 2014.
Thank you to Suzanne Borgos for the translation.
[i] Ut supra : “as above”