Spirit of Vatican II Song


“What could be clearer? We must [according to Rome] henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on His Suspension A Divinis, July 29, 1976)

The Perversion of the Mind: by Fr. Thomas Aquinas OSB

Source: http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/04/the-perversion-of-mind.html


The Perversion of the Mind: by Fr. Thomas Aquinas OSB
translated by Michael Fuller


Since the 90s, the Superior General of the Society and his closest advisers have undertaken a frightening task: to lead Tradition into the arms of modernist Rome. This is what they are doing whether or not they were aware of the severity of their crime. Bishop Fellay is destroying the work of Archbishop Lefebvre. The childishness of Dom Gérard, as Archbishop Lefebvre labeled it, returns this time in the pen and thoughts of Bishop Fellay and his assistants: To read your letter -he writes to his brothers in the episcopate
(letter of April 14, 2012)one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is in Rome is indeed the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ (…) “.
Bishop Fellay distorts things. Bishop Fellay sows confusion while forgetting about the distinctions made by Archbishop Lefebvre together with many other prominent theologians and Catholic thinkers. “The Society of St. Pius X has never left the Church. She is in the heart of the Church“, Bishop Tissier rightly noted. (Rivarol, June 13, 2012). But Bishop Fellay is captivated by an idea that has taken root deep in his mind. The canonical regularization must be obtained at all costs. This is already forgotten some will claim. Bishop Fellay has just opposed the statements of Archbishop Pozzo on this issue. Well, Bishop Fellay deceives his own supporters. He has been hiding the truth for years. Nothing has been withdrawn from his statements. “This concrete situation, with the canonical solution that has been proposed, is quite different from that of 1988 “, he wrote in response to the letter of Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier and Bishop De Galarreta.

But the supporters of Bishop Fellay will repeat that all of this is in the past. But then why did Fr. Alain Nely say to a superior of a monastery: “the solution for the Society will be a unilateral recognition“? And furthermore: “It is without signing anything, there will not be a document nor will a signature be required.” This happened about a year ago.

By taking steps forward and steps back, Menzingen has all the people who trust in their good will on tenterhooks. Whatever may be the case with their dubious and very strange good will, which I do not trust at all, the fact is that the behavior of Bishop Fellay, as a whole, indicates quite clearly the final cause that drives it. This cause is an agreement with a Rome that is supposedly on its way to converting. This final cause is the pragmatism of the gradual negotiations of Bishop Fellay, as Rome will not all at once convert. How will Rome be converted? Only God knows. What we all do know is that modernist Rome can line up a long series of tombs where its victims rest in the shadow of death: Father Augustin, Dom Gérard, P. de Blignères, the Fraternity of St. Peter, Campos, the Redemptorists, Oasis, Friars of the Immaculate, etc. In this beautiful cemetery, there is still room for the SSPX. If it were up to Bishop Fellay, this would be a done deal. For some in the Society, the “Ecclesia Dei” communities are not in such a bad situation. The Society would have good company in this beautiful setting.

What is surprising is to see the behavior of the faithful. How can the lack of reaction on their part be explained? And even more so, from the priests. Surely they are waiting for worse before they will act. A signature. But Father Nely already said: “there will not be a document nor will a signature be required”.

The strength of Menzingen is in hiding the truth. But above all, their strength is in the weakness of the good-intentioned. Menzingen has weighed the force of Tradition in its scales, and was able to realize their weakness or their naivety. Tradition has invincible principles, but as to the strength of attachment to these principles, that is another matter. To this we must add the complicity of life itself. It is easier for those who have no wife and children to make a difficult decision, but it is not the same for those who have ten children to enroll in a good school. For the priests it is another matter. Each one of them may calculate their responsibilities.

Menzingen has mastered the art of governing in the manner of Machiavelli: privacy of emails revealed, the merciless trials of Frs. Pinaud and Salenave. Ruthless sanctions to good priests who dare to defend the thinking and guiding principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.

But these facts seem lost to memories. Some say that Bishop Fellay has changed. He does not want the agreement. Things are being resolved. There is nothing to be worried about. Pure subjectivism! Pure sentimentalism!

The more one analyzes the documents of the Vatican II and their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, and the more one realizes that they are neither superficial errors nor a few particular errors such as ecumenism, religious freedom, collegial structure, but rather a total perversion of the spirit, a whole new philosophy founded upon SubjectivismIt is very serious! A total perversion! … That is really alarming.”
(Mons. Lefebvre, quoted in the letter of April 7th, 2012, from the three bishops to Bishop Fellay and his assistants).

Is Tradition itself beginning to fall into this abyss? Unfortunately, it seems so. A weak king weakens a strong people said Luiz de Camões, a Portuguese poet. Bishop Fellay is this king. Hopefully, he will not reach his goals and the love of truth will re-flourish within Tradition. That the small remnant, “pusillus grex”, be hardened by this new combat, this crisis in the crisis, this crisis within Tradition, and that the hypocrisy of Menzingen be known and rejected with the same vigor that was of advantage to the disciples of He who died because He came into this world to bear witness to the Truth (Cf. John XVIII, 37).


The Hidden Truth, or the Refusal to See It

Source: http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/04/the-hidden-truth-or-refusal-to-see-it.html

The Hidden Truth, or the Refusal to See It
By Fr. Thomas Aquinas OSB
translated by Michael Fuller


It is astonishing to see the truth, although public, being ignored. But what truth are we talking about? Of the most evident facts of the current crisis in Tradition in general and in particular in the Society, and within the reach of all who want to know. Truth unknown, hidden or simply not sought; ignored in all cases, if not to say despised.

Some claim, like Fr. Lourenço Fleichman OSB, that the resistance presents an “argument lacking fundamentals, based on false information” (see Sobre a Sagração Episcopal).

If there is a need to reiterate what has already been said and to preach in season and out of season, in good times and in bad times, we do not become weary in doing so, since St. Paul exhorts us to. If there is a need to reproduce the arguments and remind others of the facts, we do not get tired of repeating them and reminding others of them. Once more we make the diagnosis of the disease that erodes Tradition and threatens everyone with death. This evil is the Catholic Liberalism, plague of modern times, contradiction embodied in the people that embrace it. All of us who most often consider ourselves immune to this universal contagion are susceptible to be victims of this evil.

And so it is necessary to defend the work, thoughts, and intransigent Catholic line of Archbishop Lefebvre that is none other than that of St. Pius X and the entire Magisterium of the Church from its founding up unto the apostasy triggered by the Second Vatican Council.

But before this let us deal with the details; those details without which we are unable to achieve any real diagnosis of the disaster of which we are witnesses. Let us therefore begin with the movement known as GREC (Group for Reflection Among Catholics), and we shall arrive up until this very day in a very brief review of some important facts that will point to the final cause that motivates and explains them.

In 1995, shortly before his death, the former French ambassador to the Vatican, Gilbert Pérol, wrote an article of “good offices” with the intent to promote a friendly rapprochement between the Society and the official Church. In this project his wife, Mrs. Huguette Pérol, continued and then a first working structure was established in 1998.

Shortly after, this group took the name cited above, GREC, and reunited members of the SSPX and the progressive clergy. Over the years this group attracted the attention of the French episcopate, no less than that of Rome. The objective of GREC, as one of its founders, Father Michel Lelong, explains “is the necessary reconciliation between Tradition and Rome”. [i] An objective mistake, because as Archbishop Lefebvre stated: “Rome has lost the faith … Rome is in apostasy “(cf. Conference to priests in Ecône during the retreat for priests on September 1, 1987).

But for GREC, these words of Archbishop Lefebvre do not deserve attention. They are words spoken in a “time of distress” as one of defenders of the line of Bishop Fellay stated. The members of GREC believe they see events from a higher point, with more serenity, thus targeting an “impossible reconciliation“, as Fr. Rioult says very well, reconciliation between two opposing realities: between the true Church, eternal Rome, and the official church, modernist Rome. The truth is that here we see the crux of the problem in the Society because Menzingen has continued since then to seek this reconciliation advocated by GREC, using its authority to stop criticism of the Holy See i.e., the modernists that occupy it. [ii] This is the reason of Bishop Fellay having asked Bishop Williamson to cease his “Eleison Comments” and not to have made strong criticisms of the last ecumenical meeting of Assisi.

Let us remember, albeit briefly, other facts:

Response of April 14th, 2012, by Bishop Fellay, to the other three bishops of the Society, in which he tells his brother bishops that they “lack realism and supernatural spirit”;

Doctrinal statement of April 15th, 2012. This statement raised a reaction such that Bishop Fellay found himself compelled to withdraw it. But he did not retract it even to this day. The Society was and is not yet “ripe” to accept it.

May 11th, 2012, Bishop Fellay gives an interview to the American television channel CNS (Catholic News Service), in which he minimizes the seriousness of the conciliar document “Dignitatis Humanae”.

In July 2012 the General Chapter of the Society meets without the presence of Bishop Williamson, who was forbidden to be there. The result of this chapter is the abandonment of the decision of the last General Chapter (2006), which established that it would not undergo any practical agreement with Rome without a prior “doctrinal agreement”, in other words, before the conversion of Rome.

Shortly after the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from the Society is announced, an expulsion that he considers null; and Bishop Williamson invites Bishop Fellay to resign from his position in order to not to destroy the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.

On June 13, 2012 Bishop Tissier de Mallerais manifests himself against the politic of an agreement in an interview with the newspaper “Rivarol”, without, however, mentioning Bishop Fellay. Note that Bishop Tissier was transferred from Ecône to a priory in the United States. That is how the seminarians had lost contact with the oldest collaborator of the Archbishop.
In the following months, several statements, public and private, expressed and reinforced the pragmatic policy of the Society in relation to Rome. “Unilateral recognition” is the suitable formula to obtain the acceptance by members of the Society. But this is the same solution accepted by Dom Gerard (Barroux – France) in 1988, as well as Campos in 2002. A canonical recognition has been sufficient, whether unilateral or not, to create dependence on the modernist authorities and this time allow them to annihilate the whole tradition. It is not the inferiors that make the superiors, but the superiors that make the inferiors, as Archbishop Lefebvre noted. It’s a simple matter of common sense, but common sense is no longer very common.

It is convenient to recall to mind the iniquitous trials of which Frs. Pinaud and Salenave suffered, trials described and commented on by Fr. François Pivert in the book “Quel droit pour la Tradition catholique?“.

Religious communities that did not approve of the Menzingen policy had already been the subject of several measures of pressure and vexation. The list is long. Recall the postponement of ordinations of the Dominican and Capuchin deacons in 2012. The Benedictines of Bellaigue were also threatened to have the ordinations of their candidates postponed. Now, this is explained if we consider that the superiors of these three religious houses had been in Menzingen to express their disagreement with Bishop Fellay.

However, those who support Bishop Fellay said that that is water under the bridge: the 2012 General Chapter gave a satisfactory solution to the question; which is false. Both Fr. Pflüger, first assistant of Bishop Fellay, and Fr. Alain Nely, second assistant, spoke on the subject, whether in private conversations, or in retreats, and also in public interviews.

You cannot in any way say that all that was problematic in the Society is remedied. If this were true, Bishop Williamson would have been rehabilitated, honored and listened to because that was his initiative in drafting the letter to the General Council, also signed by Bishop Tissier and Bishop de Galarreta, which saved the Society from an agreement with Rome in 2012. Three bishops against the agreement were too much for Rome. It was better to wait for more propitious times.

For Archbishop Lefebvre this opportune moment to express himself- was the conversion of Rome and acceptance of the doctrines of the papal documents Quanta Cura, Syllabus, Pascendi, Quas Primas, etc. But for Bishop Fellay, the propitious times arrived and brought with them the spirit of decreased combat on the part of the Society, i.e. the alignment (“ralliement” in French) that culminated in his statement of April 15, 2012 and continues even without the signature of an agreement.

The conclusion of all this is something amazing and tragic. These facts are public, mostly. Why is there not a greater reaction to Bishop Fellay’s policy? Apparently, it is because liberalism and apostasy already operate within Tradition itself. Bishop Fellay, assisted by many priests, created a state of disorientation such that many faithful are no longer able to discern anything about what is happening with the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.

That’s why we say that the truth about these events remain hidden even though it is public. It would be a good time to quote the famous phrase of Chesterton, the following: “The modern world is run by a hidden force that is called publicity“. What matters, as a friend of ours has said, are not the facts, but the version of the facts. Now the triumphant version is that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure are disobedient and that the superiors of the Society are the true followers of Archbishop Lefebvre. This is false, as we demonstrate. This is the heart of the problem..

Now is your hour and the power of darkness” (Luke. XXII, 53). Maybe the Resistance has to survive as the apostles and disciples did while scattered about during the time of the Passion. It is useful to recall a reflection from the great Brazilian thinker, Gustavo Corção: “ I do not believe in any work nowadays bringing together a large number of people“. Perhaps the resistance is the opusillus grex to what Our Lord urged not to fear because it pleased the Father to give you the kingdom. That the protection of the Blessed Virgin may keep us faithful to the end! “Ut Fidelis inveniatur“.

Fr. Thomas Aquinas OSB
April 1st, 2015

[i] Pour la nécéssaire réconciliation, Nouvelles Éditions Latines, 2011, p. 15.
[ii] Ibidem, p. 50.

Dominicans of Avrillé: Honey and Gall in Menzingen

Source: http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/04/dominicans-of-avrillesweetness-and.html


Dominicans of Avrillé: Honey and Gall in Menzingen
By Amicus Romanus
Translation provided by Michael Fuller from Spanish


From the same mouth spews forth bitterness and gall and sweetness and honey, but not in the same direction.
-Towards Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure, it’s all bitterness.
-Towards conciliar Rome, it’s all sweetness.


The communiqué from Menzingen regarding the March 19th consecration offers a truly impressive contrast.
I. Only gall!
Joseph’s brothers could not speak peaceably to him, as much as they looked on (Genesis 37:4). From Menzingen, don’t expect one single kindhearted word of recognition or of charity towards Bishop Williamson or Bishop Faure, after their decades of good, loyal service. Menzingen only thinks of denouncing them: “The SSPX denounces the episcopal consecration of Rev. Fr. Faure”. At least this is clear, but why this denunciation? What is reprehensible in this consecration? This is something much more sinister. A very strong animosity is felt, but many rational arguments are not discerned. And even worse: it tastes of bitterness! Menzingen seems unable to speak objectively simply respecting the facts about the two bishops. At all costs, they must deform and dirty the intentions, dirty the reputation of people. The tendency seems unstoppable.

1. “Against any relations

First example: the relations with Rome. Everyone knows that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay oppose each other on this point. The former estimates (whether he is right or not is not the question here) that the latter lacks the necessary strength to decidedly oppose -face to face- the errors of the Roman authorities; instead of impressing his interlocutors -like Archbishop Lefebvre- by frontally reminding them of the inopportune truths, he lets himself be impressed by them.

More fundamentally, the opposition is about the finality of the negotiations. For Bishop Williamson, there is only one objective: that the Roman authorities abjure from all the modernist and liberal errors and everything that has resulted. Meanwhile, Bishop Fellay dreams of a canonical recognition, even before the conversion of the authorities.

All of this is notoriously public. The question is not to know if it is necessary or not to discuss with Rome, but how and with what finality to go about with these discussions.

Menzingen could easily say it in one word: Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson differ regarding the discussions with Rome. This is clear, simple, true, and perfectly objective.

But no! Menzingen could not be resolved to call it how it is. The necessity to dirty the reputation was too violent. Distrusting the evidence, Menzingen declared that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure are “against any relation with the Roman authorities“. But they have explicitly declared the contrary (even on the eve of the consecration), but that doesn’t count. Apparently, Menzingen knows more about what they themselves think!

2. “It is not at all comparable

Second example: the comparison between the 1988 consecration and the 2015 consecration. The differences and similarities can be argued a long time.[i] At least it is unarguable that the nature of the act is the same. There was a paternal link (through Bishop Williamson, Archbishop Lefebvre is now the “grandfather in episcopacy” of Bishop Faure). Archbishop Lefebvre himself had contemplated consecrating Jean-Michel Faure. The state of necessity in the Church has not diminished since 1988. Finally, Bishop Williamson has the same discourse that Archbishop Lefebvre had at the time.

Different circumstances of times, places, or manner can always be disputed, but Menzingen doesn’t even attempt it. Their communiqué simply declares that “the episcopal consecration of Fr. Faure is not at all comparable with the consecrations of 1988″. You read that right: not at all.

Among all the ways of criticizing the 2015 consecration, Menzingen chose the most expedient, the most extreme, the most insupportable, to reject as a whole. “It is not at all comparable.” It is integral negationism.

3. “All the declarations…

We approach the apex. And here finally “all the declarations of Bishop Williamson and Rev. Fr. Faure prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities”.

This is the accusation that kills: sedevacantism! An outright accusation alleged without even a minimal, faint shadow of a doubt. We are very far from interrogative-negative formulas or from the dimmed allusions of Bishop Fellay when he tries to emit reserves about Pope Francis (we don’t understand…”, “We have the impression…”). Here Menzingen understands very well and is certain. This confession was not made once, by surprise or by halfhearted words, it’s in “all the declarations” of the wicked bishops. Yes all of the declarations! Faith in Menzingen!

Moreover, Menzingen realizes that there might be, among the readers of the communiqué, some readers of Bishop Williamson that can be a little surprised because they have read exactly the opposite. Not only does Bishop Williamson recognize the Roman authorities, but he has frequently argued against sedevacantism (and in a more convincing way than Bishop Fellay, who is content with presenting it as a scarecrow).

Those who have read Fr. Faure (notably the interview before his consecration) can experience the same surprise, and even think that good Bishop Fellay lies, or at least that he says just about anything.

Happily, the bile reserve has not run dry. To prevent against any embarrassing question, it is sufficient to accuse them, Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure, of lying. All of their declarations affirm that they recognize the Roman authorities? It doesn’t matter! It is simply that they don’t believe what they say. They are only words in the air, empty, rhetorical spins. And Menzingen, which really knows better than what they themselves are thinking, finishes: “All the declarations […] prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner”.

This is what we call, in good French, a judgment of intention. It is the preferred tactic of subversives (communists, masons, etc.), because it is very difficult to counteract. You all can respond however you like, it matters little, because we have put forward the principle that you do not really believe what you say. State ten times that you recognize the Roman authorities, undertake the work of refuting the sedevacantist arguments: we content ourselves with responding that your insistence on this point is suspicious and confirms, once more, that you don’t absolutely recognize the mentioned authorities “except in a purely rhetorical manner”.

A simple question for Bishop Fellay: conscientiously and before God, is it truly correct that this polemical procedure is in complete conformity with the Gospel?

II. Only honey!

But the most impressive is the contrast.
After all, Menzingen could be suffering from a toothache or had a bad night when they wrote up their communiqué. This could explain the bitterness.
But the sweetness?
Well, reread attentively: is it not evident that they have left out from this communiqué any expression that could constitute a minimal possibility of risk of displeasing conciliar Rome?

1. “State of necessity” without an identifiable cause.

“The Society of St. Pius X still maintains that the present state of necessity renders legitimate its action throughout the world”.—But where does this state of necessity come from? It seems to float in the air without a cause and without an explanation other than the evil of the times. Menzingen mentions it as if it verifies the rain or the sun and does not remember even once that the harm comes firstly from the pope and the Holy See that propagate, since 50 years ago, mortal errors to souls.

-Shush! Shush! Warning! You are going to offend Rome!

2. The limited bishops and the administering of the sacraments.

Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops so that they could ordain priests, this is certain, but also to defend the faith and combat the current errors, moreover, the modernist and liberal errors spread by the conciliar hierarchy.

Apparently, this has ended. For Menzingen, the bishops must no longer combat the errors. The communiqué explains that Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops in 1988 and “his sole goal was to make available to the faithful the sacraments which priests ordained by the bishops would offer”.

“the sole goal”: the state of necessity in the Church is limited to the sacraments- and what about the doctrinal crisis? What about the errors of conciliar Rome, the neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendency so frequently denounced by Archbishop Lefebvre?

-Shush! Shush! Warning! You are going to offend Rome!

3. Errors that who knows from whence they come.

Nevertheless, there are errors. Menzingen indicates that it is necessary to oppose them. In its martial fit of rage, the communiqué goes all the way to valiantly declaring that the Society must oppose the errors “from wherever they may come”! And just from where do they come? They won’t tell us anything else!

-Shush! Shush! Warning! You are going to offend Rome!

Bishop Fellay, accused by Bishop Williamson of gleaming in front of conciliar Rome, should have taken advantage of the occasion to prove otherwise. Some words against the neo-modernist and neo-protestant Rome would have been particularly adequate. The very situation even seemed to require it. But no! Not a single word. Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure are scorned, but modernist Rome is in no way denounced.

And regarding this, one of the two applies:

· Either (a suspected plotter) whoever the newly responsible for the communiqué from Menzingen was is a secret ally of Bishop Williamson: he treacherously works to discredit Bishop Fellay publishing, in his name, communiqués crafted liberally (sickly-sweet for the enemies of the faith, bitter for its defenders).

· Or the communiqué really expresses the way Bishop Fellay thinks, and so the joy that Archbishop Pozzo promptly directed to the SSPX for this beautiful communiqué is understood.

P.S. Secondary consideration

It is curious that Menzingen always expresses itself as if the state of necessity that afflicts the Church was its own territory or its private property. Only the SSPX can seemingly invoke it in order to justify its apostolate.

Lastly, Menzingen seems to attribute to itself a supreme, extraordinary jurisdiction almost like the pope exercises the supreme ordinary jurisdiction. This perspective would explain the reason that Menzingen believes it is authorized to “denounce” the consecration of Bishop Faure: an attempt against its monopoly.

If this is not the case, well then what is it? A personal prelature already agreed upon by Rome -secretly- to Bishop Fellay?



[i] Regarding the differences, Menzingen emphatically underlines “some hundreds of journalists from around the world” that were present in 1988. Visibly, for Bishop Fellay this is very important. We need to ask him if the journalists -in his opinion- were present for the first episcopal consecration on the night of Holy Thursday.

The unbridled Neo-sspx Assimilation

From http://cor-mariae.proboards.com/thread/3591/unbridled-neo-sspx-assimilation, Machabees comments:


The timing is unfortunate, yet the timing is apt within this Passion of Holy Week, from the SSPX Angelus Press making their aggressive and ambiguous posture within their new Jan.-Feb. 2015 Angelus Magazine: Romanitas: what does it mean for Catholics?
Flatly, it is the ambiguous Neo-sspx Assimilation: “Not Catholic without being [Roman]”.
Where have we heard that before? Bishop Fellay, as with his followers in the neo-sspx, has been chasing us with that language ever since they came out publicly to defend their larger context that they believe that the conciliar church IS the Catholic Church, and their “Not Catholic without being [Roman]” takes on a new meaning.[1]
Based on the new sspx Branding campaign to assimilate everyone into the new deal of reconciliation, the neo-sspx has dedicated their Angelus Magazine to focus on their Roman impetus; without any distinction to the dangers or errors of assimilation!
Well of course not. How do you reconcile with using strong words to that effect?
Within their article, they provided a 40-page PDF excerpt in which if you do a word find for the word modernism, they use it a few times only in a broad context towards Rome; that is, to place history’s modern revolution at the feet of those who only want to divide Rome into an “anti-Romanism” spirit; not to directly point out anything in regards to those betrayers presently occupy the highest places and attacking the Faith and Tradition of today (La Salette)!
The narration is that Romanitas is broad; the revolution is broad; the neo-sspx understanding is broad; so isn’t the road to hell, says our Lord…
Silent apostacy…is even within the neo-sspx.


[1] The neo-sspx believes that the conciliar church IS the Catholic Church. Which means that the sspx believes that the conciliar mechanisms of the post-Vatican II structure in Rome, in its official mode of conciliar operation and discipline, is in perpetuity with the salvation of the True Church of Eternal Rome. Archbishop Lefebvre condemned that idea and stated that the Catholic Church IS the Eternal Church connected in Her belief, structure, and discipline of all of the Popes preceding the revolution of today’s conciliar church’s belief and structure.
The distinction is made by recognizing the present authorities who are occupying the seats, which is why we are Catholics and not sedevacantists, but not accepting their methods of sin to go into the fallacy of their new environment of conciliarism that is hostile to the environment of Catholicism we made promises to in our baptism. It is the same as those in the Old Testament not following the devices of the sinful leaders who went off the path in their time.
Such the case, when Rome converts and comes back to the practice of the Eternal Church, one day they will by the grace of God and get rid of their whole conciliar mechanism which will be condemned, and bring back the structure of Catholicism that bore Saints for the Church -that is Eternal Rome- in fidelity to its past, She has Her glory; not the conciliar future and its illusions that Bishop Fellay wants to put incense on.
We in the Catholic Resistance have never left the Catholic Church; they have, and founded another conciliar doctrine that is anathema.