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.