The Hidden Truth, or the Refusal to See It


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



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, 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.

The Passion of Jesus and Its Hidden Meaning by Fr. James Groenings, S.J.

We are grateful to a friend in the Resistance for bringing Fr. Groenings’ excellent work to our attention.




In the Preface, Fr Groenings writes: “This book is not, strictly speaking, a series of sermons or meditations of the sufferings of our Redeemer, but it is rather an explanation of the history of the Passion”. The author bypasses private revelations and relies strictly on the biblical account of the Passion and Death of Christ in order to bring to light the hidden meaning of the events of the Passion and to explain how the events apply to ourselves.
Considerations on the sufferings of the soul of Our Lord:
To us, indeed, who know so little of the supernatural, sin often appears in more subdued colors. We excuse it, we consider it a mere weakness, something natural, a result of youth and temperament. We fear at most the penalties of sin threatened by God’s anger. But the soul of Christ saw, clearly and distinctly, not only the entire series of sins, from the disobedience of our first parents down to the desolations of dooms-day, but also all the malice, all the abomination, the revolt, the contempt, the dark ingratitude contained in each and every sin.
Even when we recognize the wrong done to Almighty God by our sins, we take it little to heart, because we love Him so little. But the soul of Christ, which sought nothing more strenuously than the glory of His heavenly Father and which loved Him with an immeasurable love greater than that of all the Cherubim and Seraphim, felt most vividly the wrong inflicted on the Divine Majesty by sin. The sorrows of David over the injustices of the chosen people, the grief and indignation of Elias at the scandals and the idolatries of Israel, the tears of the prophet Jeremiah over the infidelities of Jerusalem were merely faint figures of the sadness of Jesus when He beheld the sins of the entire world.
And if this be true, we cannot shut out from our hearts another consideration. At the sight of our sins a God is seized with painful disquiet, and we remain calm. A God is sad over our sins, and we take pleasure therein. A God sweats blood for our sins, and we never shed a tear. We sin and, instead of hesitating and trembling, we think, perhaps, “I have sinned and what harm hath befallen me?” At the sight of our sins a God-Man writhes in agony, and we, perhaps, live on in a dreadful torpor which is an insult to the agony of Christ, in a false security, which, in a way, is more terrible than sin itself.
We, perhaps, shall slumber on in utter blindness until that hour in which the voice of the eternal Judge will awaken us. Oh, dreadful moment in which the Redeemer, now mute and patient in the Garden of Olives, burdened down with the mountain of our sins, will unsheathe before the sinner the flaming sword of vengeance! Oh, dreadful moment, in which the same Redeemer, who now sheds His blood for our sins, will demand of the sinner an account of the blood shed in vain! Oh, most dreadful moment, in which the heart, now tortured out of love for us, even unto death, will appear glowing with eternal wrath! (p 10-12)
Considerations on the importance of the place:
Let us consider first the circumstances of place. Christ began His Passion in a garden, more precisely, in an olive-garden.
When the Redeemer felt that the hour of His capture was drawing nigh, He left the Cenacle. He would not cause discomfort to the good man who had generously opened his house to Him for the institution of the Most Holy Sacrament. He wished to spare this friend all annoyance which might come to him, were the Lord to be seized in his house. He left the city altogether. Beyond its walls, in God’s open country, He decided to begin and to end His Passion, to show that He shed His blood not for Jerusalem alone, but for the entire world.
For the beginning of His Passion, He chose a wonderfully beautiful garden. How significant this choice was! In a garden the first Adam had committed the first sin, the sin of disobedience; therefore it was in a garden that the second Adam should say to His Father, “Not what I will, but what thou wilt.” In a garden Adam, by an abuse of liberty, had plunged the entire human race into the most shameful captivity; in a garden, therefore, by the bonds of Christ our fetters were to be broken. In a garden God had pronounced the death-penalty upon Adam; hence, in a garden Christ would take upon Himself this judgment and this curse. In a garden the human race was lost; and usually an object is sought where it was lost.
Christ had come into the world to lay out a garden wherein, amid splendor and abundance, there should thrive the violet of humility, the myrtle of mortification, the rose of love, the lily of virginal souls, the laurel of confessors and the palm of martyrs. It was necessary, then, that He should water and render fertile by His precious blood the soil of this garden.
The garden of Gethsemane was furthermore an olive garden, at least it contained quite a number of olive trees, and, according to several interpreters of Holy Writ, the oil for the use of the temple was obtained here. This circumstance, again, is full of significance. “Oil illumines,” says St. Bernard, “it nourishes and heals.” All these effects were to be produced by the blood of Christ in the Christian temple, and that in an infinitely greater degree than by the fruit of the olive-tree in the Jewish temple. For Christ is the great olive-tree, on which the heathen were grafted, according to St. Paul the Apostle. Now as the oil, before it could be used in divine service, had to be pressed forcibly from the fruit, so the blood of Christ also must be forced from His Sacred Body in His mighty agony. (p 14-16)
Considerations on the importance of time:
There remain the circumstances of time to be considered. It was towards eight o’clock in the evening when Christ set forth to begin His passion. … From nine until twelve o’clock at night, Christ was sad unto death. He trembled and quaked, He fell in agony, He shed a bloody sweat. What an awful contrast this picture of the suffering Saviour presents to the noisy carousals, frivolous dances, shameless ballets, secret meetings, lustful orgies which in exactly these hours of the night, defy the blood of Christ. At the sight of these abominations the heart of the God-Man would fain lose its strength and its courage: He trembled and shrank back in fear. (p 18)
(We have subdivided the original paragraphs to make reading easier. Sr C)
The Passion of Jesus and Its Hidden Meaning, by Fr. James Groenings, S.J., Copyright 1900 by Joseph Gummersbach, Tan Books and Publishers, 6th Edition, 1987, 461 pages.


Pax et Bonum


Sister Constance TOSF

The blind leading the blind! Education comment.

A parishioner penned the words below to indicate his frustration with the Catholic School System that he grew up with. He also notes that the problem that he identifies is present in the schools run by the NSSPX. Despite the warnings of a bishop and priests of the old SSPX, the NSSPX continues to make this same mistake. We will let our parishioner tell the rest, but first, one quick comment: I went to the high school that he identifies, ten years before him, and can agree that the observations that he recounts are accurate.


I keep hearing from the pulpit: “Get your children to learn a “trade” because “university” or “higher education” may make your children lose their faith”. Really?
In the old days, “Traditional Education”, including the Catholic School System, was where a young man would have a trade under his belt at 15, 16, 17, 18 years of age instead of wasting those precious years in a high school. Then, after 10 years, he would be a master tradesman like myself.
St Jerome’s High School set young men like myself up to “fail”; I’m glad I left after Grade 10 and went to a public school. I see the same thing happening in the NSSPX today. The NSSPX talks “big” about your kids learning a “trade”, but teaches them nothing of the sort. What does NSSPX know about trades? NOTHING ! They are “teachers” who have no clue and do not even know where to start to teach a trade – but I do!
As a licensed tool and die maker, and a machine builder tradesman serving an 8,000 hour apprenticeship, and who earned a 3-year Conestoga College diploma, with almost 30 years experience, I know how things work in the real world. What do the teachers of the NSSPX know about trades? Do they not realize it’s tradesmen like myself who “teach” apprentices, and not them? Where is the trade school for the 13 year olds?
Both my Catholic grandfathers in Germany learned a trade and then advanced to become pros in their fields.
My grandfather learned the blacksmithing trade from his father, as was the custom, then became a qualified Dentist with his own practice before WW2. After being injured on the front where he was an SS Officer, he then worked as a Surgeon for the remaining 4 years of WW2. He then died on the second last day of the war when the hospital he was working in was bombed – against international war regulations.
He lost his limbs and bled to death. This was a man who qualified to go to the Olympics for the decathlon before WW2 broke out, and here, he loses all his limbs – God’s Will. Note that as a doctor in Germany, you must make a discovery to become a qualified Doctor, and he did make a discovery concerning the properties of water.
My other grandfather worked for Klochner-Homblode-Deutz for 50 years, first as a machinist apprentice, a machinist tradesman, and then he became an engineer inventing something on the diesel engine that every diesel engine has to this day. These engineers, who have a trade under their belt, have over and over again proven to be the best engineers.
My father was also a tool and die maker, and a silver and gold smith. He had his trade papers at 16, and was a master at 26, and was laughed at when he told Canadian companies about his level of experience.
I have twin sisters. We were all born within one year. They also will tell you how poorly the Catholic Education System is set up – and they are both teachers.
So, if you are not “smart enough” or “interested enough” to go along with the way the NSSPX teaches kids, then what are the options available for these young men? They would do better to learn a “real trade” the “REAL TRADITIONAL WAY”, and not some pathetic, sloppy system that fails these young men.
At what age did Jesus Christ or St Joseph learn his trade? Well, it’s just like I explained:
I had shop class in Grades 7 and 8 (before they dropped shop classes). Where is the NSSPX shop class today? But then, everything just gets made by pushing a pencil, right? Someone needs to speak for these young men because I don’t see anyone else recognizing this huge problem.
No wonder so many young people leave the “Traditional Catholic Faith” when they see how they wasted so much time in a high school that was geared towards university when they could have learned a “real trade”. That is why they no longer take what is being taught in the Faith seriously, because they feel cheated. I too, was cheated, and I wonder why I still have the Faith. Maybe it’s so that I can share my understanding of how education should be “traditionally taught” and at the same time speak for the young men who have no idea, at their age, about what is going on.
The blind leading the blind. These teachers are so blind that they know nothing about trades or even where to begin. Consider what is required when building a cathedral. Do you have any idea of the level of difficulty, discipline and skill required to build a stone structure? Do you know how to combine the efforts of tradesmen such as masons, carpenters and steel workers (such as myself)? I don’t think so – it’s just for those dumb guys to figure out after they wasted all their time in high school!
Don’t ever preach to me about learning a trade unless you really know what you’re talking about, because we tradesmen listening in the pew can recognize that someone who talks like this has no idea what he is talking about – if they did, they would fully understand the protocol that they themselves do not have in place.
I had the highest marks in Industrial Arts, Sports and Religion at St. Jerome’s in Grade 9. I would like to know why the Catholic System prevented so many of us young men from learning a real trade like Jesus and Joseph did. And I would also like to know what the NSSPX intends to do about it.
The blind leading the blind!


A Confession from Menzingen by Dom Thomas Aquinas OSB

A Confession from Menzingen

Dom Thomas Aquinas OSB

March 22, 2015

The March 19th communiqué from Menzingen, although brief, teaches us a good number of things. Among others, there is a confession: namely that Bishop Williamson was expelled from the SSPX for his opposition to the rallying policy of Bishop Fellay.

Up until now, Menzingen spoke of disobedience: Bishop Williamson was undisciplined, a bad subordinate who does not obey orders. Now, Menzingen admits the real reason:
« the violent criticisms » of Bishop Williamson of Menzingen’s relations with Rome. The same goes for Bishop Faure. This is their fault.

The incident of the letter written by the three bishops to Bishop Fellay and his assistants was not very well received. Archbishop Lefebvre certainly had relations with Rome, but in the hope that Rome would correct itself and would come back. In fact, it was Archbishop Lefebvre who directed the negotiations with invincible certitude because his criterion was the Faith of All Times. Even so, he himself nearly fell into Rome’s trap. “I went too far”, he said.

On the other hand, with Bishop Fellay, things are handled very differently. It is not he who directs the negotiations. It is not he who has the strength to say to Rome : « It is I, the accused, who should judge you. » No, Bishop Fellay does not present himself as judging the errors of Rome. Rather, he presents himself as being guilty « of an irregular situation » and must fall into line and suffers because « his » Society does not follow him.

Let us digress for a moment. Are we judging Rome? Is that not the role of the superiors rather than of the inferiors? Of course. But it is the superiors who have already judged. It is Quanta Cura, Pascendi, Quas Primas, etc. that condemn the liberal popes. It is Rome, the Eternal Rome, that has already judged the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant Rome. That is what Bishop Fellay seems to want to forget and to make forgotten with his “concrete Church of today”. End of digression.

Bishop Williamson blocked Menzingen’s moves. He was a hindrance. Everyone knew it, but the General House gave another version. Now they admit it. « The violent
» of Bishop Williamson against Operation Suicide were the cause of his expulsion. It was time for Menzingen to say it. Now it is done.

However, Menzingen falsifies the matter by saying that these violent criticisms were about « all relations with the Roman authorities ». No. This is not true. They concern the rallying that would put the SSPX under the modernist and liberal yoke used by the devil to try to achieve what Carção called « the terminal sin » : to bring down the last bastions in an ultimate and monumental affront against God.

Under no circumstances will we support this effort. The devil will not achieve his goal because Our Lady is keeping watch: Ipsa conteret. This is our hope. It will not be in vain if we are faithful by the grace of God: Fidelis inveniatur.



Your Excellency, there are some who are asking what the reasons are that led to your consecration having been done with so much discretion. Wouldn’t it have been better to have given greater publicity to such a joyous event?
The consecration had to be done this way so as not to have been hindered. Bishop Williamson’s situation remains delicate. We chose this monastery because it is a little distant and provides certain measures of security. Moreover, there is adequate space here which makes it easy for liturgical ministers. Overall, there was a need to avoid any type of disturbance, and this was accomplished successfully.
Your Excellency, can you tell us anything about the signature of the 1988 protocol? Were you with Archbishop Lefebvre in those days?
I was not; instead, I was made aware of these facts just like any other member of the Society. On the 5th of May of 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre signed a protocol for an agreement with Rome, in which the pope recognized the right to consecrate one of the SSPX priests a bishop. At this time, it was considered to be something necessary in order for the work of Archbishop Lefebvre to survive after his death, but such a thing was also the bait and the hook to obtain the Archbishop’s signature. I think that when Archbishop Lefebvre signed this document he had a moment (temporary indeed) of weakness, as was the case with Saint Joan of Arc, and like her, he wrote, after the “worst night of his life”, a retraction letter to the Vatican representative, by which he nullified the protocol. Bishop Fellay cannot take advantage of this moment of weakness which was later retracted to say he is imitating Archbishop Lefebvre’s conduct. “I went too far”, Archbishop Lefebvre would say later, referring to the signature of the protocol. Archbishop Lefebvre had no illusion about the Roman diplomacy and the Roman interlocutors, as is demonstrated in many of his declarations and in the non-diplomatic determination that appears in the fundamental declaration of 1974 about the two Romes: the Eternal and the modernist, or the two churches: the Catholic and the conciliar. And Bishop Fellay, in the in which he confuses the current, official, modernist Rome with the Eternal Rome, he makes himself unfaithful to Eternal Rome, guardian of the Truth. He confounds the conciliar church – about which Arch. Lefebvre spoke so much – with the Catholic Church. For Bp. Fellay there is only one church and only one Rome: but this is the antithesis of Arch. Lefebvre’s position.
Your Excellency, recently we have been able to read many criticisms about yourself. For sure, the devil is not very happy with this consecration. What could you tell us about this?
What happens is that we intend to continue as much as possible the line of Arch. Lefebvre, and for this reason we receive attacks from the right and from the left, just like it happened to Arch. Lefebvre.
From the right and from the left?
Yes. On the left are those that are carrying out the integration of the SSPX into the conciliar church, and on the right are the sedevacantists. Sedevacantism is an excessive simplification of the situation (and sometimes it is not exempt of sentimentalism, even though this may be understandable) that was not accepted, on a prudential level and after a deep examination, by Arch. Lefebvre and by theologians and canonists of high level that he was able to consult. On this one must speak about the true grace of state in Arch. Lefebvre, who had to some degree the same role of Saint Athanasius against modernism. We have no doubt that Providence put him here to guide us in this crisis of the Church, that has only gotten worse after his death, but continues to be essentially the same. We cannot say that Francis has a greater responsibility than Paul VI or John Paul II for the development of the crisis that Arch. Lefebvre, Bp. De Castro Mayer, Fr. Calmel and so many other great theologians confronted.
On the other hand, Menzingen says that Your Excellency and Bp. Williamson recognize the Roman authorities “in a purely rhetorical manner”.
No more and no less than Arch. Lefebvre. Hence the sedevacantists also attack us, and in a very violent way.
Your Excellency, in your Masses do you pray for Pope Francis?
I follow Arch. Lefebvre’s instructions about this matter: pray for the pope and denounce his heresies, like Saint Athanasius and so many saints who had to oppose the popes of their times.
Concerning these liberal and modernist popes, and the question of the Catholic Church vs. the conciliar church, does Your Excellency agree with the position of the Dominicans of Avrillé, as exposed in the article titled: “One Hierarchy for two Churches”?
Let us continue with the theme of the pope. In the previews interview we asked Fr. Faure what would he do if Francis invited him to go to Vatican. And now we as Bp. Faure, what would you say to Francis?
Above all I say this interview is impossible in practice, since a sine qua non condition is the presence of Bp. Williamson and other priests, being excluded any type of “negotiation” with an agreement in view – whatever it is – while, as Arch. Lefebvre used to say, there is no radical conversion on the part of Rome, accepting, in fact and in right, all the encyclicals prior to the Vatican II, as also the condemnations against liberalism and modernism that they include; but this apparently will not happen before the third world war (that seems near). I would say to the pope:What Church do you belong to? To the Catholic Church or to a falsification of the Church?. Your function is to confirm your brothers in the Faith. I would remind him of the words of Saint Paul: your authority was given you “unto edification, and not unto destruction”. (2 Cor. 13, 10), to edify and not to destroy catholic faith and morals. I would say him the following, citing Arch. Lefebvre: Do you agree with all the great encyclicals prior to John XXII, and with all the popes till Pius XII, inclusive? Are you in “plain communion” with those popes and with their teachings? Do you accept the anti-modernist oath? Are you in favor of Our Lord Jesus Christ’s Social Kingdom? If you do not accept the doctrine of these predecessors of yours, it’s useless to talk to you. It is because we are faithful to the eternal Rome that we are obliged to separate ourselves from the modernist and liberal, current and official, Rome. It’s not because Menzingen lets to be seduced, that Bp. Williamson or I are going to fall in the same snare.
Coming back to the critics and lies about your person, some of them are extremely ridiculous. Therefore, pardon us this question that we make with the purpose to honor the truth and to protect some simple and excessively gullible souls: Can you tell us something about the circumstances around the burial of your father?
In March 3, 1986, my father’s body was taken to my home to hold a vigil. Thus he was placed upon my bed, and not upon the floor, as the sedevacantists claim. That they say the names of the witnesses! Personally, I can name Fr. Canale, SSPX, who celebrated the Requiem Mass, Fr. Ricardo Olmedo, SSPX, the seminary professors who knew the facts, the seminarians that today are priests, Fr. Schmidberger, SSPX, who was in the Mass and in the cemetery, and also the members of Mesuda family, who were great benefactors of the seminary when it began and who were present to the veiling ceremony. These ones lately sheltered, moved by mercy, twenty seminarians that got out of the seminary after the sedevacantist rebellion of 1989. My father is buried in the little cemetery of the Society. All the seminarians and many priests and faithful attended his mass. In this episode there was nothing abnormal and nothing to hide; but what we have here is an example of the sedevacantist logic to say Bp. Faure is Jew: I was born in Algeria; Jews are numerous in Algeria; therefore, “I must be a Jew”. But, as muslins are much more numerous, maybe I am a marrano muslim? Against all calumnies and inventions so ridicule, I have in France a well done the genealogical tree of my family that I will make public when I go back there.
And what can you tell us about the crisis of the Argentinian seminary, in 1989? They also blame you for this.
About the crisis in the Buenos Aires Seminary I clarify that I arrived in Mexico in September 24, 1985, five days after the terrible earthquake, soon after I was appointed Superior of the Mexico District, but this crisis took place in 1989, in the wake of the sedevacantist rebellion against Arch. Lefebvre. The rector, one professor and many priests of this tendency had influenced half of the seminarians of La Reja, that waited for the visit of Fr. Schidberger in 1989 to leave the seminary wholesale and get into a “seminary” made by a secular group in Mexico. A complete failure: a little group of them remained in an abandoned monastery near Cordoba, Argentina, and afterwards around Luján, and finally in El Bolsón (southern Argentina). Therefore, it is an evident lie that the supposed scandal of the burying of my father, that happened three years before, had provoked the immediate departure of these twenty five seminarians. Bp. Tissier writes about these facts in the biography of Arch. Lefebvre. (page 546, 2nd ed., Edi. Clovis, 2002).

Spiritual Bouquet

In the middle of a sermon he chuckles as if his Guardian Angel has just reminded him of some humorous or ironic story or fact to relay to his flock. His love of his Faith is obvious. His love of Our Lord and His Mother is obvious. You can sense the heaviness he feels about the current crisis within the Church. Yet, he remains tireless. He is a Resistance priest. He is Father David Hewko.
We wish to offer our next Spiritual Bouquet for Father Hewko. Let us be generous and tireless as he.
We wish to offer him this bouquet on May 2nd, the feast of St. Athanasius; so, please forward the fruit of your tireless endeavors to Patricia at or before Saturday, May 2nd.
God bless

God bless

Sister Michaela Raphaela