LETTRE OUVERTE AUX QUATRE ÉVÊQUES DE LA FRATERNITÉ SAINT PIE X

Voici la lettre...

CARTA DEL PADRE BASILIO MERAMO EN RESPUESTA A SU EXPULSION DE LA FSSPX

P.Méramo: Respuesta ante su Expulsión de la FSSPX

Carta a Monseñor Fellay en respuesta a mi expulsión de la Fraternidad Sacerdotal San Pío X.

Acabo de recibir, el 7 de abril, en mano propia, como era de esperar, ateniéndose a la lógica consecuencia de las cosas, después de dos amonestaciones canónicas, la notificación de mi expulsión, que es desde luego injusta e inválida, jurídica y teológicamente considerada, pues las moniciones eran de suyo inconsistentes siendo así repelidas inmediatamente, como consta en mis dos cartas en respuesta a las mismas.

.

De todos modos apelo a Roma Eterna interponiendo recurso contra el decreto de mi expulsión, a tenor del derecho canónico (canon 647 § 2 n° 4), lo cual tiene efecto suspensivo y así, jurídicamente la expulsión queda en suspenso, sin efecto jurídico, hasta tanto el recurso esté pendiente, y esto de modo indefinido, pues la Roma Eterna está hoy invadida por indignos prelados que no cumplen con su deber, ex officio, confirmando a los fieles en la fe, sino que hacen todo lo contrario, para corromper, prostituir la fe, el culto y la moral, violando la verdad, cuyo imperio detestan, cual anticristos; y esto para colmo, como si fueran Dios, es decir, en el nombre de Dios, de la santa obediencia a la autoridad y a la jerarquía de la Iglesia. Habrase visto mayor abominación y desolación en lugar santo, haciéndose además adorar como si fueran Dios, invocando la potestad divina, la cual pervierten e invierten. Y por esto Monseñor Lefebvre dijo que«Roma está ocupada por anticristos» en su declaración del 30 de junio de 1988. Y por irónico que suene el asunto queda como quien dice, pendiente hasta la Parusía de Cristo.

.

No obstante me toca soportar (sufrir) con paciencia e integridad la injuria recibida, permaneciendo firme en el combate frontal, como sacerdote católico, apostólico y romano, permaneciendo firme contra el modernismo de Roma anticristo, como una vez más Monseñor Lefebvre designa en la misma declaración mencionada a la Roma modernista y liberal que persigue a muerte lasacrosanta e infalible Tradición Católica, ante la cual hoy Usted junto con toda la cúpula directiva de la Fraternidad y los otros tres obispos de la misma, impune y cobardemente claudican entregándonos bajo apariencia de bien en los brazos del “magnánimo y paternal” Benedicto XVI que ha logrado seducirlos con hábil y sutil manipulación haciéndolos caer en la trampa.

.

Ahora, si Usted me lo permite, paso a hacer el descargo, de sus fulminantes (aunque absurdas) acusaciones, al menos de las más relevantes y graves, dado el contexto teológico-doctrinal del problema. Se me acusa de falsas y graves acusaciones contra el Superior General, de daño grave por asumir una posición contraria, obstinación, rebelión contra la autoridad, escándalo, etc.

.

Quisiera saber, estimado y reverendísimo Monseñor, cuáles son las acusaciones falsas contra Usted, graves sí, pero falsas no, si hay falsedad no es precisa y justamente de mi parte, sino (y perdóneme) Usted, de la suya, dado que tiene un doble lenguaje, desde hace mucho tiempo y no es porque Usted sea bilingüe, sino por su gran dilema, como llevarnos a un acuerdo sin que se note la traición, encubierta bajo una falsa apariencia de bien.

.

Cómo es posible aceptar, lo que Usted mismo dijo hace ocho años, (en una entrevista al diario valesano La Liberté, el 11 de mayo de 2001, y publicada en DICI n° 8, el 18 de mayo del mismo año): «que nosotros guardamos en un 95% el Concilio Vaticano II», sin ser liberal y modernista; cuando hasta los mismos liberales y modernistas reconocen que el Concilio Vaticano II fue, como dice el Cardenal Suenens: «El Concilio es 1789 en la Iglesia», es decir, la Revolución Francesa de 1789 dentro de la misma Iglesia, o también como afirmó el entonces Cardenal Ratzinger y hoy Benedicto XVI: «El problema del Concilio fue asimilar los valores de dos siglos de cultura liberal»(Le destronaron, Monseñor Marcel Lefebvre, en la introducción).

.

Luego es claro y evidente que cualquiera que guarde o acepte el Concilio Vaticano II en un 95%acepta en un 95% la Revolución Francesa dentro de la Iglesia, que asimila dos siglos de cultura liberal en la Iglesia. Un 95% es un porcentaje altísimo estadística o matemáticamente considerado.

.

Entonces la gran pregunta es ¿qué nos quiere decir? ¿qué pretende hacernos creer?, al decir que van a dialogar o a discutir con Roma doctrinalmente, ¿qué van a discutir, el 5% que resta? Esto sólo prueba fehacientemente la parodia, el engaño, la mentira y la falsedad objetivamente hablando, y esto por etapas con gran aparato de seriedad, mientras que de hecho todo se pudre aceleradamente más.

.

Por si fuera poco, qué queda de la Fraternidad, de la resistencia ante el modernismo si se guarda, tiene, mantiene o acepta el 95% del nefasto y atípico Concilio Vaticano II, adogmático y por lo mismo, absurdo, como el concebir un círculo cuadrado o un triángulo bilátero, un matrimonio católico no indisoluble, pues como hace ver el teólogo dominico Marín Solá (sucesor en la cátedradel eminente teólogo tomista en Friburgo, el Padre Norberto del Prado): «Está revelado que “todo Concilio ecuménico es infalible”, o lo que es lo mismo, está revelado que “todo Concilio es infalible si es ecuménico”.» (La Evolución Homogénea del Dogma Católica, Marín Sola, ed. BAC, Madrid1963, p. 435); libro elogiado en 1923 cuando apareció por el Cardenal Merry del Val, quien fue Secretario de Estado de San Pío X, para combatir la herejía modernista que pretendía una evolución transformista y heterodoxa del dogma católico, tal cual hoy la concibe Benedicto XVI cuando dijo siendo Cardenal que «pone en duda que haya un magisterio que sea permanente y definitivo en la Iglesia» que «ya no hay una verdad permanente en la Iglesia, verdades de Fe, dogmas en consecuencia, se acabaron los dogmas en la Iglesia, esto es radical. Evidentementeesto es herético, está claro, es horroroso, pero es así». Tal como lo aseveró Monseñor Lefebvre en una de sus últimas conferencias espirituales en Ecône del 8 y 9 de febrero de 1991, pues murió el 25 de marzo de 1991.

.

Pero claro, ahora es según Usted “magnánimo”, “valiente”, “paternal”, le inspira confianza, es conservador, y aún criticado por el ultraprogresismo como favorable a la Tradición, en resumen casi un tradicionalista ante el cual Usted va a Roma «casi corriendo» y lo admira con ingenua sonrisa como se puede apreciar en algunas fotografías en una de sus entrevistas, donde aparece también el Cardenal Castrillón Hoyos y que adjunto para más pruebas de su inopinado y comprometido proceder.

.

Monseñor Lefebvre denuncia un pacto de no agresión entre la Iglesia y la masonería, y Usted está dispuesto a pactar con él. «Un pacto de no agresión ha sido concertado entre la Iglesia y la masonería», A esto se lo ha encubierto con el nombre de «aggiornamento» de «apertura al mundo», de «ecumenismo». (Un Évèque Parle, p. 97). «En adelante, la Iglesia acepta no ser ya la única religión verdadera, único camino de salvación eterna». (Ibid. p. 97).

.

Por esto, el entonces Cardenal Ratzinger, hoy Benedicto XVI, llega a reconocer a las otras falsas religiones como un camino o vías extraordinarias de salvación como se puede apreciar en este texto de corte conservador pero profundamente y solapadamente herético: «…se ha llegado a poner un énfasis excesivo en los valores de las religiones no cristianas, que algún teólogo llega a presentar no como vías extraordinarias de salvación, sino incluso como caminos ordinarios».(Informe sobre la Fe, Ed. BAC Popular, Madrid 1985, p. 220 última página).

Por si fuera poco, Monseñor Lefebvre señala que: «Este concilio representa, tanto a los ojos de las autoridades romanas como a los nuestros, una nueva Iglesia que ellos llaman por otra parte “Iglesia Conciliar”.» (Ibid. p. 97).

.

Monseñor Lefebvre afirma que es un Concilio cismático, y Usted guarda el 95%, es decir que es cismático en un 95%, magnífico nivel, citemos el texto: «Creemos poder afirmar, ateniéndonos a la crítica interna y externa de Vaticano II, es decir analizando los textos y estudiando los pormenores de este Concilio, que éste, al dar la espalda a la Tradición y al romper con la Iglesia del pasado, es un Concilio cismático. Se juzga el árbol por sus frutos.» (Ibid. p. 97). Así tenemos paradójica y absurdamente que Usted acepta el 95% de la Nueva Iglesia postconciliar, cismática y apóstata, por lo cual, tendríamos en Usted, a un cismático y apóstata en un 95% (no está mal el porcentaje), que dice ser el fiel y digno sucesor de Monseñor Lefebvre, si esto no es una falsedad y una traición ¿dígaseme qué es?

.

Monseñor Lefebvre considera que: «Todos los que cooperan en la aplicación de este trastrocamiento, aceptan y adhieren a esta nueva “Iglesia conciliar”… entran en el cisma» (Ibid. p.98). Y Usted hoy pretende obtener un acuerdo con esta nueva Iglesia conciliar cismática.

.

Por si fuera poco, Usted pretende un reconocimiento oficial o regularización de la Fraternidad con Roma modernista y su ecumenismo apóstata, tal como lo señaló Monseñor Lefebvre: «Los que estiman un deber minimizar estas riquezas e incluso negarlas, no pueden sino condenar a estos dos obispos y así confirman su cisma y su separación de Nuestro Señor y su reino, a causa de su laicismo y su ecumenismo apóstata.» (Itinéraire Spirituel, p.9).

.

Sí, ecumenismo apóstata, porque eso es, en lenguaje moderno lo que las Escrituras llaman Gran Apostasía, es decir la apostasía universal o ecuménica. Y a esta apostasía ecuménica o ecumenismo apóstata Usted nos quiere acercar. Luego, nos quiere hacer unos adúlteros, cismáticos, puesto que como dijo Monseñor Lefebvre: «Esta apostasía convierte a estos miembros en adúlteros y en cismáticos opuestos a toda tradición, en ruptura con el pasado de la Iglesia, y por lo tanto, con la Iglesia de hoy en la medida en que permanece fiel a la Iglesia de Nuestro Señor. Todo lo que sigue siendo fiel a la verdadera Iglesia es objeto de persecuciones salvajes y continuas.» (Ibid. p. 70-71).

.

En la carta a los Obispos del 10 de marzo de 2009, Benedicto XVI afirma, después de hacer alusión a la “remisión de la excomunión”, como un gesto de bondadosa y paternal misericordia, para invitar al retorno (del hijo pródigo) a los cuatro obispos de la Fraternidad, pero recordando clara y explícitamente que «no ejercen legítimamente ministerio alguno en la Iglesia», puesto que no tienen misión o posición canónica, ya que siguen suspensos a divinis hasta tanto su situación se regularice aceptando, después de las discusiones doctrinales, el Concilio Vaticano II, lo cual expresa en estos términos (mostrando con el dedo la luna llena de la Pascua): «con esto se aclara que los problemas que deben ser tratados ahora son de naturaleza esencialmente doctrinal, y se refieren sobre todo a la aceptación del Concilio Vaticano II y del magisterio postconciliar de los Papas. (…) No se puede congelar la autoridad magisterial de la Iglesia al año de 1962, lo cual debe quedar claro a la Fraternidad». Con esto se ve cual es el objetivo de Roma modernista y apóstata, y Usted y los otros tres Obispos de la Fraternidad nos dicen que van a Roma para predicar la verdad, para convertirlos, etc. Esto es engañarse y engañarnos a todos estulta e ingenuamente, como el tonto que se queda mirando el dedo cuando le señalan la luna con la mano. Pero para colmo, Usted mismo reconoce casi con las mismas palabras de Benedicto XVI, y en respuesta, que: «Lejos de querer parar la Tradición en 1962, nosotros deseamos considerar el Concilio Vaticano II y la enseñanza postconciliar» (Carta del 12 de marzo de 2009) con lo cual Usted responde prontamente (dos días después) al mensaje de Benedicto XVI, cuando le señala claramente la luna. Esto sólo muestra y demuestra, y perdóneme Monseñor, su doble lenguaje modernista y liberal, manifestándose su falsedad y traición.

.

Luego Monseñor, es absurdo e injusto que por resistirle pública y abiertamente a su siniestra política de reintegración en el marco oficial de la Nueva Iglesia conciliar con su ecumenismocismático y apóstata, Usted se atreva, en el ejercicio abusivo de su autoridad, comprometida y claudicante con los peores y principales enemigos de la Iglesia, expulsarme, acusándome falsa e injuriosamente de rebeldía, insumisión, desobediencia, obstinación, escándalo, sublevación, falto de enmienda, perjudicial o dañino para con el bien común de la Fraternidad, acusaciones todas que muy fácilmente se las puedo endosar y restregárselas en la cara, pero de esto se encargará el Divino Juez cuando venga a juzgar a vivos y a muertos, en él pongo la suerte de mi causa y allí nos veremos, y entre tanto pido por Usted, que Dios lo perdone, porque no sabe lo que hace, ni con la Fraternidad, ni conmigo que me defenestra como a un vil delincuente a la calle, sin recursos, con 55 años (al igual que aconteció con muchos sacerdotes reticentes a las innovaciones en la época del Concilio), y esto después de haber dado todo de mí con total y generosa entrega al servicio de la Fraternidad, a la que pertenecí durante 29 años, dejando todo, renunciando a todo para servir a la Santa Madre Iglesia en la Fraternidad, resistiendo y combatiendo contra el modernismo herético y apóstata, al cual hoy Usted nos conduce suave, dulce, pero seguramente.

.

Hoy Usted me excluye de la Nueva Fraternidad reciclada a los pies de la Nueva Iglesia conciliar, Nueva Fraternidad y Nueva Iglesia a las cuales jamás pertenecí ni quiero pertenecer nunca, yo seguiré perteneciendo a la verdadera Iglesia y a la verdadera Fraternidad. Usted me expulsa, mejor dicho me excomulga de su Nueva Fraternidad, poco me importa, como poco le importó a Monseñor Lefebvre que lo excomulgaran de la Nueva Iglesia, siendo ello, lejos de un estigma, de una afrenta, una verdadera condecoración inmarcesible y una prueba de su ortodoxia, y no como Ustedes, los cuatro obispos, que avergonzados pedís que se os quite tal afrenta ante los ojos del mundo, no queriendo seguir soportando la Cruz, considerándola ignominiosa, como si Cristo hubiera bajado de la Cruz (instrumento de máximo oprobio y sufrimiento), pero no lo hizo, prefirió morir crucificado, vejado, escupido, azotado y despojado de su vestimenta y por todos abandonado, para fundar su divina Iglesia entregándole el testamento de su Sangre derramada sobre la Cruz. Y este testamento firmado con su divina sangre, su cuerpo todo inmolado, es la Santa Misa, que hoy Usted de algún modo desconoce como única y exclusiva, al aceptar la Nueva Misa espuria y bastarda (como la llamó Monseñor Lefebvre al igual que a todos los nuevos sacramentos y a los sacerdotes) como rito principal (ordinario) y legítimo mientras que la MisaTridentina pasa a ser un rito ocasional (extraordinario) en la Nueva Iglesia, que es (o será) la sede del Anticristo-Pseudoprofeta, pues como dijo Nuestra Señora en la Salette: «Roma perderá la fe y será la sede del Anticristo». El que tenga ojos que vea, y el que tenga oídos que oiga.

.

Por irónico que parezca, pero así son las cosas, Usted hoy me decapita, sin quizás recordarse que gracias a mí, Usted aceptó el cargo de Superior General, dada mi intervención en el Capítulo General de 1994, impidiendo así la reelección del Padre Schmidberger, que desde dos años antes comenzó a disponerlo todo para ser reelegido y que casi lo logra, pues sorpresivamente Usted fue el elegido, en contra de sus planes, y que gracias a mi intervención al levantar mi voz para decirle que aceptara el cargo como una cruz, a imagen de San Pío X, que aceptó con pesar y hasta con lágrimas el ser elegido milagrosamente en el cónclave, y así Usted después de retirarse unos momentos a solas con el Padre Schmidberger en la habitación contigua (sala de grabaciones), a lo cual me opuse levantándome en medio de la concurrencia impávida y muda de los asistentes, incluidos los otros tres obispos, para dirigirme al Padre Aulagnier, el entonces superior de Francia, y pedirle que interviniera impidiendo estos secretos, pero sin obtener ningún resultado; y así Usted al retornar a la gran sala aceptó su elección, concluido el breve entendimiento con el Padre Schmidberger.

.

Y para colmo de ironías después de saber esto, viendo como me trata (maltrato) algún ladino (cual abogado del diablo) podrá decir: «así paga el diablo a quien bien le sirve».

.

Todo este drama apocalíptico que vive la Iglesia está contenido proféticamente en toda la liturgia de la Cuaresma, de manera espacialísima y solemne en la Semana Santa y el Triduo Sacro que nos muestra la Iglesia desolada, el altar desmantelado y el tabernáculo vacío, clara imagen de lo acontecido no sólo hace 2000 años con la Pasión y muerte de Cristo en la Cruz, sino también de lo que sucedería a la Iglesia, cuerpo místico de Cristo al fin de los últimos tiempos apocalípticos, antes de su gloriosa Parusía, que todos debemos esperar y que pedimos incesantemente quizás muchas veces sin darnos cuenta al pedir en el Padrenuestro, venga nos el tu reino (adveniatregnum tuum), o como dice también San Juan Evangelista al finalizar el libro del Apocalipsis: Ven Señor Jesús, Maranatá.

.

Que Dios lo perdone, Monseñor, con todo su Capítulo, que cual concilio sanedrita me condena y excluye, recordándome lo que hiciera con Nuestro Señor Jesucristo quien fuera el pueblo elegido,pero después corrompido, resonando en mis oídos las palabras de la liturgia: «Dijeron los impíos oprimamos al varón justo porque es contrario a nuestras obras.» (5ª antífona de Laudes de Martes Santo). Pero también vienen a mi mente las reconfortantes palabras del Profeta: «El Señor Dios es mi protector, por eso no seré avergonzado; y así he presentado mi rostro como una piedra durísima, y sé que no quedaré confundido». (Is. 50, 7).

.

Así pues no quedándome otra alternativa que la de callar y claudicar en el vil silencio ante lo que veo, o la de hablar claro y firmemente al precio de la exclusión, he cumplido con mi deber sacerdotal sin traicionar a Dios ni a mi conciencia. Ahora no me queda sino deambular con la cabeza entre las manos cual aconteció a San Dionisio cuando le decapitaron, antes de caer y morir.

.

Me despido de Usted en este patético y significativo Triduo Sacro de la solemne Semana Mayor, lleno de profética alusión a lo que acontecería con la Iglesia en los últimos tiempos apocalípticos, pero que es el necesario preludio para la futura y gloriosa Pascua de Resurrección.

.

Basilio Méramo Pbro.Orizaba, Jueves Santo, 9 de abril de 2009

http://lapuertaangosta.blogspot.com/search/label/P.M%C3%A9ramo

L'abbé Lorber appelle ses fidèles à venir se prosterner devant l'"antichrist" Ratzinger !!

LA TRAHISON DU COMBAT DE MGR LEFEBVRE S’ACCELERE !!
Nous vous transmettons ici des informations importantes que vient de publier le site virgo-maria.org :

" La dernière provocation de l’abbé Lorber : il instrumentalise
Amiens pour aller se prosterner devant Benoît XVI au chevet de
Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet ! "

Voici le texte...

L'ABBÉ LORBER ET LA VISITE DU PAPE

La dernière provocation de l’abbé Lorber : il instrumentalise Amiens pour aller se prosterner devant Benoît XVI au chevet de Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet !

A deux jours de la visite de l’abbé apostat Ratzinger à Paris, le petit clan du ralliement de la FSSPX multiplie les initiatives. L’abbé Celier vient de faire signer un texte de déférence et de respect de l’abbé de Cacqueray envers Ratzinger et l’a publié dans une mise en scène grotesques d’armes du Vatican sur la Porte Latine.

Maintenant c’est l’agitateur abbé Bernard Lorber qui monte une provocation : il tente d’entraîner les fidèles d’Amiens pour vendredi après-midi aux bords du boulevard Saint-Germain, au chevet de l’église Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet, sur le passage de Benoît XVI-Ratzinger, celui que Mgr Lefebvre appelait le « serpent ».

Instrumentalisant la situation scandaleuse des fidèles d’Amiens mis à la rue depuis un an, l’abbé Lorber ose venir se prosterner devant le patron de l’église conciliaire qui est celle-là même qui met les fidèles d’Amiens dans cette situation inacceptable. La misère et les souffrances des fidèles sont ainsi détournées pour alimenter une fausse dialectique du « bon » Ratzinger face au « mauvais » évêques, comme si l’un et les autres n’étaient pas les adeptes du même concile : Vatican II.

Cette opération de l’abbé Lorber (extrêmement lié à l’abbé Lorans qui mène une double vie avec l’église conciliaire et qu’il a médiatisé à l’excès dans la vidéo des « 30 ans » de Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet) a pour but de réaliser l’étape n°1 du plan dévoilé par Arnaud Dumouche : exprimer un respect et une déférence envers Benoît XVI qui donnera ensuite le prétexte attendu par Rome pour lever les sanctions et pousser Mgr Fellay dans des « discussions » fatales, et d’imposer la convocation d’une réunion du chapitre général à Lourdes en fin octobre, pour une prise du pouvoir. Le scénario est très huilé, Mgr Fellay en est la cible et les infiltrés utilisent actuellement toutes leurs courroies de transmission.

En déclarant : « nous voulons assurer le Souverain Pontife de notre attachement indéfectible au Siège apostolique et le remercier pour l’acte courageux posé lors de la publication du Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, en juillet de l’année passée.« , l’abbé Lorber répond OUI à l’ultimatum que Mgr Fellay et les évêques de la FSSPX ont rejeté depuis début juin.

Par cette provocation subtile et en trompe-l’oeil (« défendre Amiens »), l’abbé Lorber, de concert avec les infiltrés, vient exprimer le respect et la déférence à l’égard de Benoît XVI que Castrillon Hoyos attendait et que le Supérieur de la FSSPX s’est refusé à exprimer.

Il conviendrait de s’informer des circonstances dans lesquelles l’abbé Lorber a du quitter précipitemment l’Allemagne en octobre 2006, deux mois à peine après y avoir été envoyé. Nous remercions les lecteurs qui pourront nous aider sur ce sujet.

Pendant ce temps, l‘abbé Jean-Pierre Boubée, visiblement parachuté comme « 4° vicaire » à Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet pour prendre la place de l’abbé Beauvais, sera sur place.

Déjà par les soins des infiltrés de Suresnes, l’abbé de Cacqueray s’étant plié à leurs volontés, l’église de Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet sera pavoisée des couleurs « pontificales » et sonnera les cloches. Un fidèle nous écrit :

« Chers Amis,

Bien amicalement »

L’imposture n’a pas de limites !

Conformément à l’ordre de l’abbé de Cacqueray, l’Eglise Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet et la Chapelle Sainte-Germaine des Ternes seront pavoisées aux « armes » du Vatican à l’occasion de la venue en France de l’abbé-apostat Ratzinger.

Voila ce que j’ai pu lire affiché ce soir sur la porte de l’un de ces deux centres de la FSSPX…

C’est révoltant et insultant pour la mémoire de S.E Mgr Marcel LEFEBRE(+) qui nous avait mis en garde qualifiant Ratzinger de « serpent » !

Continuez votre bon combat

Union de prières en Notre-Seigneur et Notre-Dame.

_message signé_

Ennemond, le porte-parole officieux de l’abbé Celier sur le Forum Catholique multiplie pendant ce temps les appels à la mobilisation sur le FC.

Jusqu’à quand Suresnes sera-t-il dirigé par l’abbé Celier et le petit clan des infiltrés avec qui il travaille ?

VM

———————-

Déclaration de l’abbé Lorber

Chers fidèles,

A l’occasion de la visite à Paris du pape Benoît XVI, nous voulons assurer le Souverain Pontife de notre attachement indéfectible au Siège apostolique et le remercier pour l’acte courageux posé lors de la publication du Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, en juillet de l’année passée.

A cet effet, j’encourage ceux qui le peuvent – et j’y serai moi-même – à vous rendre à Paris.

Ce sera pour nous qui vivons à Amiens une situation particulière, l’occasion d’évoquer et l’urgence de notre situation et le désir d’une ouverture franche, d’un dialogue fraternel avec l’autorité ecclésiale locale, qui pour l’instant s’enferme dans un mur de silence, tout en reconnaissant qu’il y a un problème qu’elle ne peut ignorer.

Notre démarche consistera à rappeler la situation, paisiblement, mais de façon concrète. A cet effet, nous aurons vendredi sur le passage du pape, du Collège des Bernardins à la cathédrale, une grande banderole portant une simple phrase : « Amiens, les catholiques encore à la rue… ». Les porteurs de la banderole se situeront sur le trajet, à l’angle du boulevard St-Germain et de la rue des Bernardins.

Nous donnons ensuite rendez-vous à vous, chers fidèles, ainsi qu’à tous ceux qui nous soutiennent, pour une photo sous la banderole. Ce rendez-vous aura lieu sur le parvis de l’église St-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet vers 20h30.

Prions afin que le passage du Vicaire du Christ en notre pays ait des répercussions bénéfiques pour l’Eglise et les âmes, et – directement ou indirectement – pour notre communauté encore éprouvée.

Abbé Bernard Lorber

P.S.: un premier groupe prendra le train vendredi à 12h13, un second groupe samedi matin à 6h05.

http://virgo-maria.info/wordpress/?p=96

sept 11th, 2008 by La Rédaction.

INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP FELLAY

Fellay speaks: The talks begin in the autumn of 2009

The Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, has granted an extensive interview to Italian news agency APCom (full interview):

[Apcom:] The Pope is in Valle d'Aosta for a period of vacation. [Note: The Pope left Valle d'Aosta for Castel Gandolfo on July 29, which means that the interview was granted before his departure.] You are located very near him. Have you had any contact, or has there been any kind of contact between his entourage and you?

[Fellay:] No, absolutely not. There has been no contact. During his vacation, we must leave the Pope alone [lasciare in pace]. The matters go on with the Vatican, with the people in charge of the conversations. But we have not disturbed the Pope. This is his vacation.

[Apcom:] Bishop Fellay, is a trip of yours to Rome foreseen for the near future? Has the initial date of the dialogue been set? And, about your commission, have you already considered who will take part in it? How many people will form it?

[Fellay:] There is not date set for the beginning of the dialogue, but we may assume that it will be in the autumn. I will be in Rome for that period, but there is nothing yet detailed. The Commission is already formed, by 3-4 people, but we cannot yet mention the names, even if to avoid any kind of pressure.

[Apcom:] Do you consider that in the Vatican there is an excessive sensibility regarding the expectations of the Jewish world, in the "Williamson affair" as well as concerning the Good Friday prayer?

[Fellay:] Yes, I do think so. I am myself embarrassed - after that which took place in the case of Bishop Williamson - when I see Jews who concern themselves with matters of the Catholic Church. It is not their religion. Leave us alone [lasciare in pace].They are matters which concern the Catholic Church. If we wish to pray for the Jews, we will pray for the Jews, in the manner we see fit. I do not know if they pray for us, but I would say that this is their problem.

[Apcom:] Therefore, the Pope and the Vatican receive pressures from the Jewish world?

[Fellay:] Right. This is an extremely delicate and burning matter, and I think that we should remove ourselves from this climate which is not good. There was an unfortunate coincidence of events which must never happen again. In this context, the anger of the Jews can be understood, I understand it, and I deplore what happened.

[Apcom:] In the motu proprio 'Unitatem ecclesiam' [sic: ECCLESIAE UNITATEM], the Pope maintains that "the doctrinal questions obviously remain, the Fraternity does not a canonical status in the Church, and its ministers cannot exercise any ministry in a legitimate manner". What do you think of this?

[Fellay:] I think that nothing much has changed. What has changed is that this new disposition will focus our relations on doctrinal matters. But it is not a change, it is a process that moves forward, and that we had already asked for in 2000; the path goes forward. That which the Pope writes is in line with the usual speech of Rome, since 1976, therefore it is not new. We maintain a clear position, which we have carried on for a while, and that we maintain, even if we are in contrast with this law, that there are serious reasons that justify the fact that we exercise this ministry legitimately. The circumstances in which the Church finds herself, which we call a "state of necessity". For example, when a great catastrophe happens in a country, its ordinary structure is put out of use, the system goes into crisis mode, and then all those who are able to help do help. And therefore it is not our personal will, but the need of the faithful that demands the help of all those who are able to help. And this state of necessity is very widespread in the Church - there are certainly some exceptions - in order to secure, in conscience, the legitimate exercise of the apostolate.

[Apcom:] What juridical status do you desire for the Fraternity of Saint Pius X? A prelature, a society of apostolic life, or what?

[Fellay:] It will depend on Rome, obviously, that is the authority that will decide this structure. Their perspective is the wish to respect at the utmost the concrete reality that we represent. My hope is that we be sufficiently protected to exercise the apostolate to be able to do good, without being always stopped from action by juridical reasons. The hope is for a prelature, even if I do not have a preference. On the timetable, I cannot express myself, it all depends on Rome.

[Apcom:] For Williamson, the Second Vatican Council is a "poisoned cake", to be thrown in the "dustbin"; for Tissier de Mallerais, the Council should be "cancelled"; and for Alfonso de Gallareta [sic] there is not "much to salvage" from the Council: is there a division inside the Fraternity of Saint Pius X? How do you intend to solve it? The Vatican maintains that there are divisions inside the Fraternity.

[Fellay:] I might say that I do not see union even in the Vatican. The problem in the Church of our age is not us. We have become a problem only because we say that there is a problem. Besides, even if we may give the impression of opposing or even contradictory declarations, there are no internal fractures. For example, on the Council, we may say that almost all of it is to be rejected. But it may also be said that what is possible should be salvaged. But we all can never say the same thing. The Council is a mixture: there are good things, and bad. Even the Pope, when he maintains that a hermeneutic of continuity is to be desired, that he does not want a rupture, rejects the Council interpreted as rupture.

[Apcom:] Is Bishop Williamson a problem?

[Fellay:] He is a completely marginal problem. What he said has no relation whatsoever with the crisis of the Church, with the core issue with which we have dealt for 30 years following the Council, it is a historical matter. The question of knowing how many and in what way the Jews were killed is not a matter of faith, it is not even a religious matter, is is a historical matter. We are obviously convinced that he did not consider this matter as he should have, and we have distanced ourselves. But on the religious positions of the Fraternity regarding the Council, I do not see any problem with Williamson.

[Apcom:] Williamson says that the Council is a "poisoned cake" to be thrown away in the "dustbin". Does this phrase not seem to you a bit strong? Are you in agreement with it?

[Fellay:] It is a controversial phrase, but I do not condemn him. So many declarations today are made in a controversial tome, it is a provocation made in order to make people think. I would state the concept in another way, but I do not know if I am not in agreement. I would say it in another way, I would say that we must transcend the Council to return to that which the Church has always taught, and from which the Church cannot separate herself, and in a certain moment we must transcend the Council which intended to be pastoral, and not doctrinal. Which wished to concern itself with the mutable situation of the Church. But things change, and so many things of the Council are now worn-out.

[Apcom:] Bishop Williamson had promised to remain in silence, but he continues to speak: will he be punished? If he continues to maintain that a compromise with Rome on the Council is not possible, will he be expelled?

[Fellay:] It is not true that Williamson speaks often. It is very rare... he once said something... and then we did not ask him to keep silent about everything. The field about which we asked for his silence was very limited. His removal has been temporary. I downplay it as much as possible... it is not to be exaggerated... at the moment, I see no grounds for expulsion. It depends on him, on the situation in which he placed himself. For the time being, it is an ongoing process, he has seriously damaged his reputation, I cannot imagine anything beyond the situation in which he already is. It will depend on what he says. He has already been sufficiently punished, pushed to the margin, with no position.

[Apcom:] And, regarding the Council, will you accept a compromise with Rome?

[Fellay:] We will not make any compromise on the Council. I have no intention of making a compromise. The truth does not tolerate compromise. We do not want a compromise, we want clarity regarding the Council.

[Apcom:] The recent ordinations of priests have been seen as a provocation: would it have not been better to avoid them, in this delicate moment?

[Fellay:] It was not a provocation. Some bishops profited of occasion to claim provocation. But it was not a provocation, neither for Rome nor for us. It is like preventing a person from breathing. We are a priestly society whose goal is to form priests. And therefore to prevent the ultimate act of formation, which is the ordination, is like preventing someone from breathing. On the other hand, it had always been foreseen and we had always known that with the removal of the excommunication a new situation has taken place which is better than the preceding one, but not perfect. For us, it is normal to move forward with our activities, and, therefore, with the ordinations.

[Apcom:] L'Osservatore Romano has mentioned Calvin, Michael Jackson, Harry Potter, Oscar Wilde. What do you think of this?

[Fellay:] I ask myself: is the role of "L'Osservatore Romano" truly to busy itself with such matters? This is a first question. And the second question is: what is said about these people is truly the right thing? I have a mostly critical appraisal of such matters.

[Apcom:] Do you believe that this tired matter of the Lefebvrians may finally reach an end with this Pope?

[Fellay:] I do believe that there is certainly good hope. I believe that we must pray intensely, they are very delicate matters. We have been in this situation for 40 years, and not for personal considerations, but truly for serious things which pertain to the faith and to the future of the Church. We certainly see in the Pope an authentic will to reach the core of the matter, and we cherish this with all satisfaction. We pray, and we hope, that with grace of the good God we will reach something that is good for the Church and for ourselves.

[Apcom:] What do you think of Benedict XVI?

[Fellay:] He is an upright man, who regards the situation and the life of the Church most seriously.

RORATE COELI 15-09-2010

PERSONALIDADES CRÍTICAS EM RELAÇÃO À VISITA DO PAPA AO REINO UNIDO

Personalidades criticam que Papa seja recebido no Reino Unido em visita de Estado

Mais de 50 personalidades britânicas da ciência e das artes, incluindo o ator Stephen Fry e os escritores Ken Follet e Philip Pullman, criticaram hoje o facto de o Papa ser recebido no Reino Unido em visita de Estado.

Num manifesto muito incisivo publicado pelo diário The Guardian, os subscritores argumentam que Bento XVI não merece a honra deste género de visita ao Reino Unido pelo facto de, na qualidade de líder religioso e chefe de Estado, “liderar um Estado e uma organização responsável” por actividades condenáveis.

Os signatários referem designadamente “a oposição à distribuição de preservativos, que fomenta famílias numerosas em países pobres e a propagação da SIDA; negar o aborto, incluindo às mulheres mais vulneráveis; opor-se à igualdade de direitos para homossexuais, bissexuais e transexuais, e não abordar os numerosos casos de abusos de menores no interior da sua própria organização”.

Na missiva, também assinada pelo filósofo Anthony Grayling, o cientista Richard Dawkins ou a dirigente trabalhista baronesa Tessa Blackstone, também é reconhecido que o Papa, na qualidade de cidadão europeu e líder de uma religião com seguidores no Reino Unido, tem direito a visitar o país. No entanto, sublinham que a deslocação não merece a honra de uma visita de Estado, que lhe permitirá ser recebido pela rainha Isabel II ou encontrar-se com o chefe do Governo, David Cameron, entre outros atos oficiais.

O Papa chega na quinta-feira ao Reino Unido para uma visita pastoral de quatro dias em que estão previstas 16 intervenções públicas.

I ONLINE 15-09-2010

MONSIGNOR STENICO: "NON SONO GAY"

Esclusivo - Parla Monsignor Stenico: “Non sono gay, il mio era un esperimento per scrivere un libro contro l’omosessualità nel clero”

di Bruno Volpe

CITTA’ DEL VATICANO – Chi lo conosce, sa della sua passione per il Servo di Dio Paolo VI. Monsignor Tommaso Stenico (nella foto con Giovanni Paolo II) non ha mai perso occasione per ricordare, anche da queste colonne, il Papa bresciano dimenticato dalla storia. Ed è forse proprio da Giovan Battista Montini che ha preso esempio mantenendo la calma in un momento così burrascoso – il peggiore che potrebbe vivere un sacerdote – della propria vita personale e religiosa. Con calma, dunque, il grande accusato, il prete ripreso dalle telecamere nascoste di “Exit” (La7) mentre ospita in Vaticano un ragazzo omosessuale conosciuto in una chat room a luci rosse, parla e racconta la sua versione dei fatti, partendo con una considerazione che, per onestà intellettuale e professionale, pubblichiamo: "Francamente, da “Petrus” non mi aspettavo questo trattamento, ma cristianamente sopporto, non faro' querele, il tempo e' galantuomo ed io sono cristiano".

Monsignore, si tratta di un’intervista delicata: che può dirci su quanto riportato dalla stampa?

"Confermo, l'episodio e' avvenuto realmente".

Come sarebbe a dire, si autoaccusa?

"Assolutamente no. Magari sono stato un grande ingenuo, forse ho peccato di superficialita'. Il ragazzo de La 7 e' veramente entrato nel mio studio, il personaggio ripreso sono io, non contesto le riprese e le evidenze, e' tutto sacrosantamente vero. Ma io non sono gay, anzi ho dovuto difendermi da ben altre insinuazioni per la mia prestanza fisica…".

E allora come stanno i fatti?

"Bene, volevo scrivere e redigere un libro, una ricerca sul problema dell’omosessualità tra i preti. Oggi il demonio sta entrando nella Chiesa e lasciano solo il Papa. Dunque, mi sono messo su Internet ed ho cercato siti gay, ho contattato quel ragazzo ed è venuto da me. Sara' stato in luglio, ora non ricordo, ma non di domenica. Fatto sta che la televisione ha carpito la mia buona fede: in sostanza era solo un esperimento, uno studio sul tema, ed io sono caduto, ma spieghero' tutto ai miei superiori".

Agira' contro La 7 per le riprese fatte a sua insaputa?

"Adesso non so, ma ci penserò"

Non avrebbe dovuto informare del fatto e del suo esperimento i suoi superiori?

"Forse sì, ho peccato in questo. Ma mi creda, io non ho fatto nulla di male, tant’è che sono stato io a mandare via il ragazzo".

Lei e' stato sospeso dai suoi incarichi in Vaticano, vero?

"Sì, mi hanno sospeso ed è iniziato un procedimento disciplinare. Dal canto loro, i superiori hanno ragione ed io obbedisco; forse la difesa avrebbe necessita' di maggiori garanzie, ma mi metto anche nei loro panni. Lo ripeto, l'episodio e' vero, il prete sono io, ma si tratta solo di un banale equivoco, lo chiariro' e subito".

http://www.papanews.it/news.asp?IdNews=3500

MISSA TRIDENTINA NA BASÍLICA DE FÁTIMA

Suspended Catholic cleric has Vatican gay list -- report

Agence France-Presse
First Posted 23:15:00 10/19/2007

Filed Under: Gender Issues, Religions, Religion & Belief

Editor's Note: Re-posts to clarify Catholic Church position on homosexuality in last paragraph.

ROME -- A high profile Vatican cleric suspended after he was shown on television making advances to a young man allegedly had a list of homosexual priests and bishops in the Roman Catholic Church's governing body, Italy's Panorama weekly reported Friday.

Father Tommaso Stenico, 60, had "a detailed dossier" of all the homosexual clerics at Vatican "with a list of names and circumstances implicating a certain number of priests and even bishops working at the Curia," Ignazio Ingrao, reporter for the conservative news weekly said.

Stenico also sent his superior Cardinal Claudio Hummes a report denouncing the moral degradation within the Curia, which could make the Vatican "tremble," Ingrao said.

According to Panorama, Stenico, who also worked for a Catholic television station Telepace and owns a white BMW car, also drew up the list out of resentment at having waited so long to be named a bishop.

A hidden camera in his office showed the priest, who worked in a Vatican department managing the 400,000 Roman Catholic priests around the world, declaring himself an "active homosexual" and making sexual advances to a young man.

On October 1, Italian television station La7 aired footage from the encounter showing the two men with their faces blurred.

Stenico argued he had been trapped and had falsely stated he was homosexual "in order to unmask those who really are."

Last week, the Vatican suspended the priest and opened an investigation.

Should Stenico be found guilty of homosexual activity, which the Roman Catholic church bans, he risks being defrocked.


http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20071019-95567/Suspended_Catholic_cleric_has_Vatican_gay_list_--_report

MONSIGNORE STENICO

Vatican Suspends Cleric for TV Gay Talk

Reportedly IDs Him as Priest Discussing Gay Issues on TV

29 comments Oct. 14, 2007

PrintRSSFont Size: Share:EmailTwitterFacebookMoreFarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahooMonsignor Tommaso Stenico has told the Associated Press that he is the Vatican official suspended after an elaborate sting conducted by a private Italian television network to expose gay priests.

This man, who claims to be the suspended priest, says he was conducting research on the spread of homosexuality through the clergy.

(ABC News)

The network hired a man to contact a handful of priests on the Internet and then secretly film their meetings.

Stenico was anonymous, but was reportedly identified by his voice and the appearance of his office in the background.

In one conversation, the priest identified as Stenico is reportedly heard on camera saying he doesn't believe homosexual sex is a sin.

There are no allegations that sex took place.

In an interview with the Rome daily La Repubblica, Stenico said he was only pretending to be gay as part of his work as a psychotherapist.

"It's all false. It was a trap," Stenico said. "I was a victim of my own attempts to contribute to cleaning up the church with my psychoanalyst work."

The Vatican moved quickly to suspend Stenico while it conducts its investigation. A Vatican spokesman said the case is being handled "with the utmost reserve."

Homosexual tendencies are not considered a sin in the Catholic Church, though homosexual sex is.

Homosexuality in the priesthood has not been a big issue in Europe, but Vatican reporter Marco Politi said that may be changing.

"Until now, the church has had to deal with this abroad, " he said. "Now, they have to face it inside Italy."

Jim Sciutto and Hanna Siegel contributed to this report.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3728611

Pope Accepts Resignation of Bishop Involved in Homosexual Encounters

Read more...

BISHOP TERENCE FULHAM

Read more

A LETTER BY FATHER MARSHALL ROBERTS EXPLAINING WHY HE LEFT THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X

Read more...

IS THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X IN SCHISM?

View the PDF file

A LETTER BY FATHER ERIC ENSEY EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR QUITTING THE SSPX

Rev. Fr. Eric Ensey

Society of Saint John

3 February 1998

My dear friends in Christ,

Since leaving Michigan in late October, I have wanted to send you this letter, though circumstances only now permit me to do so. My intention in writing is to dispel some of the confusion and anxieties resulting from my sudden departure from the Society of Saint Pius X. In so doing, I hope to fulfill what I consider my duty to you in both justice and charity.

From the outset, I want to make clear that there are two essential questions at hand: the one, my leaving the Society of Saint Pius X; the other, the foundation of the Society of Saint John. Though the two things are related, they are, nonetheless, quite distinct and must remain so if we are to see through the present state of confusion.

Finally, know that my departure was after having notified my immediate superior, the Reverend Father John Fullerton, as well as having attempted to notify our common immediate superior, the Reverend Father Peter Scott. Several days after leaving, I sent a facsimile letter of explanation to both of them, as well as to the Society's Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay.

Reason for Leaving the Society of Saint Pius X

WHAT DOES IT PROFIT A MAN. . .

Saint Paul tells us in his Epistle to the Hebrews that a priest is a man taken from among men on behalf of men and appointed for the things pertaining to God. The priesthood exists, therefore, for the good of the Church, that intercession may be made between heaven and earth: worship for heaven, grace for earth. Yet, if a priest is bound to seek the good of the people in his care, even to the point of laying down his life for them, he is not thereby entitled to neglect the good of his own soul. In making this decision, I have heeded both the voice of conscience and what have seemed to be the indications of Providence, and that, for the good of us all, whether directly or indirectly.

ROMAN DECLARATIONS

Just before my departure from the Society, I became aware of recent clarifications on the part of Rome concerning the episcopal consecrations of 1988 and their canonical and ecclesial consequences. Rome's position, since the aftermath of the consecrations, is that both Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, along with the four men whom they consecrated, were ipso facto excommunicated as a result of the event. The argument of the Holy See, in keeping with past doctrine and discipline on the matter, is essentially that to consecrate a bishop against the express will of the Sovereign Pontiff can never be justified. This is because such an act is a direct attack upon the unity of the Church: hence the serious penalties incurred by the parties involved.

NOT THE BISHOPS ALONE

These sanctions are not considered to stop with the bishops themselves, however. According to canon law, a priest or deacon ordained by an excommunicated bishop is automatically suspended (and in this case, presumably excommunicated as well, for formal adherence to schism). This latter question (that is, of the irregular status of the major clerics of the Society of Saint Pius X ordained after June, 1988) was one of the items treated by the recent document from the Pontifical Commission for the interpretation of Legislative Texts. Because I was ordained in 1995, this question concerned me directly, albeit - due to the formation that I had received in the Society on this subject - I had never considered myself to be under any censure whatsoever. However, after speaking with a priest in Rome who works for the Ecclesia Dei Commission, and then concurring with two other traditional priests on the matter, I decided that, though the issue was not altogether clear in all respects, the presumption was rather for Rome than against it. The question of the consecrations has been and is now again the object of serious consideration and study. However, Rome's attitude seems justifiable and clear, based not upon neo-Modernist innovation, but upon traditional principles of ecclesial theology. The situation for the Society does not look good.

DUTY TO THE SOCIETY: ENGAGEMENT

It was under the weight of this that I became convinced that my personal good standing as a Catholic priest necessitated the immediate cessation of my membership within the Society. In spite of the fact that there yet remained some seven weeks until the foreseen end of my engagement of membership, I could not in good conscience continue my ministry as a suspended priest. Moreover, a promise like the Society's engagement is neither a vow nor an oath. It does not continue to bind in conscience once obedience thereto becomes sinful, as it seemed it would have been in my case, knowing then what I knew.

DUTY TO SELF: CONSCIENCE

I hope that the preceding information, brief though it may be, has made clear both why I thought I needed to leave and the reason for the haste with which I did so. It was not my will to abandon my duty to anyone. However, traditional moral theology is clear in teaching that, when one finds oneself confronted with serious positive doubt, one must first resolve the doubt before proceeding in one's course of action. In this case, the doubt is in the favor of Rome, that is, the normal ecclesiastical authority. With the Holy See's having lifted the aforementioned censures, the doubt has been resolved in my case. I would hasten to add that the experience of the past three months has served to confirm the decision I made at the end of October last. Happily, I have resumed my priestly ministry, in circumstances which I will now explain.

The Society of Saint John

A LONG-STANDING HOPE

After leaving the Michigan priory, I joined a group of clerics in the diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania. Here, we are presently working on the foundation of a new, traditional clerical society of common life, the Society of Saint John. As some of you know, I have been for several years closely associated with certain of these priests and seminarians, all formerly of the Society of Saint Pius X. Initially, we did not realize the weightiness of Rome's arguments concerning the gravity of the Society's situation, because, as indicated earlier, our seminary formation within the Society had been deficient in some matters of ecclesial theology and canon law. In fact, our original intention was that our work would be a companion and complement to the Society, not its competitor or adversary. The scandal of division (which is not the same thing as the harmony of diversity) had preceded us sufficiently, and we did not want to be the cause of still more.

RESPONSIBLE PREPARATION

Therefore, we had intended to prepare a proposal for this new work, which would then have been duly presented to the superiors of the Society of Saint Pius X for their consideration and we hoped, their blessing. Thus, it should be clear to all that the founding of this new society is something altogether distinct from the present difficulties within the Society of Saint Pius X. Indeed the plans for it have existed in our thoughts and hopes long before we realized the seriousness of the Society's situation. The reason for the establishment of this new group, therefore, is not to contend with the Society, as the work envisioned is a quite different one (see the enclosed brochure).

Refutation of Some Rumors

GOSSIP ABOUNDS

Although we had hoped for a friendly parting from the Society, as says the old German refrain, "although man proposes, it is God who disposes." Providence did indeed dispose differently than we had hoped. The events of the last few months, aggravated by human faults and miseries - from which none of us claims exemption - have contributed to misunderstandings. There is even a certain spirit of paranoia on the part of some Society superiors, and much of what is passing for logical argument is rather the stuff of emotion, particularly fear. All of this manifests their unwillingness for such a work, and lately this has taken the form of unbridled opposition, especially as the seriousness of the Society's situation has come to be known. Much now is being said in criticism of our group and its members, and there appears to be given no little place to the wagging tongues of gossip, from which, at times, both detraction and calumny - intended or not (God and the gossipers, know) - issue forth.

NO COMPROMISE

However, contrary to the popular assertion and rumor, we have not made any compromise regarding the Catholic Faith. In seeking to found a new community, we have sought the permission of legitimate ecclesiastical authority, knowing full well the necessity of obtaining the official approval of the Church for us and our proposed work, approval which is beyond the power of the Society of Saint Pius X or any other human institution so give. The moral approval, or blessing, of the Society was sought in the beginning for our work, but it could not have been, even in the most favorable of circumstances the substitute for an ecclesiastical approval. This is both theologically necessary and canonically decisive, assuring that a work be linked to the essential apostolic mission of the Church and willed by God as a work of the same, no matter how inherently good or useful it may seem in its own right. For, "How can they preach unless they be sent?" and, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it." (The Society of Saint Pius X itself always has based its existence and activity on the official approval received from the then Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg, Monsignor Francois Charriere . . . in 1970, no less, with the era of the Novus Ordo Missae and so-called "new church" well under way.)

STILL FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT

The regularization - not, be it noted, re-ordination - of our status as priests and deacons within the Church was followed by the permission from Rome for the continued celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the traditional Roman Missal. The subsequent granting of full diocesan faculties by Bishop James Timlin of this diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania has given official approval to our priestly ministry. Meanwhile, the work of founding our new society steadily progresses, God's blessings being abundant in both consolation and the Cross of Christ. Bishop Timlin has been nothing but paternal and welcoming in our regard, asking of us no compromises whatsoever. Hence, I heartily protest the vile and bitter attack being made upon his generous person and benevolent character by some members of the Society of Saint Pius X. I remain steadfast in my attachment to Sacred Tradition, and I do here state in the most forthright and unequivocal way that I have in no way, shape, or form "given up the fight" for either that Tradition or the Church whose living Magisterium is the sole authentic interpreter thereof. The war in which the Church finds Herself engaged today is one of many fronts and battles, and I do but fight on a new field, where the struggle promises to be no less arduous . . . no less worth fighting and dying for.

Relationship with the Fraternity of Saint Peter

NO PROMISE OF SILENCE

In that field of battle, our rapport with the Fraternity of Saint Peter is essentially one of beneficiaries and tenants, since I and my companions presently rent a portion of their Saint Gregory's Academy. The Fraternity superiors know perfectly our intentions regarding the formation of a group distinct from themselves, and they respect our status as such. Contrary to popular rumor, neither group has promised "silence" in the face of either sin or error, and so we are united in the general defense of Catholic truth and justice, just as we are united to anyone else in the measure that they are working for the restoration of the Faith and Christendom. We have accepted only one condition. Confronted with those reforms of the Second Vatican Council and thereafter which seem difficult to reconcile with traditional Church teaching or discipline, we have agreed to pursue a path of serious, well-studied and non-polemical discourse with the authorities of the Church for the resolution of those difficulties. "Non-polemical," be it noted, does not mean "not public." Never have I or my companions agreed to a policy of silence concerning the present crisis. Rather, we are resolved simply that, in all discourse with Church authorities, the interest of truth be not so zealously and intemperately pursued that that of charity and justice suffer loss: " . . . if I have all faith so as to move mountains, yet do not have charity, I am nothing."

Pastoral Concern

PRESENT GRATITUDE FOR PAST GOOD

I remain, notwithstanding the present trials, devotedly indebted to the Society of Saint Pius X, including both its official leaders and members and its associated laity. God knows the good that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society have done over the years, for so many of us. I do not hesitate to say that neither the Fraternity of Saint Peter nor the Society of Saint John would even exist were it not for the work of the Society of Saint Pius X. Present problems do not erase past benefits, nor do they excuse from one's duty of gratitude.

UPON THIS ROCK

In saying this, however, I must add that the Society of Saint Pius X would not itself exist were it not for the Catholic Church. Let us resolve to do all in our power, then, be it "only" by our prayers and sacrifices, to work toward a reconciliation between the Society and Rome. This necessarily entails, on the one hand, avoiding a campaign of bitter zeal that would only intensify the spirit and, where it exists, the reality of division, and on the other, holding fast to principles in the face of human respect. These are difficult times in which to live, but they are, by Divine Providence, our times. Men and human institutions can falter, and we do both them and ourselves a great disservice in thinking otherwise. Do I here suggest that we admit defeat? God forbid. "If God is for us, who can be against us?" He has promised that His Church will withstand even the gates of hell. We must indeed labor for the restoration of the Faith and Christian civilization. However, we must take care to ensure that our efforts do not exceed the limits traced by the Church's own constitution. Moreover, let us always remember that, in the final analysis, it is not we who save the Church . . . rather, it is the Church Who saves us.

Open Lines of Communication

TRUTH IN CHARITY; CHARITY IN TRUTH

My dear friends, you are in my thoughts and prayers. None of you as excluded from my charity and good will. The remembrance of the many acts of kindness and charity shown to me during the course of my nearly two and one-half years as a priest in the Society, and of the spiritual and material support that I received during my seminary studies, will ever be with me. I welcome any communication on your part, whether approving or disapproving, ready and willing to discuss these issues. All I ask of you is that same commitment to "truth in charity" that I demand of myself. Indeed, in this letter I have deliberately refrained from writing anything which I cannot at this time substantiate, or which I simply do not see in such a way so as to responsibly convey it to others, though this might be enough for me. Although there is much going on in the Society of Saint Pius X that concerns me greatly, for now it seems better to keep a reserved silence on these matters, pending the completion of our study of the same. Though my departure has been an occasion of sorrow and distress for many of you, none was intended. I do not consider myself to be the judge of the Society of Saint Pius X, and in no way do I seek to attack it or its members. This letter, as I declared from the outset, only aims to answer two questions: namely, why I left where I was, and where I am now. Please weigh what you have read here and what you have already known about me against what you have lately heard - and will no doubt hear - and, following the Gospel admonition, judge justly.

Conclusion and Exhortation

Let us believe in the Catholic Church and in the God who has promised to be with Her until the end of time. The Church, like Her Lord, has both a human nature and a divine one . . . and, like Her Lord, She can and has suffered in that human nature. Though we Catholics are accustomed to seeing our God nailed to a cross, we are not always so ready to accept a like crucifixion of the Church. Such is, however, part of the mystery of the Mystical Body, and the only possible attitude in the face of mystery is that of a respectful and adoring silence. Our Lady, Saint John, and the Holy Magdalene did not need to understand fully the reality of the Cross in order to remain faithfully at the feet of the Crucified. Neither do we need to comprehend fully the mystery of the crisis of the Church in order to remain her faithful sons and daughters. Let us be true to her in her time of suffering, striving with all the strength of our souls to live the Gospel, utterly confident that in spite of every possible indication to the contrary, it still both can and must be lived. It is the heart of our holy Faith, the light shining in the darkness of this world . . . a light whose beacon will never fade nor direct amiss. Keeping our eyes on Christ and our hearts in Heaven, let us walk as the adopted children of His Father that we are, ready to follow Him wherever He leads us.

May God bless and keep you, one and all, and may Our Lady's mantle be your sure protection in every danger, and her heart the way that leads you to Him. For my part I remain the man, adopted son of God, and priest that I heretofore was, resolved to stay faithful to Him and His Catholic Church and Priesthood to the end of my days. So I am, by the grace of God. So may I, by that same grace, ever remain.

Ever your devoted friend in Christo Iesu per Mariam,

Fr. Eric Ensey