top of page

"War Aims"


Fr. Francois Chazal, SSPX

Cebu, 21st  September 2012



Since that fateful month of may 2012 my specific intent has always remained the same : “That the SSPX and the New Rome remain separate until Rome converts”. It is what you call a victory condition.

Now, after three months of strenuous fight from priests, bishops, monks and faithful, we are witnessing some serious backpedalling from Bishop Fellay, that are all to his credit, and that are also very reassuring in the sense that His Lordship does not believe in his own infallibility after all.


In the process, some of us got shot down, much expectedly, and now comes the question to stop questioning openly our superiors, fall back into line, dismantle this embryonic network of priests that just came out and avoid dividing the flock and needless fighting with our confreres.


Humility is the best disposition to answer this question, but as St Thomas says, humility is based on truth. So which is the best, to continue to be bashed for the sake of the truth, humbly bashing remaining deceits of the Devil, or declare that the war is won, for the time being, write the promised “war won” document, and leave the security of the SSPX to the SSPX big guns.


Well, two things: we are nothing and, secondly the beast is still breathing. What if us few continue to serve that purpose of exposing the prince of lies, cater the need of those souls only who want to profit from our priesthood and wait patiently until our last war aim is attained. 







The SSPX crisis stays on as long as its head, Bishop Fellay, teaches errors and allows errors to spread, thus dividing the flock. Otherwise the 20 resistance priests (as of September 2012) are guilty of dividing the flock.


So let us make a SSPX headscan. Fortunately I was able to see Bishop Fellay on September 04th , talked to him for one and a half hour, just 72 hours before his big Econe backpedalling (priests conference, 09.07.2012).


For about 20 minutes or more His Lordship rebuked me for my scandalous, destructive and revolutionary behavior and this terrible refusal to stop my activities, etc. then he asked me the reason for such pertinacity.

I replied: “Because I believe that you have a new theory on Vatican II, by which its errors, keep that Council erroneous, but are surmountable.”

I was warned by Fr. Koller: Bishop Fellay is an intelligent man; one cannot accuse him of being simply in favor of Vatican II; it is much more complicated than that. Bishop Fellay knows his public.

His Lordship then answered: “Archbishop Lefebvre thought like that at some stage, and he signed the texts of the Council” Then I think he realized he had failed to deny the accusation and started to pound the notion that he is indeed against Vatican II, that I am just persevering making him say that he likes Vatican II when the opposite is true, that he is the one who knows best what his thoughts are.

I then showed him my small collection of eight quotes of his, called “I excuse the Council” and he replied “This is not what I said… from start to finish we disagree with Rome on Vatican II and that is why the talks have failed. You base your entire thing on a false assumption of what we think (about VII).”

When he got finished I then asked candidly: “If you are indeed truly against Vatican II, why were you, my Lordship, so silent about Assisi III?” Referring to one phrase pronounced in St Nicolas du Chardonnet, he said that he made his all the condemnations of the Archbishop about Assisi. That sounded awkward and Fr. Nely rushed to the rescue, explaining how bad Assisi III really was. Not getting it, I reminded his Lordship of his resolute NO, when I was with him in Cebu, to my request for a strong and public stance against Assisi III. (He said the same to the Pfeiffer brothers at the time).


Then I asked why there is such little difference between DICI and other Ecclesia Dei websites, or even Zenit for that matter. There was absolutely no reply on that question. I nailed it then, mentioning the doctrinal scandals of Rome in these last three months, based on the evidence of what we read in the “Osservatore Romano”. That paper got sifted through the pink glasses of DICI to let you know only good things about Benedict XVI this summer. You don’t have to know that the Pope, as of this summer, is praising Vatican II continually, insists that Muslims stay Muslims, prepares to beatify the successor of Escriva, continues to support the Focolari and other neo-christian movements, praises pluralism and Religious Liberty as the solution to the persecution in the Middle East, etc.

If you knew these facts, they would obscure our newfound good opinion of Benedict XVI, and our ignorance that the errors of Vatican II are still raging.

DICI is the mouthpiece of Menzingen; it is professionally run and prepares the agreement with the new Rome in the long run, through a massive use of pink paint, all the while of today’s backpedalling. In fact, there is no backpedalling at DICI. On all of this I was not able to get any clarification from His Lordship.


Then I raised the issue of the CNS interview (May 11th 2012), and more specifically the words of Bishop Fellay about Religious Liberty and this is what he said: “On CNS I was talking to the American Catholics who raise Religious Liberty to the High Heavens. THE FOUNDATION IS THE RECIPIENTIS (OR RECEIVER). This “very limited” is the contrary of what you make me say. I was showing that there is a way to deal with the problem. It came out sideways.” (Modern philosophy bases everything on the mind of the knower, the receiving subject; while catholic philosophy bases everything on the  thing known, the “res” existing out there, whether we like it or not)


I then felt I had heard enough; it came to me that I had enough of what I wanted to make sure: That the mind of my Superior General is no longer anchored in Catholic Truth, but that his concepts are shifting on the right and on the left, on the yes and on the no.


When I look back on my written transcript, I see that pattern occurring all the time:


  • Things have changed in Rome BUT it doesn’t mean that everything has changed.

  • The Pope wants to recognize the SSPX, BUT his desire is blocked by VII and modernist bishops.

  • Rome already grants us the exemption BUT there are problems for opening houses.

  • It is not going to work if we ask bishops’ permissions, BUT there are so many novus ordo bishops that are calling us.

  • … We have our own apostolate BUT all bishop has absolute power.

  • We should be treated equally with bishops BUT it is normal that the bishop should have a say (about us).

  • If Rome accepts to put its errors on the level of opinion we can attack BUT Rome is absolutizing the Council.

  • We have some more buts in the Econe conference.

  • The Pope still believes in Vatican II BUT he wants to recognize us. (same as )

  • The 2006 principle (no practical agreement until Rome converts) is true BUT what do we mean by “conversion of Rome”? Something gradual or progressive?

  • The offer of Rome was worthy of notice BUT, I guarantee you, I was never interested in a deal.


On this last but, may I ask you to read again the April 14th letter to see if this but is genuine?

No wonder we are accused to be black and white on a regular basis… that is because the official SSPX teaching is now all grey…


So I felt enough was said; there was no need to touch the rather more complex issue of the Magisterium, the question of our newfound and extensive use of the new Code of Canon Law, and other issues. I had the time to apologize for some wrongful or disrespectful past choice of expressions, ate twice at the table of His Lordship, was allowed to say my private mass on a side altar (unlike in Manila), visited a place that has a charm of its own and was very kindly put to the train by Fr. Selegny who, as a witness, promised me to send me a detailed transcript of the conversation. I would like to say that bishop Fellay was fair to me, a man totally opposed to his ideas and in full war against them.



Now the ideas of bishop Fellay and the unchecked spread of liberalism in the SSPX was also the purpose of my visit to another bishop, and since Fr. Couture is using that bishop against me, well, I shall recount all the details of that visit as a defense.


His Lordship accepted to see me on the 16th of August in Econe. For 15 minutes or so, I reeled under a powerful episcopal broadside, all my joints shaking under the cold anger of His Lordship Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais. My attitude, he said, was completely out of place, taking upon myself a task that does not belong to me and making a show of total disobedience…

I tried to recover by saying that I had grave doctrinal difficulties with bishop Fellay, showing, as usual, my little collection of quotes called “I excuse the Council”. His Lordship answered “I know, I know; I have 10 times more of these quotes  favorable to Vatican II that you don’t know of!”

“But, my Lord, how can we be so quiet about this and the lamentable outcome of the General Chapter?”

 “The General Chapter, he answered, was a disaster; I signed my name there, because it was a collegial action, but certainly not to say that I agreed with the contents. Therefore trust what the generals do, take your assignment in France and be quiet for at least three months.”

“My Lord, the ship is taking water; it is torn open under the waterline. I do admire what you and others have done to try to save her, but you know full well that error is now spreading through the official channels of the SSPX. How can you offset the whole weight of the institution, the teachers put into position in the seminaries, the watered down sermons and publications… Our faithful stay less and less away from indult masses, mix up marriage ceremonies, practice NFP more and more without the grave reasons mandated by Pius XII, making NFP an open door to more wicked forms of contraception. Their minds are getting infected by DICI. It is natural for them to trust the two assistants who go even further than bishop Fellay and preach the scary good news that Rome has changed…”


I went on for quite some time, accepting corrections on some points like the fact that we cannot hold the Pope fully responsible for the nomination of bad bishops in the whole world. Otherwise I told him that he can disavow me as much as he likes but that this whole silence of this summer is “contre-nature”, antinatural: “I cannot and will not accept it, even if I get abused and thrown out. I cannot accept this incoming massacre of souls which is prepared more by the erosion of minds than by the actual signing of an agreement with Rome. If only your Lorships made a public stand against Menzingen I would gladly fall in line and follow the captain. I agree that it is not my job to speak out, but if the shepherds are asleep, the dogs are the next line of resistance, as the wolves have entered the barn.

Talking about errors in general often flies above the heads of the faithful. I do not see the tide of the battle turning in the right direction and I gave 12 years of benefit of the doubt to my superiors, writing letters and being very obedient. With six more years, bishop Fellay has ample time to put neutral or liberal superiors into position and the turning around of the ship will be impossible.

You are not, my Lord, the only one to be pushed in the corner; Fr. Peter Scott hardly said anything in March; and after being circumvented by Fr. Rostand, is now to be sent to Zimbabwe. Fr. Hewko made no attack against Menzingen at Fr. Reuter’s first Mass and got heavily punished. Many other priests are in the same case. This does not augur well for the future. If this is the way they treat priests, while no deal is signed; how will it be on the day of the deal, when everybody will be made to fall into line?


What I am doing does look like a rebellion, but I am not asking everyone to do the same. If I am wrong, the ship will not sink and I will die happy; but if I am right to warn the passengers, there will be more left of us if the tragedy actually happens. The problem comes from the commanding bridge of the ship; and your resistance below deck is impressive, but it is only delaying the final outcome. Some priests at least must do the job of exposing the source of errors”.


By then, His Lordship was cooled; I had discussed about many of these facts with him when he came to the Philippines last year. I understand that it is his love of the Society, his desire to keep a united army that motivates it, but that Society is no more united on doctrine and the liberals attack him more and more and refuse to publish his book on the errors of Benedict XVI. In fact he is beginning to be silenced and more is to come.

I felt very sad for him because, all along, there was such truthfulness in him, even as he was rebuking me. I don’t mind to be rebuked by such an honest man, and I believe that bishop Tissier will always preach against the Rome of today and tell us to keep out of its range.

To tell you the truth, he still does not, to this day, agree with what I am doing. He wrote to Fr. Pivert (my spiritual director) to coerce me, repeating the same argument, in writing this time, namely that the errors of bishop Fellay are 10 times as many as they appear in public and that the General Chapter is a disaster, but that there is no reason to launch such an untimely attack against the SSPX management.


(Now, my Dear Reader, forgive me for being so long on bishop Tissier’s thinking. It is because it reflects the thinking of so many of the priests I was able to meet in France, which is the Mecca of dissent with Menzingen, but also completely paralyzed. French are like that: unless a leader emerges, takes charge and tells you to charge, nobody charges.

In the US it is the reverse: an estimated 14 are firmly against Menzingen and maybe 50% are just personally weary of an agreement with Rome, but would follow orders; while the rest is in favor of the deal and sometimes tell it openly. So that is not much opposition against Menzingen, but there are proportionally more priests in open resistance (10) than in France (2).)


One of the most prominent of these French minds I was able to meet was Fr. Gleize, who dropped me in Morgon on August 17th. We talked for five hours; what a great, clean and clear mind! His main points were:

A new doctrine has now emerged in the SSPX; and this new doctrine is assorted with silencing, menaces and punishments.

The main sign of Providence pointing to that shift is the deafening silence on Assisi III, contrasting so badly with the outcry of the Archbishop, back in 1986, for Assisi I.

Also deafening is the silence that followed the May crisis and the General Chapter: From the table at Econe to the priories across the world… no reaction from those who knew so well that things went wrong.


Even if the deal is off for the moment, Fr. Gleize said, the inclination to it remains: Fr. Schmidberger told him that it is not enough to pray for the Pope by name at Mass, Benedictions and Holy Week; or to have his picture in the Sacristy, etc… none of these things guarantees us we are not going to become sedevacantists. The desire of agreementists is a long time desire, and it is a constant feeling to be in an inordinate, almost sinful separation from the “Church”. I told Fr. Gleize that Fr. Laisney (who brainwashed me for three days in Manila on the agreement) clearly suffers that same kind of pain. He was reportedly preaching for the agreement in Kuala Lumpur recently. Bishop Fellay, when I saw him, told me that our idea of the Church is too radical, a Church that exists only on paper (cf. also his Adelaide conference). If the deal is off, it is not because of us; it is because Rome still does not want it, blocks it, even if the Pope wants it. Very sad.


We talked at length about the new praxis of the SSPX regarding canonical affairs and especially the growing tendency of the SSPX to let all its difficult cases be resolved by the new Rome and in the light of the new Code of Canon Law. Many canonical irregularities occurred at the general chapter, especially around the way bishop Williamson was dealt with. The declaration and six conditions look like something botched up and containing a serious shift of orientation of the entire congegation.


Another confirmation of bishop Fellay’s change of stance is what he preaches in his regular three hours conferences: That Rome has changed.

Visiting Avrillé and Morgon, I was told by the superiors of these places that when they went with Fr. Matthew in Menzingen, bishop Fellay took two and a half hours to persuade them that Rome has changed. Their jaws dropped both at the change of tack and at the effort taken for it.

My own parents went to a three hours conference in Brignolles in June; same thing: “Rome has changed”. Still my poor parents left the conference not feeling having learned anything and not understanding what it was that we were supposed to understand.

And what is going to be said in the big Angelus “Papacy” hootenanny in October… given the recent backpedalling? One may guess that the Papacy is going to be somewhat bad, BUT good enough to some other extent.


Therefore 20 priests or so are currently embarked in the process of warning openly the flock about the remaining errors of Menzingen, despite the backpedalling on the deal with Rome, on the April 15th declaration and on the issue of exemption. For if one describes the new Rome in a wrong and pinky way, it is normal to fear that, six years from now, the SSPX will be six feet under the new Rome… 








War on! What next… but… What happened?

In the month of May an internal note stated that in the case Rome accepts our latest doctrinal protocol (of April 15th), a canonical structure will be proposed to us.


Then on June 13th the offer of Menzingen was refused by Rome, a bit as it was refused in September 2011, and then began a backtracking process that is still going on. The official line is now that we are back to square one, that the deal is off, and that we never looked for a deal in the first place. On September 07th bishop Fellay backtracked totally on the April 15th declaration and on another major mistake done in the General Chapter; when it merely wished, as a condition, to be exempt from novus ordo dioceses.

In the meantime two things continue to happen: doctrinal change and lack of clarity on our relationship with Rome.




At the General Chapter, everything was supposed to be perfectly clear, but the documents that came out of it already need clarification.

Fr. Petrucci told me that the capitulants were in a hurry to write the texts and that the intent of many of them was to create a framework that would prevent bishop Fellay to approach the new Rome prematurely. Most of them told us that they really fought, got the best, saved the day. This clearly fits the new war aim of  Menzingen: that the war is over.



I have no doubt on the intentions of the capitulants but the text that emanated from the Chapter, some product of a compromise between two positions, scared me so much that I wrote an attack against it, got it posted on the internet, got it printed and posted to all the priories and friendlies of France, and distributed it to the faithful in a paper form. Here is the jist of it:

Proclaimed on Bastille day, this text is a bit sentimental at times and even if it has a quote of the Archbishop, it is a declaration much weaker than the 1974 and 1976 Declarations. The question of the Magisterium remains ambiguous in this text because we do not have any more a mention of two opposite magisteria (two Romes (1974), two Churches (1976)), but the main trick of the text is in the tail; in those six conditions for a canonical recognition of the SSPX.


A first group omits the 2006 notion that we wait for the conversion of Rome to have a deal with it. It is the first time we give up, so officially, contrary to the rejection of the deal by the Archbishop in 1988 and his many subsequent warnings that the crisis will last long and requires Rome to be good again.

The first condition talks about keeping our liberty to teach and our liberty to attack those teaching the errors. The second and third are about keeping our exclusive use of traditional rites and having at least one bishop.


All this sounds very brave, but the core principle of a liberal democracy is this liberty for anyone to disagree publicly on all important issues. So we will have the liberty to teach Tradition while others will have the liberty to defend modernism, we will attack the new mass while others will attack the true mass under the same roof; same for all other issues. One French bishop understood that very well saying: “Let them come and disagree with Vatican II (if they can), for we disagree with the twenty other Councils.”

It never worked. Why? Because it never works to enter the system, as the Archbishop said: “Had I signed the agreement we would have been finished in one year.” (June 13th 1988). Once in the system, we will not stand against those guilty of errors of Vatican II, because those who tried before never succeeded, and we are already beginning to stop rebuking Peter when found worthy of blame (Galatians). Again, look at DICI, while in the past we had no qualms saying openly that the Vatican was infiltrated with Freemasons and that their ideas had triumphed.

Mixed with bad catholic priests and faithful, our own faithful will be weakened, disoriented and divided, even more than today.

As for the liturgy, it suffices to say that Mgr Pozzo just told the institute of Good Shepherd to fall into line five year after their deal; and as for this lonely bishop, how will he cater for the needs of 1000 or so traditional priests with their faithful? “And if that Bishop dies?”, asked one faithful candidly in south France. Fr. Pfluger answered “Well, Rome will appoint another one”…


The second group of conditions is almost scarier, these being wishable or suitable conditions, by which we ask without pressing to keep only our minor tribunals, relinquishing in advance the dealing of big cases (as we already do, because when the matter is grave or important we either leave it to Rome to deal with the case or we refuse to treat the case; I’ve been told by canonists and seminary teachers).

Hopefully bishop Fellay backtracked verbally on the second condition, saying that of course our exemption from novus ordo diocese is an absolute necessity for us. That it didn’t it appear to be so at the General Chapter is what worries me. (And since it is a matter of law, a written amendment should be placed in the final text).

Same lack of clarity for the third condition, that we merely wish to have a “majority for Tradition” and a presidency in that pontifical commission under the Pope. Other Ecclesia Dei people can claim to be also for tradition, stooges of Mgr Muller. That’s in the case the Pope doesn’t wish to press on his advantage and renounces to place his men directly into this commission.

“Lord, intend to my help; make haste into succoring me.”



Consequently, early August, I flew to Washington DC and met Fr Joe, who was able to cobble together a group of five priests in Vienna, Virginia, to organize what we call a “United Corps of Priests”. We sat three days, tempers flared in perfect harmony with the gravity of the situation we were facing. But at least we were able to plant a flag by stating our intent, electing a boss and setting up a visible base.


Here is the text of the Declaration; hopefully it is short: 

Only She can help you

+ Vienna, Virginia,

   Aug 10th 2012.


The heart of the Faith is the Divinity of Christ and his Kingship over all nations: “Oportet illum regnare”. The errors of Vatican II are an indirect attack against his Divinity and a direct attack on his Social Kingship. They will for ever remain the Revolution of 1789 within the Church.


Today’s Vatican has only changed for the worse since the Council (more damage, more new heresies, more effective semi-modernism), to such an extent that we can repeat the Archbishop’s words of 1974 and 1976: “The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”(June 29th 1976).

The Pope has allowed the True Mass, but only within the pantheon of modernist liturgies. Further, he has made clear his espousing of the false doctrine of Religious Liberty by preaching it to be the model of how the Church and State are to relate one to another. Lastly the doctrine of Ecumenism has been widely and consistently professed by the Pontiff in his visits to protestant temples, synagogues and mosques and Assisi III confirms that the spirit of Assisi is alive and well. It was this spirit that moved the Archbishop to undertake an “Operation Survival” that is now itself in great peril.


Today’s SSPX clearly wants to place itself under this Conciliar Church, mitigates the poison of Vatican II, is more and more silent in face of the abuses by the conciliar hierarchy, uses ambiguous language referring to two opposite Magisteria. At the same time that it is ever ready to believe in a constant debate with obdurate Roman officials, it uses strong arm tactics toward those standing against wicked reconciliation.

We must wait for Our Lady to convert the Pope and inspire him to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate heart in union with all the bishops and we must persevere in the Charity of the Truth and in the Truth of Charity, organized in a united corps of priests faithful to the position always maintained by Archbishop Lefebvre.”

Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, Fr. Ronald J. Ringrose, Fr. Richard Voigt, Fr. David Hewko, Fr. François Chazal. 


We then elected Fr. Pfeiffer as a “boss”, for two years, because there are not enough Indians for this Indian chief. Electing a Superior General, two assistants, general bursar and general secretary would be utterly ridiculous at this stage, for we are far away from being even fifty, but also we recognize bishop Fellay to be our legitimate superior (remember, he has not signed any deal with the new Rome), even if, just like in the case of Benedict XVI, we withdraw the exercise of obedience to him for motives of Faith until this crisis is over.

Thus, our name remains the same, SSPX. We are just aware that today’s doctrinal slide endangers our engagements, promises and oaths, especially our antimodernist oath, as Fr. Koller said so well in his sermon. We expect lawyers to be unleashed at some stage, but in the worse case, they might be able to retag us as sspx discalced, observants, because ours is a split within the same order, as happened many times in the course of Church History. We are not creating a new contraption, a society of St Pius XXIII, some vague other institute. All this to nail the notion that we did not change the message, while the official line of the SSPX has changed.

Then we set up a base in “Our Lady of Mount Carmel, 1730 N Stillwell road, Boston Kentucky 40107, USA, with permanent resident priest(s). Then we set up a banking structure to receive financial support. We hope to start a little school there and create our own websites to complete the good work of “True Trad” and other websites. If we can we will run a paper newsletter and walk again on the moon, but let’s not look too far!

I do understand why some SSPX superiors are in hot pursuit after us; for it really seems we are undermining while in fact we are simply organizing, faced as we were, with a clear path of expulsion. When Bishop Fellay told me that we are going to fizzle out, I replied: “Well, my Lord, we shall receive all the priests you shall send to us”. It is a pity to see any priest being thrown out of his congregation for no good reason and ending in isolation.

Thanks to the latest backpedalling, the crisis is seemingly averted, but what will happen if Menzingen backpedals on the backpedalling again, as it did many times before? We just want to be a little iron piece that prevents the pedaller. And what if Bishop Williamson gets expelled? Where shall he go? And the priests that shall follow him… shall they also end up in isolation? It is a good thing if Bishop Williamson keeps all his options open, gets an outside help to force Menzingen to keep him in, by giving it a foretaste of what a SSPX bishop on the loose is. For now we are just around 20 scattered, ie., hardly anything, but we know for certain that Menzingen does not want that little bud to blossom.

In normal times, it is better if the 4 bishops stay united, just as, in the case of another crisis, if the three counter the one as they did so effectively.

As for the faithful, after warning of the situation, we shall limit ourselves to those only who call us for help and provide all the others with a permanent and unthrottled means of information. First to the Jews, then to the Gentiles; first we shall seek the small remnants in the SSPX crowd, and then we shall fish for all other men.
To be well understood, our fight must be described as an analogous fight; one battle, many angles. It is also like an attack in echelon, because not all priests and faithful realize the evil of the day at the same time; nor do they choose to take a public stance at the same time.

Once again we are no saviors of the SSPX, but I hope you understand we play a little part in something wider, for the resistance to reconciliation has many prongs and shapes: from Mother Ann-Marie Simoulin who threatens to start anew and rebukes her own brother, Fr. Simoulin, to Dom Thomas Aquinas in Brazil who is running groups of faithful, just like us, to the many good priests who resist in France, to some heroic nuns who show readiness  to undergo the persecution of their whole community, to Dr. David Allen White who will not countenance any nonsense… the list is quite long and consoling.

If Menzingen stays on todays backpedal, the crisis will lose some of its urgency, it will be harder for us to explain away our position to the faithful and to persuade too many priests to join our movement… but this crisis will not be over, because we have clear signs of life in the Beast.


While Fr. Joe spent a long time in the US, successfully patching up a group of priests, I was able to spend three weeks to make a “tournée des popotes de la résistance” or a check up of the cooking habits of places resisting the doctrinal shift of the SSPX. Most priests are aware of the change of doctrine at the top, and because the district is big, the attitude of liberal priests is easier to take notice. Just a few examples I got from letters and conversations: In le Pointet, the nuns praise Benedict XVI before little children, a priest in Brittany calls John Paul II a saint, luminous mysteries of the Rosary are included in a newly edited song book in one of our schools, one rector of a seminary has inserted quotes of Benedict XVI in his latest book on the family, and I just heard Fr. Toulza was forced, I believe, to put a text in Fideliter, defending Mgr Muller…

Those things would never have happened before.

We have just lost one priest in Corsica who went back straight to the diocese and two monks left the Benedictine monastery of Bellaigue because they are in favor of the agreement. In Germany, out of a total of 40 priests, 10 are against an agreement while all others are in favor, in varying degrees. Liberal faithful criticize bishop Tissier or outspoken priests like Fr. Beauvais. Fr. de Cacqueray is harder to criticize, because he is one of these rare priests able to keep his district together, thanks to his great natural authority and piety.

As of 14th of August I did not know where my new assignment was. Fr. Toulza told me it would be Reims, a nice historical place at the heart of WW1 battlefields. I was glad to see Fr. Toulza to sign a 2000 copies publication contract of my book on Christ the King called “La Cite Oubliee”. That joy was short lived as three weeks later, that book on the social teaching of the Church got forbidden by bishop Fellay, not for its contents, I hope, but for the name of its author. An independent house called DPF should print it next year. Dr. Chojnowsky is currently translating it in the US. (Please, note well, I am a lazy priest, that’s official now).

It is to be expected that the matter of my assignment is going to be put to the fore by my adversaries, despite the fact that Fr. Couture recognizes, even in writing that I always obeyed before. Bishop Fellay thanked me for the undeniable 16 years of obedience, but not for what appears to him to be my year 2012 disobedience.

By tampering with doctrine, bishop Fellay lost a scepter that I saw falling from my position in Manila and it is from where I was when the crisis began that I shall begin to make my stand. The question for me is that the doctrinal shift in the SSPX is so grave that it needs to be exposed, i.e. preached against; but it is impossible to preach the truth if one is placed into silence. That is why I asked Fr. Girod if I would be allowed to preach against the errors of bishop Fellay from the pulpit. His answer was, “Nobody preaches against his boss in a company” and I replied “…unless the company is sinking”. Moreover he told me that on Sunday I would be assigned to the chapel of Troyes, that counts thirty people. In France we call it “un placard”, a cupboard. Not only that, but this priory is a priory of three priests taking care of less than 200 faithful, because the chapel of Joinville was taken away from their responsibility. Then I figured: France is not my turf; if I embark to denounce Menzingen from there, I will embarrass Fr. de Cacqueray who is so friendly to me and force him to condemn me, and the faithful hearing how bad I am from the official channels won’t be able to know for themselves. In Asia, when the faithful hear from Fr. Couture how bad I am; having known me for ten years, they can know for themselves that I am even 40 times badder than Father makes me to be. There are also enough anti liberals in France to carry out the fight, and the Asian faithful, being more recent additions to the traditional movement and less served by an overextended Society in Asia, are more vulnerable to errors and lies. They are more in need of help, but overall it is especially a question of impact. I told repeatedly my French confreres; you don’t need me here to rise to the occasion, I am still a junior and in no position whatsoever to lead you and tell you what to do. You have your own leaders, go and fetch them, like the peasant that came to fetch La Rochejaquelein during the Vendee war.



“Ça va foirer”, “It is going to fizzle”, Fr. Nely told me in Menzingen; and Fr. Pfeiffer concurs entirely: “In theory we are totally toasted, and our main obstacle is the fear (of being explelled, denied sacraments, denied schools etc.). and the second obstacle is confusion; they tell us “Father, what is happening?” They are begging what is going on; they are being told nothing by the official channels”. Barring a miracle we should fizzle out, we are just a straw fire, a priest told us. We don’t even have the funds to travel around America to see the people who want to see us. We were not paid before in Asia, and now we depend even more on the spontaneous generosity of the faithful. Many people we do not know give us support, proving that it is because of the issues, and not their personal love of us.

Small groups have appeared everywhere, calling for help and offering help to us. In some place we took over the entire chapel, in other places we find a little group. It is not easy to cast us out of places that do not belong to the Society, which makes me understand better why Menzingen has been so adamant to centralize all properties in recent years.

All the while we remain under fire from the well entrenched official channels of the SSPX. These have one war aim, our silence, and are constantly labeling us as disobedient, unsupernatural, practical sedevacantists, chaosmongers, pamphleteers, misquoters, calumniators, breakers of the peace and division causing rebels. Priests, brothers and faithful are told to fast at our passage, people should not talk to us, brothers should not talk to us, we were expelled from the common table in Manila, I couldn’t get the permission to assemble plastic ships in the library, nor could we celebrate private masses at any time on the side altars, even at three in the morning, use the telephone, computers, copy machines etc.  The priests in Manila were told not to grant us absolution. I found out by going to confession to one of them and asked him why; “I know the penitent was his answer”. I then asked Fr. Couture who told us that he cannot answer the question while we got told by another priest he was told that the absolution of our sins is in fact reserved to Menzingen.

We sensed that by staying longer in Manila we were piling coals on their heads. We had made all possible public statements, including a Mass on the street; time to move on.

Public announcements are put on the websites of Asia and America, and are read from the pulpit. Interesting descriptions of me are made in Japan. Groups of people are sent to crash some parties we organize, making the debate more lively and interesting, I believe.

Hopefully we took all these treatments dismissively and with good cheer, most of the time, but note well, my dear reader, that none of these public counterattacks went to the doctrinal bottom line. Therefore,

“Let us exit Jerusalem with Christ,
Carrying his opprobrium.” (Heb.)

bottom of page