The Recusant

An unofficial SSPX newsletter, fighting a guerilla war for the soul of Tradition!


Reflections on the SSPX Communique
of 17th October 2014



On 17th October there appeared a communiqué from the General House of the SSPX regarding the Beatification of Paul VI. Here are some of our thoughts on this document.


“The Society of Saint Pius X wishes to express serious reservations concerning beatifications and canonizations of recent popes.”

Here we find the same language as in the (too rare) official texts concerning the “canonisations” of 27th April last: questions, doubts, reservations, perplexity were all expressed about it... Bishop Fellay did not talk about pseudo-canonisations, nor “canonisations” in inverted commas. He did not say clearly whether these canonisations were true or false, valid or not, but only that they were “not serious” or that they “present a problem.”


Here it is the same: we see that the SSPX expresses only “reservations” – however “serious” they may be – on the very eve of the “beatification” of the Pope of the new Mass! Does the General House think that the act which Pope Francis is preparing for the 19th October will be valid? If not, why do they not use inverted commas, and why not declare frankly that there will be no “Blessed Paul VI,” as we did in our communiqué of 13th October? 


The SSPX expresses “reservations”: it does not manifest its indignation, it does not denounce the scandal as such.


Let us note amongst other things that, since the communiqué comes from the General House, Bishop Fellay has not engaged himself personally. And yet did he not have a duty, both as Superior General of the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre to fight for the Catholic Faith, and also as a Catholic Bishop, to take up a clear personal position in such grave circumstances?


“It is true that Paul VI was responsible for the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which letter instructed and consoled the Catholic family at a time when the most basic principles of marriage were under bitter attack.”

The “most basic principles of marriage” were “under bitter attack” by the Second Vatican Council, to be precise by the constitution Gaudium et Spes, promulgated by... Paul VI, on the 7th December 1965. This constitution changed the definition of marriage and opened the way to the inversion of the ends of marriage in the new “code”. Three years after Gaudium et Spes, the encyclical Humanae Vitae did not re-establish “the most basic principles of marriage,” hence the weakness and contradictions of this document which condemns contraception. The study of Humanae Vitae which appeared in Sel de la Terre 75 is useful in helping to understand that this encyclical did not “instruct” and “console”  Catholic families in the way they needed.


“So they are again, and in a scandalous fashion, by certain members of the present Synod.”

And the Pope? We know the support which he has been giving to Cardinal Kasper and to the other revolutionaries.


We appreciate the euphemisms of the next paragraph, concerning the Council: “doctrinal liberalism” (Is that all?) “upheaval” (was the French revolution, to which Vatican II was compared, a simple matter of an “upheaval”?)


The paragraph on the New Mass is equally timid. It quotes two expressions of Archbishop Lefebvre: they are careful not to choose the most energetic ones.


The paragraph after that, cleverly formulated, lets it be understood – without actually saying so – that the Motu Proprio of 2007 was the happy conclusion of Archbishop Lefebvre’s combat. Moreover, it is wrong to say, without giving any more details, that this Motu Proprio “admitted that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated.”


In the last paragraph, “Following in the footsteps of its founder, the Society of Saint Pius X declares yet again its attachment to the Church’s two thousand-year-old Tradition...” But it omits to renew, “following its founder”, its refusal to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies (Declaration of 21st November, 1974). This is not the first time, alas, that we note this sort of thing. Is not a hatred of error the touchstone of a love of the truth?


We hope that certain priests of the SSPX, this Sunday 19th October, will not be content with expressing “serious reservations,” but will vigorously denounce the very grave scandal which is the “beatification” by Pope Francis of his predecessor of unhappy memory.


F
r. Bruno, OSB