There was the threat of excommunication or denial of the sacraments for those who wished to inform themselves about the real situation of the Society on the internet, which constitutes according to certain priests, a mortal sin. Supposedly. Or for those who refused to shut down their website, for example in England, in Mexico, in Italy, etc. These different threats expressed a fear of those who didn’t accept the suicide and who considered themselves obliged to remain anonymous so as not to lose their participation in goods which belong not to Bishop Fellay but to Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church. Goods which previously had been offered to the Society at the cost of huge sacrifices. For example, those people who, through their generosity built churches, chapels, schools, for the good fight for the Faith and who found themselves, one way or another, excluded.
Threats of expulsion whose expression consists, for example with Bishop Williamson and the uncooperative priests, in finding themselves on the street, deprived of any means of subsistence, no pension, health insurance, social security etc. etc.
Threats of finding oneself excommunicated de facto, forbidden for example from assisting at the profession of vows of a child of some friends of ours, whom we remember newborn. Threats of refusal of priestly ordination, as in the case of the Dominicans, Capuchins, and Benedictines in 2012.
Nominations as well, that is an essential point, to key positions in the Society. Seminary Rectors, professors, District Superiors, who will be the members of the Chapter next time. All of which, and a lot of other things besides, caused turmoil, trouble, fear for many people. Nobody ever feels tempted by the Gulag Archipelago or the psychiatric hospital.
They’ve begun badmouthing people, calling them imprudent, subversive, revolutionary, disobedient, in summary we’re being tricked with the same talk of obedience as forty years ago: obey, otherwise your schismatic, sedevacantist, you’re dividing the Society. In exactly the same way, Archbishop Lefebvre in his time was said to be dividing the Church. And much more seriously, the consequence of this single-minded policy spread over more than ten years, transfers, appointments of fellow travellers who fit the bill, etc., is that seminarians, priests and faithful have lost their convictions and are ripe for a suicidal agreement of the Fraternity of St. Peter / Campos type. Today in our schools, a pupil who does not think that an agreement would be a miraculous solution to all our difficulties is the exception to the rule. The tragic example over the last thirty years of thirteen groups, sometimes important monasteries, convents, a whole diocese in the case of Campos, the Fraternity of St. Peter, etc. reduced to silence, sometimes transformed into accomplices, defending religious liberty and the Council, like the monastery of Le Barroux, and we now even hear Bishop Fellay telling us that the religious liberty of the Council is very, very limited, that it is like lots of other errors which we have supposedly attributed incorrectly to the Council, but which, as Pope Benedict XVI said, are really only a bad hermeneutic or interpretation of the Council. Our Lord said: “A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit,” in other words bad results. If the tree is bad, then cut it down and throw it on the fire! It’s Our Lord who says so.
All of the foregoing is evidence that the fight for the Faith handed down though Archbishop Lefebvre has been subverted and betrayed. It would have been on the point of disappearance if the hoped-for agreement, the object of so many efforts, so much pertinacity, had succeeded in June 2012 as Bishop Fellay hoped. Let’s not forget, Mgr. Pozzo has come back to Rome. It’s not for no reason that he has been called back to Rome! And he has to keep working at creating a baited hook of a kind that might interest Bishop Fellay. We are told, ‘But look, the agreement wasn’t signed in the end!’ Well alright, the Titanic passed right alongside the iceberg, it was a near thing, let’s see if that lasts. But the Captain of the Titanic has not altered course, and so the next iceberg is going to sink us all, goods and passengers, body and soul. The coup nearly came off in this fateful month of June 2012. Apart from that, the Chapter which followed immediately went on to endorse the agreement and to settle the final details of ‘normalisation,’ in other words the Personal Prelature of St. Pius X - see, it’s already been baptised with a name! – Ooof! We narrowly avoided death, but the captain is still there and his plan as well, as proven by the latest declaration of Bishop Fellay and the two other bishops, from 27th June 2013, and the new transfer of Fr. Beauvais, as we were saying. He’s got to leave St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, to say nothing of the latest nominations of seminary rectors in Germany and Argentina.
Let’s say a little bit now about the General Chapter at which I was present last year. Well, of course, there’s the question of secrecy. Conspirators who are plotting something will swear an oath of secrecy. Fine. But obviously secrecy has its limits.
When you realise that you’ve been manipulated, that your superior wanted to make you take responsibility for his decisions, positions which you have never accepted, never voted on, for example to give him carte blanche to expel Bishop Williamson, then you’re free to tell the truth. Later on we read in the official newsletter of the French District that the superior general in April 2013 allowed the Secretary General to reproduce a letter from Bishop Tissier de Mallerais to the Superior General, written on 29th March 2013, about which the secretary general declares, “This letter was written so as to defend the honour of the superior general and the Chapter members.” But in reality, the letter just attacks the honour of Bishop Williamson as it says itself, explicitly, in its conclusion. It is said in this letter that Bishop Williamson waited for a year before criticising Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration, which doesn’t correspond to reality.
In reality, what it’s talking about is paragraphs 4 and 5 of Bishop Fellay’s doctrinal declaration of 15th April 2012, which were made public by Fr. Pfluger in May 2012 in southern France. It says in the letter, “The General Chapter studied this text,” of the declaration, “the Chapter members had complete liberty to denounce its weaknesses,” something which I myself did not neglect to do, and that it was tacitly decided that there was no need to insist on this subject, that it was obvious that the superior general regretted it. As to the term ‘tacitly,’ we could add that one of the Chapter members, Fr. Pagliarani, seminary rector of La Reja in Argentina, spoke up to say that the chapter wouldn’t in any case be giving a slap to the superior general by asking him to recognise his error, but that this would come about as a result of the final declaration of the chapter.
To return to Bishop Williamson, the truth is that each chapter member found waiting for him at his place at breakfast, just before the chapter began, a registered letter from Bishop Williamson addressed to him personally, in which was to be found a very strong critique of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the doctrinal declaration which had been made public about a month previously by Fr. Pfluger. So perhaps Bishop Tissier didn’t receive his or didn’t read it, but the truth is that Bishop Williamson didn’t wait one year to criticise Bishop Fellay’s doctrinal declaration. In a general way, I can say that at the general chapter I understood the position which Archbishop Lefebvre and his Traditionalists found themselves in: the majority at the Council was manipulated by a strong, liberal minority through the authority of Popes Jean XXIII and Paul VI.
In the same way, at the Chapter, the only one with sufficient authority to orientate the debate in the right direction was Bishop Williamson, and that’s the very reason why the superiors excluded him. Now at least he is free to say what he thinks, and he makes use of that. Just before the Chapter, the question was over the legality or illegality of the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, which he himself had just put before our very eyes by his letter. What does canon law say about it? Well, canon law says that a bishop is judged by the Pope, not by bishop Fellay, and yet it is we who are accused of being sedevacantists. So we voted for or against the expulsion of Bishop Williamson. Two hours after the result of the vote, we found on the internet: nine chapter members were against the expulsion. That means that several judged it to be illegal and therefore that it led to the Chapter being considered null.
It is to the shame of the majority of members that they accepted the expulsion of Bishop Williamson and gave carte blanche to Bishop Fellay to expel him from the Society. He was the only one who had shoulders broad enough to save the Chapter and the Society from the planned suicide; someone else did do that, in a certain way, and for a mysterious reason, Pope Benedict XVI. In his “benevolence” to the Society, he renewed for the umpteenth time his requirement that Bishop Fellay accept unconditionally the Council, the New Mass and the conciliar Magisterium which contradicts the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. How did we arrive at such a confusing situation? What ought we have done to avoid it?
Once more it is Bishop Williamson who needs to be quoted: after he finished reading the book by Emmanuel Barbier, Archbishop Lefebvre said, ‘If I had read this book before founding Écône, I would have given my seminary a different orientation.’ That is, more of a counter-revolutionary orientation, and that’s the same as the advice which Mgr. De Proenca Sigaud gave in 1959 to Pope John XXIII and to the Council, when he was responding to the Pope’s invitation to share his desires on the question of what Vatican II ought to decide. So we’ll quote a few words of his expose: