The Recusant

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

Yes or No?

A Questionnaire for understanding what has happened in the SSPX

Original: La Sapiniere
This questionnaire offers you facts and questions. It is up to you, alone and according to your conscience, to answer them. Read it, make copies of it, give it to others (friends, relatives, people you know at Mass, etc.)
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” (Mark, 4,9)

The 2006 General Chapter

1.   “The contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity, and not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement.”

  With these words, did the General Chapter of 2006 forbid any practical agreement without doctrinal agreement?    YES or NO?


2.    Bearing in mind that, “What the General Chapter decides is a law which is in force all the way up to the next Chapter” (Bp. Fellay, Écône September 2012), was this law forbidding any purely practical agreement still in force from the General Chapter of July 2006 until the General Chapter of July 2012?    YES or NO?

The Disobedience of the General Council

3.    In April 2012, writing to the three bishops: “Let it be noted in passing that we did not look for a practical agreement. That is false. All we have done is not refusing a priori, as you ask, to consider the offer of the Pope.” – Did the General Council let it be understood that it was prepared to break the law of the 2006 Chapter?      YES or NO?

4.    In writing to Benedict XVI, on 17th June 2012: “I had believed that you were disposed to leave till a later date the resolution of outstanding disagreements over certain points of the Council and liturgical reform [...] in order to achieve union and I committed myself in this perspective despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path to reach the necessary clarifications.” Did Bishop Fellay disobey the law of the 2006 Chapter?   YES or NO?

The Sedition of the General Council

5.    Given Bishop de Galarreta’s intervention in 2011: “For the good of the Society and of Tradition, we must shut this Pandora’s Box as quickly as possible, so as avoid to the discrediting and demolition of authority, disputes, discord and division, from which perhaps there may be no going back.” (Bp. de Galarreta, Albano, October 2011). And given the intervention of the three Bishops in 2012: “Your Excellency, Fathers, take care! You are leading the Society to a point where it will no longer be able to turn back, to a profound division from which there will be no return and, if you end up arriving at such an agreement, at powerful and destructive influences whose influence the Society will not be able to resist.”(Letter of the three Bishops to Menzingen, April 2012) Can it be said that the General Council had been alerted to the serious consequences of their policy?
YES or NO?

6.    In writing to the three Bishops, “For the good of the Society, we would have by far preferred the present solution of an intermediary status quo, but it is manifestly clear that Rome will put up with it no longer,” did the General Council have the good of the Society in mind?     YES or NO?

7.    Given the following words: “We know that there will be some casualties, but we’re going to continue all the way to the end” (said by one of Bishop Fellay’s assistants, in his presence, in May 2012, to the superiors of the Benedictines, Capuchins and Dominicans) and: “I cannot exclude that there may be a split” (Bp. Fellay, CNS interview, 12/05/12), can we say that Bishop Fellay was aware of the division that was being caused?
YES or NO?

8.    Can it be said that the General Council, in going knowingly against the good of the Society, was guilty of sedition, in other words that it knowingly caused division amongst the members in order to impose its own will which was contrary to the demands of a higher authority (the 2006 Chapter)?    YES or NO?

The Subversion during and after the General Chapter

9.    At the July 2012 Chapter, Fr. de Journa proved that Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration was nothing other than Benedict XVI’s ‘hermeneutic of continuity.’ His conclusion said: 

“This declaration is therefore profoundly ambiguous and it sins by omission of a clear and sharp denunciation of the main errors which are still running rampant inside the Church and destroying the faith of the faithful. This declaration, as it stands, allows it to be believed that we accept the premise of the ‘hermeneutic of continuity.’ Used as the foundation for an agreement, such a document would make that same question unclear from the very beginning and would favour all the sliding that would follow.”

His presentation was met with not a single objection from any of the other members. After this presentation, Fr. Pagliarani stood up to support Bishop Fellay with the words: 

“Dear colleagues! Surely we’re not going to give our Superior General a slap in the face by forcing him to retract it! The retraction will be implicit in the final declaration of the Chapter.”

Then the Chapter moved on to other business. The General House [Menzingen] gave them to understand that the Declaration had been withdrawn and its author implicitly frowned upon thereby. Bishop Tisser thought so, along with everyone else.  In a letter of 29th March, 2013, he said that: 

“It was tacitly concluded that there was no need to insist on the issue, since it was obvious that the Superior General was sorry for his mistake was determined ‘not to do it again.’” (Appendix to Circular Letter, 2013-04)

And yet, since then, Bishop Fellay has not ceased from trying to defend the contents of his seditious Doctrinal Declaration. He talks about an “extremely delicate” text which “did not achieve unanimity in the Society” “to such an extent that I said to Rome, that’s it, I’m withdrawing it, it’s not going to be any use if it’s not even understood by our own people, because, well, perhaps it was a bit too subtle. Well, too bad, we’re withdrawing it.” (Bp. Fellay, Lille, 7th May, 2013) “A minimalist text, which could have led to some confusion in our ranks.” (Bp. Fellay, Cor Unum 102) A text which “was not sufficiently clear” (Bp. Fellay, Écône, 07/09/2012) A Doctrinal Declaration which “excluded any ambiguity regarding our judgement of the Council, including the famous ‘hermeneutic of continuity’.” A Declaration which “was not understood by several high-ranking members of the Society, who saw in it an ambiguity, or even a false compromise with the idea of the hermeneutic of continuity.” (Bp. Fellay, Cor Unum 104, ‘Note on the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15th 2012’)

Does Bishop Fellay’s description correspond to reality?   YES or NO?

Is it moral to take advantage of the oath of silence sworn by the Chapter members so as to present an ‘official version’ of things which contradicts reality?   YES or NO?

Is Menzingen’s official version (‘not understood by our own people,’ ‘too bad, we’re withdrawing it,’ ‘sufficiently clear’) doctrinally satisfactory?  YES or NO?

Can we oppose the General Council?

10.    On 8th October, 1988, at Écône, Archbishop Lefebvre pronounced the following words:
“They’ve been put under the authority of the conciliar Church. It’s really amazing to think that, in spite of all the things they ought to see and take note of, they stay put. They don’t think of leaving to found another monastery or of demanding that Dom Gerard step down and be replaced. No, nothing. We’re obedient. [...] It’s pathetic to see how easily a monastery which was part of Tradition goes under the modernist, conciliar authorities. And everyone stays there. It’s a shame, and it’s really sad to see. [...] This transfer of authority is what is really serious, it’s excessively grave. It’s not enough simply to say ‘We haven’t changed anything in practice...’ It’s this transfer of authority which is so serious, because the intention of these authorities is to destroy Tradition.”

With these words, was Archbishop Lefebvre encouraging priests and religious to sedition and disobedience?   
YES or NO?
Wasn’t he rather calling for the survival and defence of the Faith?  YES or NO?

11.    St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that: “Those however who defend the common good and withstand the seditious party, are not themselves seditious, any more than a man may be called quarrelsome because he defends himself.” (II, II Q.42, Art 2c) As a result therefore, can Bishop Williamson and the priests who opposed the sedition of Menzingen (which went against the common good of the Society) be accused justly and truly of sedition and rebellion?   YES or NO?

The means employed by the General House (Menzingen) to conceal its sedition

12.    During the disciplinary trial of Fr. Pinaud, Fr. Quilton wrote a ‘narration of the facts’ in which he tells us that:
“Fr. Waillez created for himself the fake email address, in the name of Fr. Pinaud and made use of it between 3 and 5 times to entrap colleagues and faithful implicated in the rebellion.” That: “At the same time, Fr. Wailliez, helped by Fr. Thouvenot, easily gained access to Fr. Rioult’s inbox, rather like finding the badly hidden keys to a safe,” and that, “having gained complete access to and control of the email account, Fr. Waillez was able to get hold of all the documents sent to and from Fr. Rioult, still present on the Yahoo server. He then left it to the General house to whatever use they wished of all the available material. Fr. Waillez undertook all these actions with the total agreement of the General House.”

Is it acceptable that a District Superior, with the help of the Secretary General and the agreement of Menzingen, steals private correspondence, engages in identity theft, making a fraudulent use of someone else’s identity so as to harm the priests who were opposing the sedition of Menzingen?     YES or NO?

13.    Is it just for Fr. Pinaud, after eight months of isolation, to be condemned by Fr. Wuilloud and forbidden to say Mass ever again or to hear confessions... because he thought that one can oppose an authority which endangers the Faith, even if that authority is called Bishop Fellay?     YES or NO?

Conclusion: “When just men increase, the people shall rejoice: when the wicked shall bear rule, the people shall mourn.” (Proverbs 29,2)  YES or NO?

“Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a provoking house: who have eyes to see, and see not: and ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a provoking house.”
(Ez 12,2)