Originally from ANTIMODERNISME.INFO
Translated into English from the Spanish version (beware; some inaccuracies could be found)
——————————————————————————————————————-
Monday, 29th October, 2012
RESPONSE TO FATHER SCHMIDBERGER – FROM A PRIEST OF THE DISTRICT OF FRANCE.
Father Schmidberger has great merit: He has never hidden his desire to see the Society of St. Pius X put into the hands of Benedict XVI “for the greater good of the Church! His statement regarding the expulsion of the “obstacle” Williamson is nothing surprising.
In a statement to friends and benefactors of October 26, 2012, you claim that the expulsion of Bishop Williamson is “the result of an evolution that has lasted for some years.” It would be the product of a “dislike” for the general council that has been transformed into an “open rebellion”.
Father, you are dishonest! On February 13, 2012, a journalist of “Die Welt” that asked “The Pope said he would not have approved the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops, if he had been advised of the statements of Bishop Williamson . What will come from Williamson after an eventual reintegration of the Society? “You replied:” I am no prophet, but in a context as important as the establishment of a canonical structure for our fraternity, I think that the talks would probably prolong in some sessions and that there would be talks about Bishop Williamson. In addition, we must also expect him to respect the decisions of the superior general. ”
You are not a prophet but you are very well placed to know what Bishop Fellay and you want. You want an agreement with Rome and for that you are ready to meet the demands of international Zionism and the Conciliar Church that is subject to it. In the same interview, you said: “We give up the relative freedom that we have so far resorted to for the international spread of our work, and we put it in the hands of the pope.” While Archbishop Lefebvre asked our bishops to “deposit the grace of his episcopacy “in” a perfectly Catholic successor of Peter “(Mgr Lefebvre, August 29, 1987).
Benedict XVI is the “Successor of Peter perfectly Catholic”? The one that is also the head of the “liberal modernist Rome, which continues its destructive work of the Kingdom of Our Lord as he proved in Assisi (III), confirming the liberal thesis of Vatican II on religious freedom”? (Mgr Lefebvre, letter of August 29, 1987)
As Williamson hindered your wicked plans and the disastrous Zionist propaganda, you, and Bishop Fellay, thought they had to finish him: Either Williamson accepts to be buried alive or he will be expelled under disciplinary pretexts.
You also cite a private statement of Bp. Williamson that was not meant to be made public, in which the dean of the Bishops talked about “getting rid of Bishop Fellay” and “his band”. As you refer to when Monsignor Lefebvre asked the future bishops to “remain united under the leadership of the Superior General.” But in your blindness or dishonesty, you fail to quote the whole passage to better slander Williamson accusing him of having insulted the Superior. This is the passage in question:
“Well, I conjure you to remain deeply attached to the Society of St. Pius X, to be deeply united with one another, under their Superior General, in the Catholic Faith always remembering this word of Paul to the Galatians (c . I, vers. 8 and 9): “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than what we preach, let him be anathema. As we told you, we say it again: If anyone preach to you a gospel contrary to the one you have received, let him be anathema” (Mgr Lefebvre, letter of August 29, 1987)
Submission to the Superior General is “in the Catholic Faith of ever” As you and Bishop Fellay want to put ourselves under the authority of a pope who sins against faith seriously, then “anathema sit”! What can be translated as: let us part, or “let’s get rid of Bishop Fellay and his band.” There is nothing offensive in that.
Despite numerous advices, friendly exhortations and warnings, Bishop Fellay and his band did not want to change their suicidal behavior. Bp. Williamson had to speak.
Father, you are so dishonest that in this year 2012, you wrote to the three bishops, encouraged by Bishop Fellay, a letter in which you justify in twelve points the “reasons” to conclude an agreement with those people with whom we are in disagreement. The answers you received, all three in their own way, fully destroyed the bottom of your agreement pseudo-rationale. Publish them so your stubbornness is shown in the face of the district of Germany.
If Bishop Williamson is not the only one to oppose your dangerous projects, he is the only one that courageously targets the brain behind these projects. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Bishop de Galarreta have been content to contradict and refute Menzingen’s erroneous policy and doctrines, but without naming those responsible for this internal revolution. That’s fine but it is insufficient. The proof? The recent interview of Father Pfluger making a profession of “angelic” faith in terms of “the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the pope and the bishops,” they, for whom the greatest tragedy in the history of the Church, namely, the Vatican II, after having been a new Pentecost, has become the compass for the XXI century Church!
Therefore Bp. Williamson was the only true and real obstacle to your manipulations so that he was the Anti-Notra aetate par excellence.
Bp. Williamson will continue talking. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais will do it when he considers it appropriate, and Bishop de Galarreta will do it again when he has returned from his illusions. The latter, hopes to save the essentials through the first, imperfect and fragile condition sine qua non of the chapter. He believes that this will prevent Menzingen’s rotten head to finalize a bad deal with Benedict XVI. He does not want yet to resign to see that the unity of the Fraternity of Monsignor Lefebvre no longer exists. There are two irreconcilable camps in it, as in the Council: a minority liberal, sentimental and conciliatory, before being conciliar, and other minority that is Catholic doctrinal and uncompromising. The bulk of the troops, being too busy to realize what is at stake, prefers to submit to authority. Because today, the ruling head of the Brotherhood is more like Paul VI full of contradictions than Saint Pius X bright and strong in the combat for the faith.
Father, you have been dishonest. Stop deceiving the priests and the faithful. Realize your error, return to the healthy policy of our founder and stop destroying the family home.
A priest of the district, on 28 October 2012.
On the Feast of Christ the King.
Disagreements between members of the Fraternity are best kept private IMO. We traditionalists have enough problems dealing with the modernists in Rome and public disputes like this do not help our cause one bit.
Hard to trust a priest who doesn’t sign his letter.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
On the contrary, if truly at the moment when we accomplish such and such an objective of our apostolate, in the full measure in which it is possible for us to realize it, we can say, “I believe very sincerely that it is the moment, that the moment has come; the Good Lord wants me to do that, everything shows me objectively that it is the Good Lord’s will: my superiors are not opposed; on the contrary, they are encouraging me, the Church encourages me, my Faith encourages me. Objectively I believe it is the will of the Good Lord that I do that,” then there is a full guarantee that my undertaking is of God.
Otherwise it comes from subjectivism: you end by persuading yourself that the desire you have is truly the desire of the Good Lord. But all the same, be careful! That has to be objectively true. There have to be objective proofs of this will of God and not only subjective proofs. That is to say, “I think that I am doing God’s will,” in such a way that they will wind up being opposed to the superior, saying, “My superior does not understand; it is no use talking to him, he does not comprehend.” He does not comprehend? Certainly! It is not the Good Lord’s will that you want to do, it is your will!
Now the Good Lord’s will comes through the superiors, if it is clear that evidently they are not openly opposing things of Faith, as unfortunately we are witnessing nowadays in the Church. Therefore you have a danger there, you see. I believe that this subjectivism is, precisely, Protestantism. Let us take care!
Protestants have the habit of acting like that. For them, their will, what is going on in their own interior being – the forging of their project – the movement of their will, is God speaking to them.
Therefore, what the Good Lord wants is really their own wills. Look how dangerous that is. I have observed that sometimes with people converted from Protestantism, they keep the subjective idea that the Good Lord’s will is their own will, and that consequently when they want something; it is the Good Lord Who wills it.
Therefore when someone is opposed to this will, he is opposed to the will of the Good Lord. “If my superior is opposed to this will, he is opposed to the Good Lord’s will and to providence.” This is very serious. It is very easy to substitute one’s will for the will of the Good Lord! Therefore pay close attention; that can be a defect, a defect that is natural to you, which is to want to make “my will” decisive. We think that we want to do the Good Lord’s will, but, in fact, we do our own will.
It is necessary really to have objective proofs, signs that it is truly the Good Lord’s will. Now all the same, one of these signs is that at least the superior wills it! At least that the superior is not himself losing his way in a very evident manner from the truth and from objectivity. Therefore, the first sign is if the superior wills it.
.
Very good Neely Ann ! What is the source for this, I want to read more !
Its too bad though that most people that read this will dismiss it because of the accusation that Bishop Fellay is somehow acting against the faith. They just don’t use their heads, and want the society to act on their terms and not the terms of prudence.
Try this link: www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Conformity_to_Gods_Will.htm
I think it was this one. I don’t have time to double check at the moment.
2 things: this a translation of a translation. It ought to enter into the minds of some that the Priest did sign his name to the original and the translators opted out of prudence to omit his name. Maybe. Who knows for sure.
Secondly, I have seen thus far no one refute even one of the points made by this now-anonymous-Priest of the district of France.
Please don’t read that as any tacit agreement of any of the points he made. These things are way too far over my head to make any real sense of. But maybe one or two of his questions are my questions also. I can’t help but return to the words of His Excellency Bishop Fellay during his lecture at the 40th anniversary of the Society’s founding by the great Archbishop: he said, according to my understanding, that we must be willing to wait, maybe even a hundred more years or more for Rome to be converted back to the True Faith.
I do not believe even 5 years have yet passed since those, or similar words were uttered. I may have misunderstood them.
Prudence is a good word to pray on.
My father always told me that if I could not sign my name to something, I should not write/send it.
Yet everyone on here uses an alias.
Not everyone, Marcel, and those that do may have their own reasons of prudence for not wanting their name directly searchable to their comments here. With companies doing Facebook and Google checks of their employees more and more, and with today’s bias against Catholics and true conservatives in general, it is prudent not to needlessly risk one’s job and means of support. We are not required to randomly publish or broadcast our thoughts or even our beliefs, but only to answer truely if we are asked to profess our Faith. Anyhow, its a complicated topic. As for myself, you have my name. At least, it can be deduced from the info on this site which is accesible to any signed-in member.
NeelyAnn said:
“Protestants have the habit of acting like that. For them, their will, what is going on in their own interior being – the forging of their project – the movement of their will, is God speaking to them.”
Excellent, NeelyAnn!!
Mutiny
Of
Thy
Bounty
The lion roars
The storm hits shores
A Bishop stands alone
His blood he pours
For scores and scores
To bring them to His Throne
But witless whores
Seduce through doors
With moans and groans their tone
While Christ deplores
ALL mutinous bores
Who make His Church their own!
Archbishop Lefebvre himself erroneously signed an agreement with Rome that he humbly admitted was a serious mistake and backed out of the next day. Consider, the Church is much worse off now than it was when that agreement was signed on May 5, 1988. Rome has refused to agree to the very modest conditions set down by Bishop Fellay, and the pope has appointed Bishop Muller, a man who doesn’t believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady or Transubstantiation, to be in charge of defending the Faith. Meanwhile, Archbishop de Noia is put in charge of dealing with the SSPX and he openly admits that the point of the regularization would be to “convert the SSPX to Conciliar thinking.”
All things considered, I don’t believe it is clear at all that this is the time to strike a deal. We are exhorted by Our Lord to be “wise as serpents” and He has given us doctrines and dogmas to know the Faith and to know heretics by. It seems to me that we should imitate St. John and steer clear of those who distort the Faith. Maybe it would be helpful to reread what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say regarding his own agreement with Rome and the qualities he found in the Romans.
“Yes, I signed the accord, but with extreme distrust. The same distrust I had when I came to Rome. I had made an effort in order to see whether something had changed in Rome, if they had decided to return to Tradition.
But all the disillusionments of these years kept coming back into my mind. The climate of distrust that characterized the meetings first with Cardinal Seper, then with Cardinal Ratzinger. The immense, laborious exchange of correspondence, and then all the things that happened against Tradition, in France and elsewhere. And the tricks that were played on us: Fr. Augustine at Flavigny forced to celebrate the Mass of Paul VI after he had returned to communion with Rome, the two seminaries set up in Rome for the deserters from Ecône over the years. Both were closed, and the seminarians sent back to those bishops from whom they had fled. And the last attempt, the Mater Ecclesiæ, will close down next year. The letter that I received from the Abbé Carlo58 is proof to me of the ill-will of Rome. And the apostolic visit of Cardinal Gagnon about which they obstinately refused to tell me anything. “These meetings are the result of that visit,” Ratzinger’s secretary said to me. But not a word about the report presented to the Pope. Just as it happened in 1974 after the visit of the two Belgian visitors. Still today I know nothing about the report they made.
And Assisi, the visit to the Synagogue,59 the Cardinals who a few days before had gone to genuflect in front of Gorbachev. And now they were deceiving us again.
During the night between May 5 and May 6, I said to myself: “All this is impossible. I cannot accept Ratzinger’s answer, which avoids fixing the date of the ordination.” Then I thought that I should write a letter to the Pope and to Ratzinger: if they would not grant me the ordination on June 30, I would do it anyway. On the morning of May 6, I wrote the letter and I sent it to them.”
They make it pretty clear that they mean to absorb us, not so that we can help the Church but so that they can be rid of the resistance we pose to Modernism. I have in my possession many of the writings of SSPX superiors to the faithful over the past 30 years, and if is fair to say that there has recently been a definite shift in thinking and tone. Why?