<![CDATA[SOSSaveOurSSPX - Priests speak!]]>Sun, 21 Feb 2016 07:46:27 -0800EditMySite<![CDATA[Bp Williamson's Eleison Comments, May 11, 2013  Great News!]]>Mon, 13 May 2013 08:41:26 GMThttp://www.sossaveoursspx.com/priests-speak/bp-williamsons-eleison-comments-may-11-2013-great-newsPicture
Number CCCIV (304)                                      11 May 2013


MORE ENCOURAGEMENT

The news from a one-week visit to Germany, France and Switzerland is encouraging. Certain leaders might do well to remember the famous words of Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time.” Fewer people all the time are being fooled by what is happening within the Newsociety of St Pius X.

The journey began in Germany where some people feared I might run into difficulties, but for four days I was not troubled in any way. A good young layman picked me up at Frankfurt’s huge railway station and drove me north to Brilon Wald to meet the half dozen Carmelite Sisters who have become famous throughout the world of Catholic Tradition for having separated themselves, for all the right reasons, from the SSPX in its present state. They are clear in mind, resolute and cheerful. As Mother Superior told me, their greatest sorrow is that for over 20 years no novice has persevered with them. The Carmelite Sisters are not being expelled from their present convent, as has been feared, but they are hoping to move south for greater local support. May God be with them. Their prayers are precious to all of us.

Then I was driven back south of Frankfurt to address a private meeting of some two dozen adults, mostly men, in a countryside setting. They listened attentively in the afternoon to an in-depth analysis of the background crisis of the New World Order and the Newchurch, and on the following morning to a presentation of the foreground problems in the Newsociety. There were plenty of good questions and a good deal of hearty singing from the compatriots of Beethoven. The springtime birds in the German trees were given a good run for their money !

Further south, in Munich, I met with an old friend and the two lawyers who will be going to bat for me at my fifth trial for denying the “Holocaust”, due to take place in Regensburg in September. They are well aware that national politics make a just verdict at the regional level virtually impossible, but they will do their best. Precisely because the Six Million serve as a substitute Redeemer in millions of minds, I had no scruple in remunerating the lawyers from the St Marcel Initiative, but its funds are being depleted. Thank you for all and any help.

Then to the Black Forest in southwest Germany, where there is another community of half a dozen Sisters, likewise cheerful and resolved not to follow the present misdirection of the SSPX. Founded in 1988, they have recently finished building and decorating a beautiful chapel with some two dozen choir-stalls “as a sign of hope”, their chaplain told me. Girls, if you think you may have a vocation, here are two firmly anti-modern convents in Germany that you can try.

Lastly, one night in Switzerland, close but unknown to Écône, where they may have learned only afterwards that I passed by to meet a group of good layfolk. And one night in Paris where I learned to my delight that many SSPX priests in France have lost all trust in the present management of the SSPX. Let us be patient. Almighty God is fooled by none of us.

My next engagement is in London on May 19, when I should be addressing British Friends of Palestine on Hamlet. Why ? In that play Shakespeare cries out with pain at the loss of England’s soul. Were England still Catholic, not only Palestine but the whole world would be better off.

Kyrie eleison.
   
Contact Us: Write with questions:
letters@dinoscopus.org
  General letters@dinoscopus.org
Questions or comments:
admin@dinoscopus.org

Donate

While Eleison Comments is provided free of charge, there are administrative and technical costs associated with making it available to subscribers worldwide and with operating this site. Contributions to offset these costs are appreciated, and may be made via the button below or by contacting:

donate@dinoscopus.org

paypal
 Please note: You may surely mark your donation to be directed toward His Excellency,toward the good Sisters in Germany, or toward any of the "resistance priests and monasteries.". You are not off the hook, because you can no longer support the traitors in Menzingen ! We are obliged to support and encourage our priests and brothers!( the editor).

© 2011-2013 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.

]]>
<![CDATA[37 PRIESTS OF THE FRENCH DISTRICT SPEAK OUT! ALELLULIA!!]]>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 18:43:09 GMThttp://www.sossaveoursspx.com/priests-speak/37-priests-of-the-french-district-speak-out-alelluliaYes, Donkath and others-- we can be fairly certain that this letter is quite legit. As was reported through Cath Info today, Bishop Fellay's gestapo police have rounded up three of the brave priests-- and is in the process of punishing them. Please, please pray for these priests. Ask the good Lord to give them the grace to withstand the pressures and forces of evil, and to stand for the truth. Also, pray that the rest of the thirty four priests rise up in unison and declare, publicly, their position. The French Superior, and Bp. Fellay , tried to dismiss the letter as the "result of a lone fanatic or and underground rebel"-- that's always what management calls you when you call them out on their errors. Bp Fellay shpuld resign-- and take his entire Menzingen gang with him. Ratzinger is done with him; Mueller wants nothing to do with him; di Noia is sick of him, and the SSPX has been destroyed by him-- time to throw in the towel and make like a ratzinger and retire. The editor.
To Bishop Bernard Fellay

Your Excellency,

As you wrote it recently: "the links which unite us are essentially supernatural". However, you rightly reminded us that the requirements of nature must nevertheless not be forgotten. "Grace does not destroy nature". Among these requirements, there is truthfulness. Yet, these last months, we notice that a part of the problems with which we were confronted come from a grave negligence to this virtue (truthfulness).

Ten years ago, as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, you said:
"Never shall I agree to say: "in the Council, if we interpret it well, if we make it match with Tradition, we could find an acceptable sense." Never shall I agree to say that. That would be a lie; it is not allowed to tell a lie, even if it was a question of saving the Church." (Gastines, September 16th, 2012).

But since then, you changed:
"The whole Tradition of the catholic faith has to be the criterion and the guide to understand the teachings of the Vatican II Council, which in its turn enlightens certain aspects of the life and the doctrine of the Church, implicitly present in her, not formulated yet. The assertions of the Vatican II Council and of the Papal Magistery relative to the relation between the Roman Catholic Church and the non-Catholic and Christian confessions must be understood in the light of the whole Tradition." (St-Joseph-des-Carmes, June 5th, 2012).

At Brignoles, in May 2012, you spoke about this document which "suited Rome" but that "will need to be explained to us because there are statements which are so much on the ridge line that if you have an apprehension or following you put dark or pink glasses, you see them as this or that". Since then, you justified your position in the following way:

"If we can accept to be “condemned" for our rejection of modernism (which is true), we cannot accept being so because we would subscribed to the sedevancantist theses (which is false); it is what led me to draft a "minimalist" text which took into account only one of both statements and which, therefore, could leave misunderstanding in the SSPX." (Corn Unum 102) "Obviously, when I wrote this text, I thought it was clear enough, that I did enough to avoid - how to say? - the ambiguities. But the facts are there; I am well obligated to see that this text had become a text which divided us, us in the Society. I naturally remove it." (Ecône September 7th, 2012).

You are thus a misunderstood person who, by condescension, remove a very delicate text which narrow spirits were incapable to understand. This version of the facts is skillful but is it fair? Removing a document and retracting a doctrinal error are not formally the same things. Furthermore, to call the sedevancantist "theses" to justify this "minimalist" document which "suited Rome" seems very well out of place, when at the same time, and for more than thirteen years, you let a priest not quote the name of the pope in the canon, confiding him you understand his choice in front of the scandalous signature of a common document between Catholics and Protestants.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais confided a colleague that this "Letter of April 14th" should never be published because, according to him, you would be "definitively compromised and probably forced to the resignation." Which confirms Bishop Williamson's charitable warning: "for the glory of God, for the salvation of souls, for the peace of mind of the Society members and for your eternal salvation, you’d better resign than exclude me." (London, October 19th, 2012) Nevertheless, you took it for an open and public provocation.

But when Bishop de Galarreta declared, on October 13th 2012 at Villepreux this incredible sentence we can hear but not read because La Porte Latine omitted the on-line transcription: "it is almost impossible that the majority of the Superiors of the Society - after frank discussion, complete analysis of all the aspects, all the ins and outs - it is unthinkable that this majority makes a mistake in a prudential material. And if by chance, it happens, too bad anyway,we are going to do what the majority thinks", in Menzingen, the General Secretary, Father Thouvenot, wrote that he "explained the events of June 2012 with recoil and rise".

How was the Society able to fall so low? Archbishop Lefebvre himself wrote: "in the day of the judgment, God will ask us if we were faithful and not if we obeyed unfaithful authorities. The obedience is a virtue related to the Truth and to God. It is no longer a virtue but a vice if it submits itself to the error and to the evil." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter of August 9th, 1986), And Father Berto wrote in 1963: "we have to ‘see further than the end of our noses’, and not imagine that we believe in the Holy Spirit and follow him as far as we believe in the Council ".

During the conference of November 9th, 2012 in Paris, a prior asked you: "at the end of the priestly retreat, two colleagues accused me of being in revolt against your authority because I showed some satisfaction about the text of Father de Cacqueray against Assisi III. What do you think?" Your answer was: "I ignored that there were such things in the Society. I did ask for this statement (of Father de Cacqueray). Moreover, it was published with my permission. I completely agree with Father de Cacqueray." Yet, during the sisters’ retreat at Ruffec, you confided six priests that you did not agree with the text of Father de Cacqueray. Moreover, you complained to him about the criticism that cardinal Levada, for 20mn, did to you about that subject. If you gave him the permission to publish it, it was, did you explain, not to look partial, but you personally disapproved of the contents which you considered excessive. Your Excellency, who does use "fundamentally subversive" means? Who is revolutionary? Who does harm the common good of our society?

On November 9th, 2012 in Paris, we heard a colleague ask you: "I am a member of those who lost confidence! How many lines of conduct are there in the Society now …" You answered: "it is a grave wound. We underwent serious hardships. It will take time." In front of this elusive answer, another prior asked you then: "Do you reject your answer to the three bishops…" Your answer was still vague: "yes, when I read it again, it seems to me that there are some small errors. But in fact to help you to understand, you have to know that this letter is not an answer to their mail, but to difficulties which I had with each of them separately. I have a lot of respect for Bishop Williamson, even admiration for him, he has genius knocks in the combat against Vatican II, it is a big loss for the Society and it is happening at the worst moment…" But who is responsible for the exclusion? In private, you say many things: "I was at war","Rome lies ", but you have never released the slightest official statement to denounce these claimed lies. Recently, about the ultimatum of February 22nd, you supported the lie of the Vatican.

Your language has become endlessly vague. This ambiguous way of expressing oneself is not praiseworthy as Father Calmel wrote: "I always loathed the soft or elusive expressions, which can be pulled in all directions, which each one is capable of having meant what he wants. And those expressions are in horror to me, as they cover themselves with ecclesiastical authorities. These expressions appear to me a direct insult to the one who said: "I am the Truth … You are the light of the world. Let your word be yes if it is yes, no if it is not … "

Lord, you and your Assistants were capable of saying everything and its opposite without fear of the ridicule.

Father Nély, in April 2012 in Toulouse, declared to several priests that "if the doctrinal relations with Rome failed, it is because our theologians were too pushy" but he said to one of these theologians:" you would have been able to be more incisive."

Yourself, on November 9th, 2012, you asserted us: "I am going to make you laugh, but I really think that us, four bishops, share the same opinions." Whereas six months before, you wrote them: "about the crucial question of the possibility of surviving in the conditions of a recognition of the Society by Rome, we do not arrive at the same conclusion as you."

In the same retreat conference at Ecône, you declared: "I don’t think that I did not to go against the chapter of 2006 by doing what I did." A short moment after this statement, about the Chapter of 2012: "if it is the Chapter which sets the rules, it is this law which is valid until the next Chapter." When we know that in March 2012, without waiting for the next Chapter, you destroyed the law of that of 2006 (“no practical agreement without doctrinal solution”), we wonder about the sincerity of the comment.

In Villepreux, one of your brothers in the episcopate invited us "not to dramatize. The tragedy would be to to give up the Faith. One should not ask for a perfection which is not of this world. You should not quibble over these questions. It is necessary to see if the essentials are there or not. "

It is true, you did not become Mohammedan (1st commandment), you did not take woman (6th commandment), you simply maneuvered the reality (8th commandment). But are the essentials always here when the ambiguities touch the combat of the faith? Nobody asks you for a perfection which is not of this world. We can well conceive that we make a mistake in front of the mystery of iniquity, because even the chosen ones of God could be deceived, but nobody can accept a double language. Certainly, the big denial, predicted by the Holy Writings, can only disturb us. Who can claim to be unhurt from the traps of the devil? But why deceive us? To every sin mercy, of course. But where are the acts which show the conscience, the regret and the repair of the errors?

You said in front of the priors of France: "I am tired of those quarrels of words". Maybe there lies the problem. Who does prevent you from going to rest at Montgardin and enjoy the joys of hidden life there? Rome always used a clear language. Mgr. Lefebvre too. You too in the past. But today, you maintain a confusion by identifying illegally "the Roman Catholic Church, eternal Rome"and"the official Church, modernist and conciliar Rome". Yet, on no account, you can’t change the nature of our combat. If you do not want to fulfill this mission anymore, you have to, as well as your assistants, give up the responsibility that the Society entrusted you with.

Well, Father Pfluger says he personally suffers from the canonical irregularity of the Society. He confided a colleague in June 2012 "to have been shaken by the doctrinal discussions". At the end of his conference at Saint Joseph des Carmes, he said in a contemptuous way to whom wanted to hear him: "amazing that there is still some people who do not understand it is necessary to sign!". On April 29th 2012 in Hattersheim, after admitting that "the past events proved that the differences concerning the doctrinal questions cannot be filled", he said that he feared "new excommunications". But how can we be afraid of the excommunication of modernists already excommunicated by the Church?

At Suresnes, Father Nély, on the occasion of a meal for the benefactors announcing that " the Pope had put an end to the relationship with the Society by asking for the recognition of the Mass and the Vatican II Council" added that "Bishop Felay was on his small cloud, it was impossible to make him get it down again". But did Father Nély not sign the monstrous letter to three bishops too? Was he not "on its small cloud" too when, in Fanjeaux, he declared to the Mother Superior, worried about an ultimatum of Rome: "no, feel reassured, everything goes well with Rome, their canonists help us to prepare the statutes of the prelacy … "

Can you say, in conscience that you and your assistants assumed your responsibilities? After so many contradictory and harmful comments, how can you be able to claim? Who did harm the authority of the General Superior, yourself and your Assistants? How can you claim to speak about justice after hurting it? "What truth can go out of the mouth of the liar?" (Eccli. 34, 4). Who did sow ill-feeling? Who was subversive by lying? Who did scandalize priests and faithful? Who did mutilate the Society by decreasing its episcopal strength? What can well be a charity without the honor and justice?

We know that we shall be blamed for not respecting the forms by writing you so publicly. Our answer will then be the one of Father de Foucauld to General Laperrine: "I had believed by entering the religious life that I would have to recommend the sweetness and the humility; in time, I believe that what is mostly lacking, it is Often the dignity and pride." (Letter of December 6th 1915). And what's the use to write you in private when we know that a brave and lucid priest had to wait four years to have a reply from you and it was not to read responses but insults. When a District Superior is still waiting for the acknowledgement of receipt of its letter of seventeen pages sent to the General House, it seems that Menzingen does not have other argument than the voluntarism anymore: "sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas ".

Your Excellency, what we go through the moment is obnoxious. The evangelic righteousness has been lost: the Est est, non, non. The Chapter of 2012 did not clarify at all the situation. Father Faure, a chapter member, recently warned us publicly against "letters and statements of current superiors of the Society these last months"? Another one said to a colleague: "it is necessary to recognize that the Chapter failed. Today it is OK for a free Society in the conciliar Church. I was devastated by the level of reflection of some chapter members. "

Your interventions and those of your Assistants are shady and let us believe that you operated only a simple strategic recoil.

At the end of 2011, an assistant with a priest favorable to the agreement had tried to estimate the number of priests, in France, who would refuse an agreement with Rome. Their result: seven. Menzingen was reassured. In March 2012, you said that Mr. Guenois of Le Figaro was a very well informed journalist and that his vision of things was fair. Yet, Mr. Guenois wrote: "whether we want it or not, the pope and Bishop Fellay don’t want a doctrinal but ecclesial agreement ". In May 2012, you told the Superiors of the Benedictines, Dominicans and capuchins: "we know that there will be some breakage, but we will continue till the end". In June the ecclesial agreement was impossible. Nevertheless, in October, 2012, in the priory of Brussels, diocesan priests invited by Father Wailliez showed you their wish to see an agreement between Rome and the Society. You reassured them by these words: "yes, yes, that is going to be soon made"? It was three months after the chapter of July.

Your Excellency, you have the duty in justice to tell the truth, to repair the lies and to retract the errors. Do it and everything will be back to normal again. You know how André Avellin, in the XVIth century, became a big saint having been ashamed of a lie which he had committed out of weakness. We simply want that you become a big saint.

Your Excellency, we do not want you to be the man that deformed and mutilated the Priestly Society of Saint Pius the X.

Be assured, Your Excellency, of our total loyalty to Archbishop Lefebvre's work,

February 28th 2013
37 priests of the SSPX

]]>
<![CDATA[Bishop Williamson's Eleison Comments on the SIX Conditions of the July Chapter-- July 2012]]>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 05:08:01 GMThttp://www.sossaveoursspx.com/priests-speak/bishop-williamsons-eleison-comments-on-the-six-conditions-of-the-july-chapter-july-2012SSPX Bishop Williamson: "Those in charge of the SSPX are quite different than the founder, Archbishop Lefebvre"...." Catholics Must Fight In This Titanic War Between the Religion of God and the Religion of Man. "Bishop Williamson's Eleison Comments, Number CCLXVIII (268)   1 September , 2012
 
                                                         SIX CONDITIONS
 
         In an official letter of July 18 to Superiors of the Society of St Pius X,  its General Secretary revealed the six “Conditions” for any future agreement  between the SSPX and Rome. These were hammered out by discussion amongst the 39  capitulants of early July. Surely these Conditions demonstrate an alarming  weakness on the part of the Society’s leaders as a whole.

       The first “essential requirement” is freedom for the Society to teach the  unchanging truth of Catholic Tradition, and to criticize those responsible for  the errors of modernism, liberalism and Vatican II. Well and good. But notice  how the Chapter’s vision has changed from that of Archbishop Lefebvre. No longer  “Rome must convert because Truth is absolute”, but now merely “The SSPX  demands freedom for itself to tell the Truth.” Instead of attacking the  Conciliar treachery, the SSPX now wants the traitors to give it permission to  tell the Truth ? “O, what a fall was there !”
       The second condition requires exclusive use of the 1962 liturgy. Again, well  and good, insofar as the 1962 liturgy is no such betrayal of the Faith as is the  Conciliar liturgy imposed by Rome from 1969 onwards. But do we not right now see  Rome preparing to impose on Traditional Congregations that have submitted to its  authority a “mutual enrichment” Missal, mixing Tradition and the Novus Ordo?  Once the SSPX were to have submitted to Rome, why should it be any more  protected ? 
        The third condition requires the guarantee of at least one bishop. The key  question here is, who will choose him ? Readers, in the text of any  future “agreement” with Rome, go straight for the paragraph about the  appointment of bishops. In 1988 Rome proposed that the Archbishop present a  selection of three candidates for Rome to choose one. Rome then rejected all  three. When will people get it ? Catholics must fight and fight in this titanic  war between the religion of God and the religion of man.
       The fourth condition desires that the Society have its own tribunals of the  first instance. But if any higher tribunal is of the official Church and can  undo the lower tribunals’ decisions, what Catholic decision of any Society  tribunal will still have any force at all ?
       The fifth condition desires exemption of SSPX houses from control by diocesan  bishops. Unbelievable ! For nigh on 40 years the SSPX has been fighting to save  the Faith by protecting its true practice from interference by the local  Conciliar bishops, and now comes the General Chapter merely desiring  independence from them ? The Society is not what it was, dear readers. It is in  the hands of people quite different from Archbishop Lefebvre !
       The sixth and last condition desires a Commission to be set up in Rome to  look after Tradition, with a a strong representation from Tradition, but  “dependent on the Pope”. Dependent on the Pope ? But have the Conciliar Popes  not been ringleaders of Conciliarism ? Is Conciliarism no longer a problem ?
      In conclusion, these six conditions are excessively grave. Unless the  Society’s leadership is shaken out of its dream of peace with Conciliar Rome as  revealed by them, then the last worldwide bastion of Catholic Tradition risks  being on its way to surrendering to the enemies of the Faith. Maybe bastions are
out of date. 

       Friends, prepare to fight for the Faith from within your homes. Fortify your  homes.
Kyrie eleison.
      (End of Bp Williamsons column. You may suscribe to his Kyrie Eleison, and you may donate to help pay the ongoing expenses of producing and maintaining Kyrie Eleison  Go To : mailto:      admin@dinoscopus.org)

Bp Fellay's  "Six Conditions" for an agreement with Rome are straw men,-- they are  "pretend"  conditions, devoid of any real meaning. They are designed to trick the faithful  into thinking, once again, that Rome has changed. It hasn't. Rome is filled with the same liberal, leftist, modernist fakes and frauds that brought about the destruction of the Roman Catholic faith.They are proponents of the one-world religion of the new world order.The few in Rome that may still have the Catholic faith have absolutely no power or influence.All the important spots in all the dicasteries are filled with modernists--many are filled with outright protectors and promoters of sodomites.  These six conditions are akin to the phony Rosary Crusades Bp Fellay and Fr Rostand promoted-- knowing full well that, in each case, theend results had already been agreed upon for 1) the so-called freeing  of the Latin Mass and 2), the so-called "lifting"of the excommunications.Listen to Bp Fellay's own words , as he describes his new religion, one of accomodating Rome and the Modernists

]]>
<![CDATA[Msgr De Pauw Still fights for the faith from the grave!]]>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 04:53:59 GMThttp://www.sossaveoursspx.com/priests-speak/msgr-de-pauw-still-fights-for-the-faith-from-the-gravePicture
The Brave Monsigneur Gomar dePauw still fights for the faith from his grave! 
"Your Holiness", wrote Fr  de Pauw to Paul VI in 1967,The Brave Monsigneur Gomar dePauw still fights for the faith from his grave! 
"Your Holiness", wrote Fr  de Pauw to Paul VI in 1967,
" I still vividly remember that December 1, 1965 evening  when Your Holiness personally blessed me and my work with the traditionalist  Catholics who selected me to be their spokesman …. ", this original " Father of the Traditionalist Movement wrote, As recently
reposted  on the Tradition in Action site, and sent by a reader, you can see clearly that Msgr DePauw knew of what he spoke, and he meant to help save the catholic faith-- even if that meant correcting the ruling pontiff! Please read  his letter to Paul VI:
       "I equally remember  how Your Holiness literally begged me to urge the Catholics I was to lead in  their fight for “TRUTH and TRADITION,” not to lose faith in the Church. And Your  Holiness justified that request by stating: “Once the dust stirred up by the  recent Ecumenical Council will have settled down, the Church will come out of  all this with renewed strength and vigor.”
          " May I humbly submit that  during this past year and a half I have labored as hard as any human individual
could to do precisely what Your Holiness asked me to do: to keep the faith in  our Church alive among those Catholics who had justifiedly become alarmed to the  point of publicly asking themselves and others: “What, in the name of God, is  happening to our Catholic Church?!” And may I add that one of the principal  aspects of my efforts to keep that faith in our Church alive has consistently  been the stressing of belief in the divine foundation of the Roman Papacy and  respectful loyalty to its present incumbent, Your Holiness, Paul VI. 

        "Already then, December 1, 1965, Your Holiness asked me to realize that  our Church was going through “one of the gravest crises in her history.” If such  a description of our Church’s condition was true then, how much more can the  same be said of our Church today! To say that it has gone from bad to worse  would be the understatement of the century. "
      This, dear people, is the plea of a faithful son of the Church to Paul VI. The same Paul VI who opened the doors of the Vatican and let the smoke of Satan enter the Church. The same Paul VI who begged Msgr dePauw to "help preserve Catholic Tradition!" The hallmark of a modernist, as St Pius X said, is they talk out of both sides of their mouth! They will say and do diametrically opposite things. What has happened since the 1950's in the Church is still happening-- and NOW it's going on within the Society of St Pius X!. Continue learning:

]]>
<![CDATA[January 09th, 2013]]>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 04:48:23 GMThttp://www.sossaveoursspx.com/priests-speak/january-09th-2013Picture

]]>
<![CDATA[¬†Father Ringrose Bravely stands with the priests of the Resistance! With Brotherly Charity, he corrects Bp. Fellay, all to no avail!]]>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:05:34 GMThttp://www.sossaveoursspx.com/priests-speak/father-ringrose-bravely-stands-with-the-priests-of-the-resistance-with-brotherly-charity-he-corrects-bp-fellay-all-to-no-availThe following was read and distributed to parishoners at St. Athanasius  Church  in Vienna, VA, on Sunday, December 16th:  Dear  Father Rostand,  
 
       Thank you for your letter of October 12 in which you  offer to  meet to  discuss the situation within the Society of St. Pius X. While  this is  a  very kind offer on your part and I appreciate it very much,
I
don't  think such a meeting will serve any meaningful purpose
,
since the
problems stem  from the Society's top leadership, and you
are not in a position to change that. 

It is true that
I have been a strong supporter of the Society for many  years
This support was based on the fact that my mission as a priest, and the  
Society's mission were one and the same, to help souls hold onto the  Catholic 
faith during this time when it appears to have been abandoned  by post Vatican
II  Rome.
      Now I have to be more cautious and reserved in that support.
I am  alarmed that the Superior General would say that 95%
of Vatican II is  acceptable.
  I am astounded that the
Society's leadership would respond to three  of  the Society's bishops by
suggesting that they are making the errors of   Vatican II into a
"super-heresy."
I am disappointed that the Society's
response  to Assisi III was so weak and anemic
.
I  am saddened by the Society's unjust  disciplining of
priests who are  following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre,  and I am outraged at the  treatment of Bishop Williamson -- not just his recent  expulsion, but  the shabby treatment he has gotten over the past few years. 


  Prior to this year, when asked about the  Society by an inquiring   parishoner, I always gave the Society a green light.
Given the Society's  recent  actions, I do not yet give the Society a red light,  but I do  give a yellow light  of caution. The red light will come if and when  the  Society allows herself to be  absorbed into the Conciliar Church that   Archbishop Lefebvre so vigorously  resisted.  
     
It  is with  great sadness that I write these words. There are  many good,  zealous, faithful  priests within the Society's ranks. Many of them I   know personally and admire.  Many souls depend on them. It is out of love  for the  Society that I fear for
her future. I fear that she is on a  suicidal path. The  leadership may think  that a deal is off the table,  but I fear that is not the  thinking of Rome.  
      I  pray for the Society to return to the mission given  her by Archbishop  Lefebvre without compromise or hedging. When she does, she  will  have my  unreserved support. 
May God bless you and Our Lady  watch  over you.
Fraternally yours,
Rev. Ronald J. Ringrose

The  saddest part of this  story, dear readers, is not the reality that a  humble parish priest like Fr 
Ringrose has to stand against the  current  proud and bullying leadership of the
SSPX,  the sadest part of this story is Rostand's  response. Did he take Father  Ringrose'e heartfelt pleas to heart, and examine  the issues with truth  and professionalism? NO.  Did he take Father Ringrose's objections and  match them up to the Society's long-standing positions, and then  champion a change in Bp. Fellay's thinking to bring it into line with  the Archbishop, and with traditional Catholicism? No. Instead, he,  continuing his  bullying and self-centered and money centered quest for  cash, he opened a "mass  center" near Father Ringrose, to compete for the  souls (or in his case, for the cash) of traditionalists in Virginia.  This is how the new SSPX treats a priest which has worked with them for  years and years!!!]]>
<![CDATA[Fr, Pfeiffer, Dec 1, 2012: The End of the World]]>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 05:40:22 GMThttp://www.sossaveoursspx.com/priests-speak/fr-pfeiffer-dec-1-2012-the-end-of-the-world
]]>
<![CDATA[Father Chazal sermon Oct 14, 2012]]>Sat, 20 Oct 2012 05:51:09 GMThttp://www.sossaveoursspx.com/priests-speak/father-chazal-sermon-oct-14-2012
]]>
<![CDATA[BISHOP WILLIAMSON NOTICE--Please skip down 3 posts to Mr. Heiner's Note, Thank-you . This is the response of His Excellency to Bishop Fellay's unjust expulsion of him from the Society.]]>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:24:27 GMThttp://www.sossaveoursspx.com/priests-speak/bishop-williamson-notice]]><![CDATA[Understand the Crises in The Church ]]>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:22:38 GMThttp://www.sossaveoursspx.com/priests-speak/understand-the-crises-in-the-church
]]>