The parallels between the Society of St. Pius X’s “regularization” process and the “regularization” of Campos and other Ecclesia Dei groups is astounding. The SSPX of old condemned nearly word for word everything the SSPX of 2017 is doing. It is like a collective amnesia has befallen their leaders.
Below are a few quotations taken from a November 2011 bulletin of a SSPX chapel in France. The bulletin was a Q&A that dealt with the relationship of the Society to the Ecclesia Dei communities. It was posted on the Rorate Caeli blog by the anonymous blogger “New Catholic.”
Why isn’t the Society of Saint Pius X part of these [Ecclesia Dei] communities?
The 1988 consecrations helped save Catholic Tradition not only by ensuring the transmission of the sacrament of Holy Orders – and, therefore, of the Traditional Mass and sacraments – but also by protecting a small part of the Church’s flock from the errors of Vatican II. Alas, these conciliar errors still devastate the Church, and rule even in Rome. In order to protect oneself efficaciously, it is therefore necessary to keep one’s distances from the Roman authorities.
Can you give us an analogy?
In times of an epidemic, the most basic prudence demands one to separate the sick from the healthy. Some contact remains indispensable in order to care for the sick, but it is limited to the smallest possible [level] and surrounded by great precaution. The same goes for the current situation: one cannot visit in a habitual manner the conciliar authorities without exposing oneself to catching their errors. The example of the Ecclesia Dei communities is the manifest evidence of that.
Yes, you read that correctly. In 2011, the Society said “In order to protect oneself efficaciously, it is therefore necessary to keep one’s distances from the Roman authorities.” This must happen because “prudence demands one to separate the sick from the healthy” lest the healthy person expose themselves to catching the errors of the sick.
Boy how times have changed! Less than two years later in 2013, Fr. Themann and Co. said it is a matter of prudence that the SSPX does in fact have relations with the Roman authorities! Does the law of non-contradiction apply to the Society? One wonders.
More from the letter:
Have the members of the Ecclesia Dei communities truly admitted the conciliar errors, or are they satisfied with keeping silent about them?
Without the intention of judging the internal dispositions or possible exceptions, it seems that most of their members have ended up, unfortunately, adhering to the Conciliar errors. They began with a silence that they considered prudent. They have had to increasingly show signs of good will regarding the Roman authorities. They have been placed in submission, without even noticing it, to the pressure of Liberalism – which is more efficacious when it seems less forceful. They have ended up forbidding themselves to think differently from what they said and did. In short, they have been completely swallowed by the machinery in which they had imprudently placed their finger.
This captures the crisis of the Society perfectly. For the past several years, the Society has increasingly moderated its criticism of Pope Francis. Even Louie Verrechio has noticed that. No one can deny that a cat and mouse game of gestures of good will has been taking place between Francis and Bishop Fellay.
Moreover, the Society’s increasing silence has been confirmed by Bishop Fellay himself, who, in his interview with Fr. Lorans on January 26, said it is a “question of prudence” to not “make the most noise” about certain “problems” in the Church. His words:
There are many problems when it comes to knowing how to react, how to improve the situation. It is obvious that at a given time it will have to come from the top. And so long as the top does nothing, any reaction will be a source of conflict. We have known this for 50 years, but at a given time, God will make the supreme authority take the lead in this movement. Until then we have to hold strong. Of course, it is a question of prudence, so that our position may bear the most fruit. And that does not necessarily mean make the most noise. We have to understand that, too; it is very important.
Prudence, prudence, prudence. My goodness. Which is it? Is it prudent to stay away from the Romans so as not to catch their errors or prudent to have relations with them? It cannot be both, yet the Society has taken both positions. What are the faithful supposed to think about this? Who are we to follow? Do they think the faithful are incapable of reading and understanding basic logic?
More from the bulletin:
Is this acceptance of the conciliar errors common to all Ecclesia Dei communities?
There are nuances, certainly, but, in a general fashion, all these communities currently adhere to the conciliar errors. At the moment of the ralliement of July 1988, Le Barroux had publicly posed as a condition, “that nothing liturgical or doctrinal be demanded from us in return, and that no silence be imposed to our anti-Modernist predication.” However, in the following month of October, a monk noticed “a certain relativization of the criticism of religious liberty and of the meeting of Assisi” inside the abbey. Le Barroux would even try to publicly justify the errors of Vatican II. The Fraternity of Saint Peter, which intended, at the beginning, to carry on the inside of the Church exactly what the Society of Saint Pius X did, has suffered the same fall.
Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Le Barroux struck a deal where “nothing liturgical or doctrinal be demanded from us in return, and that no silence be imposed to our anti-Modernist predication.” Fools! Modernists do not live by the truth. They are revolutionaries bent on imposing their errors little by little. As St. Gregory once said, “the King of nothingness makes all sorts of promises.” They will not tolerate opposition. Archbishop Lefebvre knew this. The Society knew this as well years ago. That is why they said “no practical deal.” Alas, the Society of today not only contradicts itself, it is sleep walking into the same quicksand as those who went before it. This time, it is the Resistance warning them about the sick Roman authorities. Will the Society listen? At present, it looks like they have wax in their ears.
Exactly so. However I wouldn't call it a collective amnesia but rather a spiritual schizophrenia amid a blindness which they have inflicted upon themselves for their pride and disobedience. This will not end well for them barring some unforeseen miracle...one for which I still hope and pray for.
Dawn said it the best....SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS.....
OUR GOD is NOT CONFUSION, and this TOO long dealing with the enemy needs .to Cease and DESIST....
LORD HAVE MERCY PLEASE REMOVE THE SCALES OFF THEIR EYES IN MENZINGEN.
Must we not all wonder how can this be taking place?
"To the crowd we must say; we worship a God but it is the God one worships without superstition. To you Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this,that you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees; all of us initiates of the high degrees should maintain the Masonic religion in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine.If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay, the God of Christians, whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy and hatred of men, his barbarism and repulsion of science, would Adonay and his priests caluminate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also God ... religious philosophy in its purity and truth consists in the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay." Albert Pike (Quoted by H. Gibson in "The Enemy Is Here" pg.412 )
Lord, make haste to help us! We beseech Thee, let Russia be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart! Amen.