The Truth about John XXIII

We are quickly approaching the “canonizations” of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. While most Traditionalists are opposed to the “canonization” of JPII, there is some debate as to the worthiness of John XXIII to be declared a “saint”.

I’ve already addressed the question of whether or not Roncalli (John XXIII) deserves to be recognized as a “saint” in my article “Roncalli Canonized?”. The answer is “no”. But I would like to take this opportunity to respond to claims that Roncalli was not all that bad, or was somehow “more Traditional” and “less modernist” than Pope Pius XII, whom most Traditional Catholics recognize as the last Traditional Pope.

Traditio is one site which asserts that John XXIII was “more Traditional” than Pius XII. Here is an excerpt from a recent article of theirs:

“Even most traditional Catholics are ignorant how traditional John XXIII was in doctrine and liturgy, more traditional in many ways that his predecessor Pope Pius XII. Pius XII appointed the architect of the New Order Liturgy, the Freemason presbyter Hannibal Bugnini, who destroyed the Traditional Roman Rite. Pius XII wrote the ambiguous Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei (1947), which did not take decisive action against those Modernists who were already destroying the Traditional Latin Mass. On the other hand, John XXIII fired Bugnini, forbidding him to have any significant position at the Council, even calling him a “heretic.” John XXIII also wrote the Apostolic Constitution Veterum sapientia (1962), which strongly defended the exclusive use of Latin in the Roman liturgy and required priests to have 7-9 years of Latin.”

This assessment is far from accurate.

First of all, it is noted that Pope Pius XII wrote an “ambiguous Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei”, but a key fact which is ignored is that Pius XII also wrote “Humani Generis”, which is a great anti-modernist Encyclical.

Traditio also states that Pius XII was the one whom appointed Cardinal Bugnini, the Freemason whom was largely responsible for the Novus Ordo, while John XXIII “fired” Bugnini. But here we have several important facts which again are overlooked. For one, John XXIII’s opening address at the Second Vatican Council was inspired by Cardinal Montini, who may very well have been a Freemason himself (and whom collaborated with Bugnini to complete the Novus Ordo). Furthermore, while Roncalli was Nuncio to France, he appointed a close friend, Baron Yves Marsaudon, as head of the French branch of the Knights of Malta, a Catholic lay order. Marsaudon, a Freemason, praised the reforms that were being implemented by Roncalli and once even claimed that Roncalli himself was a Mason.

There are many other things to take into consideration here as well. Some of them I mentioned in my previous article on Roncalli, such as the Holy Office suspecting him of him being a modernist since at least 1925 (he would later admit, in a private audience with Archbishop Lefebvre, that he had been kept at a distance from the Roman curia prior to his election because he was said to have been a modernist), as well as his association with non-Catholics, including a priest who had been excommunicated in 1926 for heresy. None of these grave scandals can be attributed to Pope Pius XII.

Archbishop Lefebvre certainly did not share the view that John XXIII was “more Traditional” than Pius XII. In a 1982 conference, he stated this:

“Pope Pius XII was a great pope well in his writing as in his way of governing the Church. During the reign of Pius XII the Faith was firmly maintained. Naturally the liberals did not like him, for he brought back to mind the fundamental principles of theology and truth. But then John XXIII came along. He had a totally different temperament than Pius XII. John XXIII was a very simple and open man. He did not see problems anywhere.”

Bishop Williamson echoed the belief of the Archbishop during a conference he gave at Post Falls, Idaho, in 2013. He remarked that John XXIII considered the modern world “nice” and that the Church needed to be “reconciled” with the world.

Finally, here is an excerpt from John XXIII’s opening address at the Second Vatican Council:

“In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.

We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.

In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfillment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.”

This seems to confirm that Bishop Williamson was correct in his assessment; what is essentially being said in the above address is “Away with those who talk about how bad off the world is today! There is plenty of good in today’s world! Let us strive to reconcile the Church with the modern world”.

Also, “a new order of human relations” seemed to be a subtle suggestion of what was to come, namely, ecumenising with false religions. The choice of words, however, is also most interesting. He speaks of a “new order”. Could he have been hinting at the New World Order? It certainly would not be a stretch to wonder if this is the case. In fact, Paul VI would go on to specifically endorse a “New World Order” at the United Nations in 1967, followed by Benedict XVI calling for a NWO in 2009.

Because of all these facts, I therefore see absolutely no reason to conclude that John XXIII was “more Traditional” than Pope Pius XII, or that he wasn’t all that bad.  The facts simply do not support such a ludicrous assertion. On the contrary; Pope Pius XII, though not perfect, was an angelic shepherd who did much good for the Church. It was his successors – Roncalli, Montini, and the rest of them – who disregarded the teachings of Pius and the other Popes, leading to a truly unprecedented apostasy from the Faith as a direct result of Vatican II.

Do not be deceived. John XXIII was no friend of Tradition, nor have any of his successors been so.

God Bless.

Happy Easter!

Resurrection of Jesus Christ

I would like to wish all readers of TraditionalCatholicRemnant a Happy and Holy Easter.

Christ is Risen!

Does Bishop Fellay Want an Agreement?

In a recent “DICI” interview, Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Neo-SSPX, addressed claims that he is “desperate for an agreement”. This was his response:

[...]“Where do they get such ideas? I stand by it [negotiating with Rome] for we must try to do all the good we can to save as many souls. All that we can do well in Rome will then descend upon the whole Church, and to do good to thousands of souls. We must try. This is normal, this is obvious. This is limited for now, but it is in the hands of God. Do our best and there are still people in Rome who say that it is with Tradition and the Church will be restored.”

The question of whether or not Bishop Fellay has been pursuing a “reconciliation” with modernist Rome – and if so, what his intentions for doing so are –  has been subject to much debate on Traditional Catholic internet forums. His Excellency dismisses such a notion, but the above quote seems to suggest that those who attribute to +Fellay a desire to reach an agreement are, in fact, correct.

There are several key points to consider here, which not only point to such a desire on his own part rather than a desire from Rome, but also highlight a drastic alteration in his thinking. Let’s consider the facts:

1) All three of the SSPX’s other Bishops (+Williamson, +Tissier, and +Galarreta), were opposed to an agreement initially. When Bishop Fellay penned a piece that appeared in an SSPX paper, which hinted strongly at a blueprint for a “reconciliation”, the three Bishops wrote a letter to +Fellay urging him not to proceed with any agreement. Bishop Fellay wrote back, downplaying the concerns that they raised. The correspondence was eventually leaked on the internet.

It became obvious that Bishop Fellay was willing to lead the SSPX into the arms of the modernists with or without the other three Bishops. Despite their objection, +Fellay had the support of the majority of his priests and district superiors, not to mention most of the clueless faithful, who were willing to bid adieu to the three Bishops in order to remain faithful to Bishop Fellay, who, in their eyes, can seemingly do no wrong. (The faithful have unfortunately fallen into a “The Superior General is always right” mentality which has negatively influenced their thinking, to the point where *nothing* Bishop Fellay says or does could be wrong. The fact that they absolutely did not care that the other three Bishops sided against +Fellay only proves my point. All THREE were against a deal, and that should have been a wake-up call for them, but again, they didn’t care, and neither did most of the priests.) As long as the majority of the priests and laity were willing to join him in his “Rome or bust” journey, the opinion of the other Bishops seemed to matter little to him.

2) Priests who were rightly alarmed by an agreement were expelled. After the election of Pope Francis, Bishop Fellay would go on to say that he was glad no deal was made. But if that’s the case, then were Bishop Williamson and the priests who spoke out against an agreement not correct in the first place? Alas, +Fellay did not admit any wrongdoing and has not extended any apology to them.

3) There’s also the fact that Bishop Fellay’s statements and actions have been in direct contradiction to his previous remarks about an agreement. For a number of years, he stated that an agreement with Rome “would be suicide”, and also strongly condemned the sell-out of Campos to Rome. But if Campos was wrong then, Bishop Fellay is wrong now.

Here is just one example of a change in his thinking. In 2007, he made this remark:

“[Bishop] Williamson and I are on the same line, that which believes that we could hardly re-enter a Church as is. And the reasons are quite simple. Benedict XVI has indeed liberalized the ancient rite, but I cannot explain for what reason he made such a decision if he then allows the majority of Bishops to criticize and disobey him regarding what he determined. What should we do? Re-enter the Church and then be insulted by all those people?”

Then, in 2010, he said this:

“…the Pope says that there is solely a problem of a canonical nature. An act of Rome suffices to state that it’s over and that we reenter the Church. This will happen. I am very optimistic.”

How does he go from saying for years that the SSPX never left the Church to saying that he’s optimistic the Society “will reenter the Church”? As Archbishop Lefebvre once said: “I do not need to be ‘reconciled’ to a Church that I never left”.

But make any mention of this change in mindset, and +Fellay’s supporters will make up excuses, whether it’s throwing around the accusation of “gossip” or saying you have “misunderstood” what he’s saying. As I said above, in their minds, the Superior General is always right.

+Fellay is also mistaken when he raves about how much good the SSPX can do for the Church should a “reconciliation” occur. The SSPX consists of three Bishops and approximately 500 priests. That’s not bad, but it’s nowhere near the overpowering numbers of the conciliar church. To think that the small SSPX can conquer the large conciliar church is both arrogant and naïve.

Mulling over these and numerous other facts, it becomes clear that +Fellay does, in fact, want a deal, and he has certainly changed his position on an agreement. Whatever damage control Menzingen tries, the facts still speak for themselves.

God Bless.

March 25th

Today, March 25th, is the Feast Day of the Annunciation:

Annunciation

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01541c.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01542a.htm

Additionally, today marks the 23rd anniversary of the death of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Bishop Williamson’s 1991 letter on the Archbishop’s death:

http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com/2009/02/life-and-death-of-archbishop-lefebvre.html

Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis.

Bishop Fellay’s Letter to a Polish Layman

Recently, a letter that Bishop Fellay sent to a Polish layman was leaked on “Non Possumus”, and is now available on numerous other sites as well. The letter is rather intriguing, and I wanted to address some parts of it.

This layman had obviously sent +Fellay a letter first, inquiring about the Resistance and an agreement between the Society and Rome. Here are some excerpts from +Fellay’s response (which can be read in full length on Non Possumus):

“My answer to your questions is simple: do not listen to these outrageous accusations against the Society of St. Pius X and its Superiors. Against all odds, we follow the line that are venerated founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, gave us.”

His Excellency says not to listen to the “outrageous accusations” made against the Neo-SSPX and its Superiors, but he doesn’t offer any logical reasons as to why.

One recurring theme I have noticed is that Bishop Fellay refuses to directly address the arguments of the Resistance, he just repeats the same tired rhetoric. He cannot just say “Don’t listen to them, I’m right and they’re wrong” and expect everyone to be satisfied with his response. Saying the Resistance is wrong does not make them wrong, he must explain why they are incorrect. Yet he never does this. Telling.

In the next paragraph, he states:

“Of course, the two other Bishops of the Society and I are in full agreement. There is no intention at all on my part, and there never has been any intention, to “sell” the Society to modernist Rome.”

First of all, the above claim pertaining to the other two Bishops – Bishop Tissier and Bishop Galarreta – is not entirely accurate. Both of them warned Bishop Fellay in 2012 not to pursue an agreement with the incorrigible modernists in Rome, but he dismissed their concerns (though +Galarreta now regrets signing the letter).

Additionally, Bishop Fellay was willing to continue fighting towards achieving an agreement, even if it meant that a split would occur. He himself wrote this to Benedict XVI:

“Unfortunately, in the current context of the Society, the new declaration will not be accepted. [...] I am committed to this perspective [practical agreement without doctrinal agreement] 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. [...] May Your Holiness deign to believe my filial devotion and my dearest wish to serve the Church.” (Bishop Fellay, letter to Benedict XVI, 2012)

In the same paragraph of his letter to the Polish layman, he makes this remark:

“Following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, we will never cut all ties with Rome. Otherwise, we would cease to be Catholic.”

If +Fellay is saying that he will never rule out a “reconciliation” with an unconverted Rome, and that doing so would result in them ceasing to be Catholic, then he is mistaken. Archbishop Lefebvre went to Rome to convert them, not to “dialogue”.  The risk of “ceasing to be Catholic” is far greater should the Society unite itself with the modernists in Rome, who clearly do NOT have the Catholic Faith.

His Excellency begins the next paragraph with this claim:

“At the same time, since June 13th, 2012, our relations with Rome are somehow blocked.”

This is simply untrue. It was after June 13th of 2012 that Bishop Fellay wrote to Benedict expressing his determination to reach a deal. Then at the Society’s General Chapter in July (which Bishop Williamson was excluded from attending), the Chapter created six conditions for an agreement. Had Rome accepted, the deal would have been complete. But they did not accept, for even these appalling conditions were not enough for them.

Finally, Bishop Fellay adds this comment on Bishop Williamson and the Resistance:

“About His Excellency Bishop Williamson and the priests of the so-called “resistance”, the reason of their expulsion was because of repeated acts of disobedience and rebellion against the authorities of our priestly Society. It is sad and regrettable but these former members are the only persons at fault here.”

As I noted above, +Fellay makes no effort to explain WHY Bishop Williamson and the Resistance priests were wrong.

It also is another example of how +Fellay never takes blame for *anything*. For example, if it was such a blessing that no agreement was made (as he conceded last year), why did he not admit that the other three Bishops and all of the Resistance priests were correct about a deal in the first place?

To conclude, this letter is filled with fallacies and falsehoods, and fails to demonstrate how the Resistance is wrong. Contrary to what Bishop Fellay claims, the Neo-SSPX does not follow the line of Archbishop Lefebvre. It is the Resistance that continues to follow this line, and it is they whom we must listen to, not the Neo-SSPX.

God Bless.

St. Joseph

St. Joseph

Today, March 19th, is the Feast Day of St. Joseph, spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary and foster-father of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm

AN ANCIENT PRAYER TO ST. JOSEPH

O ST. JOSEPH, whose protection is so great, so strong, so prompt before the throne of God, I place in thee all my interests and desires. O St. Joseph, assist me by thy powerful intercession and obtain for me all spiritual blessings through thy foster Son, Jesus Christ Our Lord, so that, having engaged here below thy heavenly power, I may offer thee my thanksgiving and homage.

O St. Joseph, I never weary contemplating thee and Jesus asleep in thine arms. I dare not approach while He reposes near thy heart. Press Him in my name and kiss His fine head for me, and ask Him to return the kiss when I draw my dying breath.
St. Joseph, Patron of departing souls, pray for me.

St. Patrick

St. Patrick

Today, March 17th, is the Feast Day of St. Patrick, known as the “Apostle of Ireland”.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11554a.htm

A Happy and Blessed St. Patrick’s Day to all readers!

Pope St. Gregory I

Pope St. Gregory I

Today, March 12th, is the Feast Day of Pope St. Gregory I (also known as “St. Gregory the Great”). He is a Doctor of the Church, and the invention of “Gregorian Chant” is largely attributed to him.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm

A Happy and Blessed Feast Day of Pope St. Gregory I to everyone.

Why Many still Follow the Neo-SSPX

The question of why more of the laity are not resisting the liberal changes of the Neo-SSPX was addressed by Bishop Williamson in his latest edition of Eleison Comments.

His Excellency believes that “fiftiesism” is partly responsible for this. Here are some additional problems that I feel are also to blame:

1) An unfortunately large number of Trad laymen today have been influenced by the error of neo-Traditionalism; that is, false Traditionalism. These people (whom we might label as “neo-Trads”) do not have a proper understanding of Church teaching in regards to subjects such as Judaism or feminism, nor do they grasp the significant errors within Vatican II. Ask any pro-Fellay layperson what they think about Vatican II or the Jews, and nearly all of them will demonstrate their sheer ignorance on the matter. They will attempt to downplay the heresies of the Council, or will present a soft approach towards the Jews so as not to be “anti-Semitic”. And the person they follow, Bishop Fellay, shares the same beliefs. Read his quotes from 2009 onwards.

2) As Bishop Williamson has previously noted, followers of the Neo-SSPX have never truly understood the mindset of Archbishop Lefebvre. The Neo-SSPX presents a false portrayal of his mindset (as I have demonstrated many times before), and the faithful buy it. What is very ironic, however, is that their portrayal of the Archbishop contradicts many areas of Bishop Tissier’s book “Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography”.

3) As demonstrated in the latest edition of Eleison Comments, the faithful also do not have a proper understanding of Catholic obedience. They erroneously believe that we must obey our superiors even when they’re wrong. Using that distorted “logic”, however, Archbishop Lefebvre had no legitimate reason to disobey his own superiors, the conciliar popes!

It’s also worth noting that Bishop Fellay does not have any authority over the faithful, so none of the laity have any obligation to obey him.

4) Finally, here is something Stephen Heiner wrote two years ago (while the SSPX/Rome drama was unfolding) that I wholeheartedly agree with:

“…It turns out that most SSPXers have fallen into Latin Massism and cult-worship of Bishop Fellay, their sainted prophet who has never done ill and can never do ill, because he’s perfect.  That is not an overstatement.  And that brings us back to the original raison d’etre of this primer and our lead into the radio show tomorrow:

Bishop Fellay does not mind that his reply to the three bishops was leaked because he has so successfully waged a PR campaign that HE is the DECIDER in the SSPX that most SSPX faithful are willing to toss 3 bishops into the dustbin and follow Bishop Fellay into history and into the loving arms of the “Holy Father.”  As I noted above, the dark humor is that Bishop Fellay was not part of the original 3 picked by Archbishop Lefebvre.  He wasn’t even the one name the Archbishop submitted to Rome in 1988 for consecration (that name, I’ve confirmed through 3 different sources, was Fr. Richard Williamson).  He was the accountant who became King.  The faithful, who mostly don’t know this, and frankly don’t care anyway because they do not perceive that Bishop Fellay could *ever* be wrong about *anything,* will go along with his moves.

Bishop Fellay is such a king of PR (I once watched him take a picture on his smartphone of the audience at an Angelus conference.  He is a huge advocate of technology and knows how to use it to his advantage.) that he would *never* have emailed his response to the three bishops were he not supremely confident that, even if leaked, the faithful would side with him, not the other bishops.

As he rightly points out, Bishop Fellay can seemingly do no wrong in the eyes of the Neo-SSPX faithful. So it is because of this cult-worship of him that they will continue to blindly follow him, and it explains why so many of them – even those who claim they don’t want a deal – would be willing to follow him into the hands of the conciliar church.

If these people had a proper understanding of the mindset of Archbishop Lefebvre and of Catholic obedience, and if they weren’t engulfed in the errors of neo-Traditionalism, perhaps they would be able to see through the latest actions of +Fellay and co. But because of these four primary errors that I listed above, they are unable to realize that the Society is being liberalized right before their very eyes.

Let us pray that the faithful will begin to wake up to what is happening.

God Bless.

Happy Birthday, Bishop Williamson!

Bishop Williamson

Today, March 8th, is the birthday of Bishop Richard Williamson.

This would be a good day for all of us to offer up our Holy Rosary for the intentions of His Excellency. Let us remember to do this.

God Bless the good Bishop.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers