NECESSARY PRECISIONS
TO THOSE WHO RESIST
THE CONCILIAR FURY
AND ITS MISTAKES
by
M.R.P. HUGO RUIZ VALLEJO
February 4
th 2017.
Catholic Priests, who do their best in order
to preserve the authentic inheritance of the
Roman Apostolic Catholic Church, that is, the
bimillennial Catholic Tradition_ , try to remain
faithful to the teachings and directives that
Mons. Lefebvre gave us with this precise
objective. That is why every day we need to
make new alerts and precisions, where
required. We are living times of demonic disorientation,
of deep crisis in the Catholic Church, as well as in her members. It is not enough just
knowing about this. We should not forget that
evil is also seductive and is capable of
adopting new appearances to better achieve
its goals. That is the reason why true
Catholics need to be cautious.
(“Watch and pray so that you do not fall into
temptation”. St. Mc., XIV, 38). Through the
increasing disorientation, due to the crisis of
authority in the Church, (“I will hurt the
shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered”.
St. Mc. XIV, 27) It happens that even in those
who have the sincere intention to save the
Holy Tradition in the Catholic Church, there
are gaps towards the attitude to be taken on
certain matters and particularly in regard to
certain situations.
The modern world of liberal nature has no
qualms about mixing; furthermore, it loves
mixtures. On the contrary, our Holy Religion
asks us to flee away from evil, as well as the
occasions of sin, which may be more than
varied.
As far as I am concerned, as I said before, I
try to conform myself to the directives that our
Catholic and Saint Bishop Mons. Marcel
Lefebvre gave us, also the directives of the
Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pious X
(F.S.S.P.X.), which he founded, as well as his
Teachings and authentical Catholic attitude of
the F.S.S.P.X. until the (new-fraternity)
gradually started to separate himself from the
spirit of his founder.
In some midsts of the so-called “resistance”,
they begin to give advises to the
parishioners, which no longer correspond to
those of our Bishop Mons. Lefebvre, our
faithful Bishop. This is the main reason, why I
want to point out various matters, which are
of main importance, although nowadays, they
seem to be less clear to somebody. At the
end, I added a commentary in relation to the
recent announcement given by Mons. Fellay
about the imminence of an official agreement
of the (new)-FSSPX with the conciliar Rome:
1º point: About the morality of the
new mass and its attendance.
As we know, Pope Paul VI ordered the
elaboration of the new mass (novus ordo)
with such an ecumenical criteria, thus worst
of all, to six protestant pastors 1
, who
participated on it. For this and other reasons,
Paul VI artificially produced a new mass,
copied from the protestant mass. However,
it was ambiguous enough so as not to be
whether formally heretical, nor formally
Catholic. An ambiguous rite was created, but
no less unavoidably poisoned by a
protestant spirit.
The conclusion is that the new mass, due to
its ambiguity, is not formally heretical;
nevertheless because of his mistakes, it is
indeed favourable to heresy. This is the
reason why it can not be called neither a
Catholic Rite, nor good in itself, because
they are intrinsic characteristics.
From all these we can deduce that:
►The assistance to the new mass is not
permissible. It is not licit. (Those who are
aware of what the new mass is, morally we can
no longer attend it).
►No one can ever be advised directly to
go to the new mass. Although for serious
reasons of prudence, one can simply leave
someone in his ignorance or goodwill.
►The Holy Communion is the most perfect
Way to participate in the Holy Mass. This is
the reason why, one must not receive
communion from consecrated hosts in the
new mass
Note1: The new mass was written as a protestant and not
sacred at all:, it means a desacralized one. It was
elaborated by one mason and 6 protestants. The
mason was: card. Annibale Bugnini; as well as by 6
protestants, such as Rev. Ronald CD Jasper
(anglican), Rev. Dr. H. Massey Pastor Jr. (methodist),
A. Raymond George (methodist), Pastor FriedrichWilhelm
Künneth, (calvinist), Rev. Eugene L. Brand,
(methodist) and Pastor Max Thurian,
(ThaizéComunity).
This is in short the thought and the attitude
that Mons. Lefebvre taught us to have
towards the new mass.
2º point: On attendance at the
masses of “indult”.
Conciliar Rome has always tried to
recuperate the Catholics, who defending their
Faith have gone apart (without intention of
schism) from the ecclesiastical
environments, which are infected by
modernism and by the mistakes of Vatican II.
Nevertheless, conciliar Rome in her
eagerness to put them under their control has
proposed them new “solutions” and
“pardons”, which would give an apparent
opportunity to continue preserving their
convictions, but within the official structure (of
the conciliar church). Those who have fallen
into these nests, have been cruelly
disillusioned by the pressures and even
because of the drastic measures, which are
always focused to limit more and more the
Catholic Tradition, as well as its practise. It is
indeed a terrible contradiction the fact of
putting the Sacred Tradition under the
guardianship and “protection” of those, who
are exactly the same enemies of the Sacred
Tradition…
Mons. Lefebvre, in his time, has made us
understand that the Traditional Mass is not
the whole Tradition, whereas it also exists
the Teaching of Faith and its practise. It is not
enough to have the Traditional Holy Mass,
when next to it, the Preaching and the
practise of Faith are not consistent.
Particularly, when next to the Holy Mass, the
whole Faith is not taught anymore, whether directly nor indirectly. It is about to force the
parishioners to accept Vatican II. (For
instance, by omitting the clear and firm
denunciation of the mistakes of Vatican II). In
order to weaken and exterminate our
defense and fight for the true Catholic Faith
and Sacred Tradition). In such a case, the
souls of those parishioners are already in
greatest danger. Therefore, it is better to
renounce to those masses because of the
danger of infection, which is more or less
camouflaged around them. The Holy Priest of
Ars in his youth, preferred to stay without the
Holy Mass, rather than to assist to those
masses said by sworn priests to the liberal
government, in his time.
The attitude, which was before requested to
the parishioners of the F.S.S.P.X. towards the
masses of “indult” was:
►Never to assist to those masses of
“indult”. (It is better to pray the Holy Rosary
at home, and when it is possible, to go to the
Holy Mass celebrated by Priests, who are
not committed to the conciliar church.)
►Do not attend any pastoral service of
the mass of “indult”. (whether conferences,
nor pilgrims, etc.) It is indeed better to stay
without Mass than been exposed to that
danger of being gradually influenced by that
commited mentality of the conciliar church.
3º point: On attendance nowadays
to the Masses of the new F.S.S.P.X.
The nowadays superiors of the newF.S.S.P.X.
in their eagerness to come closer
to conciliar Rome, have already placed the
new-F.S.S.P.X. in a similar situation or even
the same one, which we previously
reproached to the agreement-groups as the
Fraternity Saint Peter, haven´t they? And in
this case, did the old instructions that were given to us regarding the agreement-people
already apply to the (new) F.S,S,P,X, as
well?
The spirit that nowadays rules within the
new-F.S.S.P.X. is that of coming closer and
having an agreement with the conciliar
Rome, which is undeniable. Mons. Fellay
already affirms it openly and publicly.
Besides, it is not always necessary a written
and official agreement, in order to have a true
one; because tacit agreements may also exist
… based on “friendly chats” and significant
“facts”.
Pope Francis had recently given the
jurisdiction to confess to the priests of the
new F.S.S.P.X., isn´t this a real fact? In fact,
in the Catholic Church one can not have
jurisdiction, if one is not previously
incardinated (even if it were directly to the
Pope). It is true, as Mons. Fellay shamelessly
said in an agreed interview on the 29th of
January 2017, “only the seal is missing”.
All the pressures and persecutions which
have been made since a long time ago, not
only to the Priests but also to the
parishioners in order to fold them into this
surrendered policy. Are they not enough
arguments to confirm that the newF.S.S.P.X.
is in a frankly agreement attitude?
And each time the increasingly notorious
false shyness in not willing to denounced
openly the mistakes of Vatican II and
specifically the noisy scandals from Pope
Francis, are they not a worrying sign?
It is obvious that all this dangerous
environment, which we denounced in the
societies “Ecclesia Dei”. (Before, our same
superiors we were constantly putting us on
guard against this danger.) Nowadays this
dangerous environment is already present
inside the new-F.S.S.P.X.
It is a fact for all these reasons that the
nowadays environments of the newF.S.S.P.X.
have become dangerous. This
constant insistence on blind obedience, even
when there are more than legitimate reasons
to be worried about. So, Faith has passed to
a second level in respect to blind obedience;
when it should be the opposite.
According to my personal experience, all the
priests as well as the parishioners who have
not wanted to disconnect themselves from
the new-F.S.S.P.X., as a result, they have
being folding hands one after another. Not
only they have abandoned the fight
against modernism, but due to those
intolerable moral pressures they are suffering
about, they have been changing and milding
their thoughts …
►For all these reasons, I advise the
Priests as well as the parishioners,
DEFINITELY, to walk away from all the
environments of the new-F.S.S.P.X. This,
in accordance to the spirit of prudential
attitude that Mons. Marcel Lefebvre had
previously advised us in relation to the
societies “Ecclesia Dei”. Which nowadays
all this, already applies perfectly to the
new-F.S.S.P.X.
4º point: On attendance to the
“Vacancy of Peter`s Seat” Masses
As for those who affirm today the “vacancy of
the Apostolic Seat”, I do not doubt that many
of them have a sincere attachment and
great veneration for the person of Mons.
Lefebvre.However, they are not always willing
to accept all the recommendations and
directives that he gave us. In fact, Mons.
Lefebvre himself, spoke very clearly about the possibility of this question. Nevertheless
and always, what he emphatically refused to
do, was definitively to define this issue.
You can not make a doctrine, out of a
historical fact, a strictly doctrinal point … The
Truths of Faith are necessary for our
Salvation, whereas a historical fact may be
controversial. The danger is that if one day
God wants to raise a true Catholic Pope, then
one no longer wants to recognize the
legitimacy of the Apostolic Succession.
Mons. Lefebvre wrote an article in the
traditional magazine “Roma” (number 67, of
the year 1981):
“Our Fraternity absolutely rejects to share
these reasonings. We want to remain
attached to Rome, to Saint Peter´s
Successor; even though we reject his
liberalism because of the Fidelity to their
Predecessors.
We are not afraid today to say it respectfully
but firmly, as Saint Paul did in front of Saint
Peter.”
That is why, far to reject the prayers for the
Pope, the more we increase our prayers and
we plead the Holy Spirit to illuminate him and
strengthen him in the support and defense of
the Faith.”
In consequence, it can not be tolerated that
the members, priests, brothers, sisters,
oblates of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint
Pious X (F.S.S.P.X.) reject to pray for the
Pope and assert that all the masses of the
Novus Ordo are invalid”.
On another occasion, commenting on this
article, he added: “I wanted to write this
article so everybody knows, including the
parishioners, which is the position of the
Fraternity. So the parishioners know that if
one of our priests preaches that there is no
Pope, he does not preach in accordance to
what the Fraternity thinks”.
Mons. Lefebvre said in the “Fideliter”
magazine (number 79, january-february
1991):
“I have always put on guard the parishioners,
about the vacancy of the Seat of Peter, for instance. Then they say, if the Mass is good,
then we can go to Mass.
Of course there is the Mass. This is a good
thing; although one has to consider that there
is also the preach, it is also the environment,
the conversations, before and after contacts.
All of which makes one gently gradually
changes of thought. All this is then a real
danger and that is why in a general way, I
estimate that all this, makes only one thing.
One does not only go to Mass, in fact, one
attends the whole environment”
A well known blog of the resistance (“Non
possumus”), on the 12th of January 2017,
published an article, which says: “It is licit to
the parishioners to go to all traditional
Masses (also celebrated “non una cum”)
because it is the Minister , who answers to
God about his decisions, meanwhile the
parishioners must only answer if they have
observed the Third Commandment: “Sanctify
the Feasts”. (The expression “Non una cum”
means that in that Mass the legitimity of the
actual Pope is not recognized.) According to
this principle it would then be justified to
attend not only to the vacancy-of-Peter`sSeat
Masses, but also those of the indult and
with no doubt those of the new-F.S.S.P.X. !
5º point: The “suicide operation” or
the “agreements” of the new
F.S.S.P.X.
Plenty of times Mons. Fellay vehemently
declared and even not long time ago, that he
did not want to make any agreements.
And
now this past 29th of January 2017 on a TV
interview, Mons. Fellay commented so
“unworried” that: “only the seal is missing” in
order to have consummated the agreement
with Rome. Mons. Fellay then recognizes the
existence of all this work of preparation and flirtation with Rome (of which he is
responsible), which was in fact a practical
agreement already, to which only this "small"
formality was missing: "the seal."
Mgr. Fellay, with such an ambiguous
language full of unverified and unverifiabled
suggestions, has been weaving his web
around the unsuspecting.
Has been preparing
for years the spirits of the priests and
parishioners towards this agreement. Mons.
Fellay has always suggested in his
“conferences” and preaches about “beautiful
horizons” and the “serious probability” that
Rome is “already” converting. In fact, Mons.
Fellay is dragging the flock that had been
entrusted to him by Mons. Marcel Lefebvre.
(Priests, parishioners, seminars, priories,
schools,, etc.) to the conciliar kettle !!! Yes,
all of Monsignor Lefebvre's great work of
rescue of the Tradition is now falling down
into the conciliar (Vatican II) pot!
All the Pope Francis´ indecent statements
and gestures are not a statement of his
intention, are they? Putting himself Mons.
Fellay, under his jurisdiction, does not imply
obeying him, does it? “Francis”, as nowadays
likes to be called, does he not try to govern
the church according to the intention which
he himself has previously expressed, does
he? And if that is his intention, those who now
direct the F.S.S.P.X are not falling down into
a colossal trap, that they themselves have
sought, haven´t they? Little matters the farfetched,
falsely educated and above all
ambiguous language of Mons. Fellay, in fact
he is trying to justify not only a great
imposture, but also an error of historical
dimensions.
His Excellence Bishop Marcel Lefebvre stated in
his Preach of Episcopal Consecrations in 1988,
that if he had continued the agreements with
Rome it would have been a "suicide operation".
Even worse, the facts ended up convincing the
faithful Bishop Mons. Lefebvre that these
agreements were a great chimera, due to the lack
of honesty of the conciliars (from Vatican II). It is
for this reason that Bishop Lefebvre himself, after
the failed approach with Rome, made clear the
new profile of what it would be in the future
the position of the Fraternity (F.S.S.P.X.) in
regard to Rome occupied by modernists:
"If I went to discuss to Rome, it was because I
wanted to prove, if we could make an agreement
with the ecclesiastical authorities, while at the
same time, looking forward to sheltering
ourselves of its liberalism and to protecting the
Holy Tradition.
But the strength of the facts has forced me to
confirm that no agreement could be made at all,
which could give us both, all the guarantee,
and at the same time the conviction that Rome
would sincerely attend to the preservation of
the Holy Tradition”. Monsignor Lefebvre
magazine "Fideliter · No. 68, 1988.
“Our true parishioners, those who have truly
understood the problem and who have helped us
to continue the straight and steady line of the
Holy Tradition and of Faith, feared beforehand the
meetings for possible agreement that I had
made in Rome. They told me it was indeed
dangerous and that I wasted my time on it. Of
course, I had waited until the last moment to see
if Rome could show a little honesty. I can not be
blamed for not having done everything I could.
But now, however, to those who come to tell me:
you must understand yourself with Rome. I think I
can tell them with certainty that I went farther than
what I should have gone. "Fideliter" No. 79, 1991.
And referring to the Romans, Mons. Lefebvre told
them on another occasion: “If you do not accept the Doctrine of your Predecessors, it is useless to
talk. As long as you do not accept to reform
the council taking into account the Doctrine of
the Popes, who have preceded you, there is
no possible dialogue, it is useless.” "Fideliter"
No. 66 Nov. 1988. And on the same occasion,
talking about the "traditionalists", who had
already made agreements with Rome, Mons.
Lefebvre said:
"When they affirm that they have
not yielded in anything, it is false. They have
yielded in the possibility of contradicting Rome.
They can not say anything now. They must
remain silent because of the favors they have
received, and it is now impossible for them to
denounce the mistakes of the conciliar church.
Very slowly they accept, even if it only were for
the profession of faith that Cardinal Ratzinger
had imposed them ... From the point of view of
ideas. They turn very gently and end up
admitting the false ideas of the council
Vatican II. This is because Rome has granted
them some favors for the Tradition. This is a very
dangerous situation. "
Mons. Lefebvre in his Book “Spiritual Itinerary”,
which he considered it as his spiritual Testament
addressed to his own Priests, he says: "It is then
a strict duty for every Priest who wishes to remain
a Catholic one, to separate himself from this
conciliar church, as long as it has not
returned to the Holy Tradition of the
Magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic
Faith. "
There is a supine "forgotten" in the new
F.S.S.P.X. of the last Teachings of Monsignor
Lefebvre on the issue of the agreements ...
The "apostolate of penetration ", that means, the
tactic to try to convert the wrong environments
"from the inside", is an activist mistake that has
always led to many disasters (It is a bad tactic to
enter the communist party to convert the
communist party, as well as to enter the cave of
Alibabá and the 40 thieves to convert Alibabá and
the 40 thieves, etc.). What the conciliar catholics
really need is, above all, the example that Holy
Tradition gives them. All mixtures violate the
nature of things.
The process of silencing (any criticism on Rome,
the council and its mistakes, the attitudes and
scandalous words of Pope Francis, etc.) had long
ago started inside the F.S.S.P.X. Since it began
to please conciliar Rome, it was an inevitable
consecuence ... Can the destroyers of the
Catholic Church be pleased in other better way?
In questions of Faith for those who have a public
function as pastors, a public profession is
necessary. It is not enough to over-understand (in
fact, not all understand them ...) in a public society such as the Catholic Church, what is not
publicly said, generally it does not have practical
validity. After silencing follows pusillanimity, fear,
commitment. But the commitment in things of
Faith is a sin ...
Conclusion:
This year 2017, we celebrate the 100°
anniversary of the Apparitions of Our Lady in
Fatima. The crisis of the Faith, which was
spoken in the Third Secret given by Our
Lady, has not be taken into account by the
men of Church.
Furthermore, considering this corruption of
Faith each time deeper, we can only trust
ourselves and implore the faithful Protection
of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, In order to preserve us and to remain
always faithful in the Faith of the True Holy
Church of Christ our Lord and God.
A.M.D.G.
