SSPX Rejects "Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church." Advises Neo-Con and Neo-Trad Signatories to Focus on Doctrinal Deviations of Francis and all Conciliar popes. Urges them to Seek Problem In Vatican II and Pre-Conciliar Modernism and Liberalism.

Regarding the Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church 

MAY 17, 2019
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, twenty or so Catholic theologians and university professors published an Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, inviting them to intervene with Pope Francis, to ask him to renounce the heresies of which he is accused. In case he persists, the canonical crime of heresy would be established, and the pope would then be “subject to the canonical consequences.” The summary published by the authors explains this last point: if Francis obstinately refuses to renounce his heresies, the bishop will then be asked to declare “that he is freely divested of the papacy.”
This summary also explains that this Letter is the third step of a process that began in the summer of 2016. The first consisted of a private letter with 45 signatories, addressed to all the cardinals and eastern patriarchs and denouncing the heresies or grave errors held or supported by the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The second step presented a text titled Correctio filialis (Filial Correction), signed by 250 participants, made public in September 2017 and supported by a petition signed by 14,000 persons. It asked the pope to take a position on the grave deviations produced by his writings and his declarations. Finally, the present Open Letter, claims that Pope Francis is guilty of the crime of heresy and endeavors to prove it, because Pope Francis’ words and actions constitute a profound rejection of Catholic teaching on marriage, moral law, grace, and the forgiveness of sins. Already more than 5,000 people have signed the petition put online by the authors.
This initiative reveals the growing irritation and exasperation of many Catholics in the face of the writings and acts of the current Sovereign Pontiff. And certainly, there is good reason to worry when faced with Pope Francis’ teaching in moral matters. Moreover, there is a greater disturbance in Catholic opinion today over an error in this domain, than duplicity against the Faith. But the pope’s teaching is also deviant—if not more so—in matters of Faith.
Faced with an apparently unprecedented situation—although Church history, unfortunately, offers examples of time periods that were singularly troubled and close enough to ours—the temptation to resort to extreme measures can be easily understood. The situation of Catholicism is today so tragic, that only with difficulty could one condemn Catholics who try the impossible by reacting to and calling out the pastors to whom the flock is entrusted.

The Fruits of the Council

Nevertheless, it must first be noted that the trouble did not start yesterday. It began with the “third world war” that was, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, the Second Vatican Council. That Council, through its reforms, provoked “the auto-destruction of the Church” (Paul VI), by sowing ruin and desolation in the areas of faith, morals, discipline, priestly and religious life, the liturgy, catechism, and the entirety of Catholic life. But few observers really realize that. Even more rare still are those who will confront this universal destruction in a determined and effective way.
In fact, what we are witnessing with Pope Francis is only the ripening of the fruit. The poisoned fruit of a plant whose seed was developed in the progressive and modernist theological laboratories of the 1950s, like a GMO (genetically modified organism), a type of impossible interbreeding between Catholic doctrine and the liberal spirit. What is appearing today is no worse than Vatican II's novelties, but it is now a more visible and more complete manifestation. Just as the Assisi meeting under John Paul II in 1986 was only the fruit of the seeds of ecumenical and interfaith dialogue deposited at the Council, likewise the present pontificate illustrates the inevitable outcomes of the Second Vatican Council.

A Radical Approach Doomed to Failure

The second observation focuses on the modus operandi. Given the radical way in which the successors of the apostles are called out, we have to question what results are expected from such an action. Is this way of doing things prudent? Does it have a chance to succeed?
Let's ask about the recipients. Who are they? What formation have they received? What theology has been taught to them? How were they chosen? Given the way in which the incriminating texts have been received by the various episcopates in the world, it is highly probable, even certain, that the vast majority of bishops will not react. With a few exceptions, all of them seem to be prisoners of their corrupt formation and of a paralyzing collegiality if, by chance, one or the other wanted to be different.
And if they remain silent? What will happen then? What must be done? If this is not to note the failure of such an initiative that might ridicule the authors and their cause. This Open Letter is a waste of time—an action producing little effect, the fruit of a legitimate indignation but which falls into excess, at the risk of lessening its good influence.
Moreover, the danger of this approach may be in inducing its authors to deviate from the ongoing fight. We risk being captivated by the present evil, forgetting that it has roots, that it is a logical result of a tainted process at its origin. Like a pendulum, some believe they can magnify the recent past to better denounce the present, including counting on the magisterium of the popes of the Council—from Paul VI to Benedict XVI—to oppose Francis. This is the position of many conservatives, who forget that Pope Francis is only drawing out the consequences of the teachings of the Council and his predecessors. We cannot uproot an evil tree by only cutting off the last branch …

The Example of Archbishop Lefebvre

“What to do?”, some ask. Without parochialism or misplaced pride, we can say there is an example to follow, that of the Athanasius of modern times—Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Indeed, he spoke firmly against the direction taken by the modern popes. But in his fight for the Faith, he avoided falling into excess and never claimed to want to resolve all the problems inflicted on Catholic conscience by the crisis the Church that has been going on for more than half a century. He never lost the respect due to legitimate authority, but he knew how to correct firmly without allowing himself to judge it as if he were superior to it, while leaving to the Church of the future the task of resolving a presently insoluble question.
Archbishop Lefebvre fought on the doctrinal front, first at the Council, then with his many writings and conferences to combat the liberal and modernist hydra.
He fought on the front of tradition, both liturgical and disciplinary, to preserve the Church's ancient and august Sacrifice, by assuring the formation of priests chosen to perpetuate this essential action for the continuity of the Church.
He fought on the Roman front, calling out the ecclesiastical authorities on the excesses of Peter's barque, without ever getting tired or hardening, always in the light of a wonderful prudence drawn from prayer and strengthened by the examples and the teachings of 20 centuries of the papacy.
The results have proven that this was the right manner, the right way, as St. Paul said: “Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (II Tim 4:2). May the Virgin, our Queen, terrible as an army arrayed in battle, help us to “labor until our last breath for the restoration of all things in Christ, for the spreading of His Kingdom, and for the preparation of the glorious triumph of [her] Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart” (Consecration of the Society of Saint Pius X).


  1. The SSPX forgot to mention that it was Bishop Fellay who was one of the signers of this: "The second step presented a text titled Correctio filialis (Filial Correction), signed by 250 participants, made public in September 2017 and supported by a petition signed by 14,000 persons."

    Although, the anonymous writer for the SSPX is correct in the the problem started before Pope Francis and that we should attack the source of the Doctrinal problem and not the result of the problem, yet when has the SSPX recently called out Pope Francis for his many heresies or condemn most of his actions? It seems that they are upset with anyone threatening Pope Francis and thus ruining their chance of getting Papal approval for a new bishop and the prelature.


  2. Who are the SSPX trying to fool? They claim to follow Archbishop Lefebvre, who (they say), "never lost the respect due to legitimate authority..." Is this a joke? It's uncanny how they change the facts right before our eyes.

  3. Truth will be rejected at all levels until blood flows at all levels and truth will continue to be rejected all levels until all blood is gone in the same as Jesus died on the cross.The only option we have is power over hell with the Rosery.AMEN

  4. Excellent letter, pointing to the true problem and in a due context. SSPX, with his charitable critique and true views, will save the Church.

  5. Fifth Sunday Post Easter/N. Y. C.

    The SSPX and the Signatories share the same False Base Premise. They each stunningly acknowledge that a man as wicked heretical and criminal—who has manifested who he is on numerous occasions with his mockery of the Faith, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, the Blessed Virgin, Christ, the Angel St. Gabriel and the Holy Spirit—to be Pope.

    Bergoglio is not Pope.

    Benedict is Pope.

    Bergoglio appeared at the Youth Synod wielding a black magic and occult Stang in stead of a crozier.

    One would have to be insane, or supremely ignorant, or in bad faith, to follow Francis—or induce anyone else, and therein lies the graver crime—anywhere. Hell is his end game for you—which doesn’t exist of course, according to Antipope Francis (Holy Thursday 2018).

    “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, alone thou hast destroyed all heresies throughout the world.”

    She and she alone will vindicate the Pope—Pope Benedict.

    Triumph O Immaculate Heart!

    In corde Christi,

  6. It's irritating how the SSPX puts on airs. Why are they pretending their brand of Gallicanism is so much better than the signatories' when, in fact, both are pretty much the same?

  7. Sour grapes. Only a few short years ago, the SSPX was free to be as disobedient as they pleased. But Francis called them on the carpet and stripped away their freedom. Now they're only allowed to "firmly correct" their "Pope". Imagine how frustrated and jealous they must be of their fellow Gallicans.

  8. Another useless statement from the SSPX. Seems whenever anyone says anything against the heretic Bergoglio and the state of the novus ordo religion, they come out all gushing in defence of the "Sovereign Pontiff" and "Catholicism". They're a useless, two faced organisation.

  9. I am amazed, but not surprised, that Doc C. has given no critique. My fear is his "benefactors" have clipped his wings. And then, all of a sudden, we have a beautiful meditation on the our Most Holy Mother. Definitely following the SSPX's tack of "If you can't say anything nice...."

    As for me, it is an awkward translation,
    more of the same political positioning.
    Heartless, feckless,

    At the very least they could applaud their courage, determination and persistence. To be courageous they could simply ask every diocese and every Catholic university to do the same.

    All the signers and the dubia are asking is clarity. So what if there are no results?

  10. Fra Girolamo Savonarola is the model for our times: burned at the stake for condemning the immorality of the Church in 1490's, including sodomy.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"US-Friendly" Contact Within the Vatican Indicated Right After the Death of Pope Pius XII that US Governmental Authorities Must Use the American Cardinals to Prevent the Election of Cardinals Siri, Ottaviani, or Ruffini. The US Government Clearly Saw the Election of a Real Catholic to the Papal Throne in 1958 to be a Threat. Is there No Logical Connection between THIS Telegram and the Strange events of October 26,27, and 28th 1958 within the Sistine Chapel?

Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold to Jacinta, Right Before She Died, by the Blessed Virgin Mary. Contrary to being Safely Stowed in a Convent, Sister Lucy's Life was Always Under Threat.

The Shepherd is Struck and the Sheep Run Towards the Wolf's Lair? Is the Report About the Defection of the General Bursar of the SSPX, Fr. Suarez, True? Does Any One Have More Information About this Report? They Sent a Limousine For Archbishop Lefebvre and He DID NOT Get In. Was a Phone Call From Francis All that Was Necessary?