What People Are Commenting
donate Books CDs HOME updates search contact

A Close-up on the Split of the Split in SSPX



Note from the Editor:

TIA has received several questions from readers asking what to think about the split in the SSPX led by Bishop Williamson and followed by many priests.

We are observing the process of a thawing in the relationship of SSPX with progressivist Rome as well as the steps taken by those who disagree with these compromises. The latter have either left the organization or been expelled from it. Due to this split, another religious association was started headed by Bishop Williamson.

We still have not formed a final opinion on this split, which calls itself the “resistance.”

Now, a reader sent TIA a recent letter by a priest of this split, Fr. Fernando Altamira, addressed to Bishop Jean-Marie Faure, the priest consecrated a bishop by Williamson in March 2015 in Brazil. The letter is self explanatory. It reveals that at least one split is taking place inside of the split. It is not a good sign. Our Lord warned us: “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined.” (Mt 12:25)

TIA reproduces this letter as we received it, without any changes, solely to provide information for our readers. We do not agree either with several points of its general lines, such as accepting as normal the “episcopal consecration” of Fr. Faure by Bishop Williamson, or with some particular views, such as accepting sede-vacantism as a well founded hypothesis.

     A.S.G.



______________________



TIA,

I saw this posted on other forums and thought it would be interesting to share what one R&R [recognize and resist] priest has to say.

C.M.

Letter from Fr. Altamira to Bishop Faure


Dear Bishop Faure (cc. Bp. Williamson), dear Fathers,

Permit me to speak frankly to you: it seems to me that we are not showing ourselves to be honest, either with ourselves or with the faithful.

We are doing what Bishop Fellay does and we will provoke the same consequences. In the current situation of the crisis in the Church and the “crisis in the Resistance,” there is not a lot left and what is left is ill.

What’s more, our comrades who are still in the SSPX (priests and brothers), seeing the way we are, will never join us. One of them said: if we do something (against Bishop Fellay), we won’t come over to the Resistance.

Bishop Fellay and his group continue and will continue to laugh at us. The fact that we are the way we are is the best thing that could have happened to him.

On the subject of Bishop Williamson:

Some (four) have tried to defend Bishop Williamson and his words about the New Mass (USA, Eleison Comments, etc).

I have the impression that we are not showing ourselves to be honest: if Bishop Fellay had said those things, we would have criticised him roundly. But it’s Bishop Williamson who said them: “So let’s not say anything, we have to defend him.” Please excuse me if I speak frankly, but what we’re doing is shameful, we’re the laughing stock of the world.

Bishop Faure defends Bishop Williamson with insistence (in his declarations on his trip to Mexico, in emails, etc.)

Bishop Faure affirms that there is no error in the Eleison Comments, which is debatable.

It is more serious if one takes into consideration the words of Bishop Williamson in the USA (if anyone wants to listen to it again, here’s the link. I don’t approve of the mocking style, but the information is exact) I will merely remark that, from a moral point of view, what Bishop Williamson said to this lady is unacceptable.

Even more serious if one takes equally into consideration the other information concerning Bishop Williamson (the “Nazi” business, the reintegration into the apostolate of Fr. X, his words to several priests of the SSPX, etc.

Another argument of Bishop Faure to try to defend Bishop Williamson’s miracles in the New Mass is the fact that God can work outside the Catholic Church, and that God has made miracles among certain sacrileges.

But that’s a sophism since, if God permits a miracle, for example, in a false religion, from all evidence it doesn’t serve as a guarantee of what is false or evil, but will be against all that.

The same goes for a miracle in the case of a sacrilege, with hosts, it is always against the sacrilege, never in its favour.

However, the “miracles” put forth by Bishop Williamson clearly favour the new Mass, including the “fruits”: thus, the “great” national sanctuary in Poland… at the service of the false religion of the Council.

Dear colleagues: I believe that it is time to cease trying to look for arguments to defend what is indefensible. Otherwise, we could incur a divine curse. “The Eleison Comments and declarations in the USA are only ambiguous”: isn’t that funny: that’s exactly what Bishop Fellay does.

Dom Tomas said more or less the same thing to defend Bishop Williamson.

Fr. Cardozo has already written two articles against this subject of so-called miracles of the New Mass.

And that’s without even getting to the subject of the risk of invalidity of the modern episcopacy and priesthood. On this subject, and quite logically, Bishop Williamson endorses the thesis of their validity.

And all this without forgetting the other problems which we have (re-read the letter “The same causes will produce the same effects”).

I imagine that you have already seen the abberant video of Francis about his intention for 2016 and the different religions:

Faced with the scandals and heresies of Francis:

1. Surrendering to False Rome. Bp. Fellay: I’m going to Rome. Bp. Williamson: I’m going to Rome. Bishop Faure: I’m going to Rome.

2. Agreement. Bp. Fellay: I want an agreement. Bp. Williamson: A canonical regularisation or a juridical status would be desirable, of course. Bp. Faure:…?

3. Francis. We criticise Bp. Fellay because, publicly, he doesn’t say anything, or almost, about Francis. Bp. Williamson: same thing. Bp. Faure: same thing.

4. We deny the theological and factual possibility of sedevacantism. And this, against good theology which speaks of the possibility. And we evoke the possibility of making sermons against sedevacantism, which is absurd: you can’t make sermons against facts which are possible.

5. Fr. Altamira is a sedevacantist. That’s not true: I pray for Francis, sub conditione. But I do not exclude nor put to one side colleagues who refuse to do so, be they in France or Spanish-speaking America. And even less so after such a video.

Dear colleagues: Permit me to share with you my opinion, in all simplicity: we need to change course. We are acting like Bp. Fellay and his group. He will destroy the SSPX. And we, we are doing the same to the Resistance, almost before it has been born (and the same goes for the USML).

“The interests of the group are more important than the truth, the priests of the Resistance who refuse are put to one side, isolated, marginalised, they find themselves alone.”

If we continue to act thus, the risk is great that God will leave us and withdraw his blessing. Pray God that some of you decide to act in the face of this situation, to resolve it.

I fraternally greet you in Jesus and Mary (Sunday 10th January)

Fr. Altamira


Posted February 5, 2016
______________________



The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA

fumus satanae


Universal republic Queen of Angels prayer Mary of agreda